The case of Grunske v Fraser Coast Regional Council (No. 2) [2026] QPEC 16 concerned an appeal by the applicants for a development application (Appellants) to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) against a decision of the Development Tribunal which confirmed the decision of the Fraser Coast Regional Council (Council) to give the Appellants an infrastructure charges notice (ICN) for a development approval for reconfiguring a lot at Tuan, Queensland. 

Under chapter 4 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) (Planning Act), a local government may adopt and levy infrastructure charges. Where a development approval is given and an adopted charge applies to providing trunk infrastructure for the development the subject of the development approval, section 119(2) requires the local government to give an ICN. 

As the Appellants' land is in the Low Density Residential Zone under the Fraser Coast Planning Scheme 2014 (Planning Scheme), once reconfigured in accordance with the development approval, a dwelling house use is accepted development for each new lot. The Council gave the development approval for the subdivision of one lot into five and determined that an adopted charge applied to the proposed development and issued an ICN in the amount of $54,720. 

The Court noted that section 229(6)(a) of the Planning Act states that an appeal against an ICN must not be about the charge itself and that the Appellants bear the onus of establishing that the appeal should be upheld (see [9] and [10]). The Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the Development Tribunal's decision and reserved the question of costs. It held that the Development Tribunal made no error or mistake of law or jurisdictional error in concluding that the adopted charge applied, the land was captured by the Fraser Coast Regional Council Infrastructure Charges Resolution January 2025 (Charges Resolution) and extra demand will be placed on trunk infrastructure that will be generated by the Appellants' development (see [4] to [5] and [70]). 

The first substantive issue was whether an adopted charge can apply to development that is reconfiguring a lot where the subdivision does not, of itself, authorise or directly generate a dwelling house use. 

The Court considered section 52(3)(a) and schedule 16 of the Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld) (Planning Regulation), which permit a local government to have an adopted charge for trunk infrastructure where the development is a material change of use, reconfiguring a lot or building work and is "for a use" stated in schedule 16, column 1. Dwelling house is one of the residential uses stated in schedule 16, column 1 (at [51]). 

The Court rejected the argument that the use stated in schedule 16, column 1 must be directly authorised or generated by the subdivision and held that the word "for" requires a sufficient connection between the development and the use, including where the development has the object or purpose of the use or is appropriate or adapted to the use (see [52] to [55]). 

The approved plan creates four additional lots of about 2,000 m², each capable of being used for a dwelling house which is accepted development within the zone. In those circumstances, the Court held that it would be irrational to conclude that the reconfiguration was not for dwelling house use (see [56] and [64]). 

The Council calculated the charge under the Charges Resolution. Table A of schedule 1 of the Charges Resolution imposes a base charge of $19,000 per new lot for premises in "Maryborough, Howard, Torbanlea, Tiaro and rural townships – All zones" (at [42]). The Council applied a reduction of 28% to the base charge because water supply and sewerage trunk infrastructure are not provided to the premises. After a credit for the existing dwelling, the ICN was issued for four new lots at $13,680 each, totalling $54,720 (at [42]). 

The Appellants argued that Tuan is not named in the Charges Resolution. The Court rejected that argument as the Charges Resolution states that it applies to all of the Council's local government area and the expression "rural townships" operates as a catchall for places not otherwise identified (see [59] to [60]). The Court relevantly stated that "[i]t is unsurprising that the resolution does not list every single place within the local government area, instead focussing upon the larger or better-known areas" (at [60]). 

The Court acknowledged drafting defects, including a duplicated column number and a "Use Category" heading for a column that describes geographical locations. However, the Court did not consider that those matters alter the operation of the Charges Resolution and any error in the column heading in this case is of no consequence (see [37] to [39] and [61]).  

The third issue concerned extra demand placed on trunk infrastructure that will be generated by the proposed development. The Appellants argued that merely changing lot boundaries does not, of itself, place extra demand on trunk infrastructure and therefore a charge can not be levied. 

The Court considered the amended form of section 120 of the Planning Act, which commenced on 30 June 2025. Although the ICN had been given earlier, the transitional provision in section 370 of the Planning Act requires its validity or lawfulness to be determined as if the new section 120 had been in force when the notice was given (see [25] to [26]). 

Section 120(2)(b) of the Planning Act permits demand on trunk infrastructure generated by the prescribed development or use to be included when working out extra demand, including where the prescribed development or use has not been carried out on the premises, provided that the approved development is for or relates to the prescribed development or use and the demand on trunk infrastructure generated by the prescribed development or use has not been included in working out extra demand for another infrastructure requirement (see [27] to [29]). 

The Court held that each new lot could be used for a dwelling house without a further development permit and that the words "prescribed development" in section 120 of the Planning Act include development that may be carried out without a development permit. Accordingly, the Development Tribunal did not err in finding that four additional dwelling houses will place some extra demand on relevant trunk infrastructure, even though those houses have not yet been constructed (see [64] to [66]). 

In an earlier interlocutory decision in the case of Grunske v Fraser Coast Regional Council [2026] QPEC 7 (First Decision), the Appellants sought an order that the appeal be determined on the papers. The Court assumed, without deciding, that section 14 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) (PE Court Act) and rule 20 of the Planning and Environment Court Rules 2018 (Qld) (PE Court Rules) might permit such a direction (see [4] to [7] of the First Decision). 

Any such power would be discretionary and would need to be exercised consistently with section 10 of the PE Court Act, the PE Court Rules and the legislative scheme as a whole (see [4] to [7] of the First Decision). 

The Court declined to dispense with an oral hearing. It considered that oral submissions would assist with the contested and technical legal issues, particularly where the Appellants had chosen to be represented by an agent who was not a trained lawyer. The Council also wished to make oral submissions (see [11] to [16] of the First Decision). 

In the substantive judgment, the Court separately criticised the notice of appeal for failing to identify clearly and distinctly the alleged legal or jurisdictional errors. A notice of appeal must succinctly state the grounds of appeal under section 230(1)(b) of the Planning Act. Deficient grounds may hinder the Court's ability to deal with a proceeding justly and expeditiously and may result in summary dismissal or costs consequences (at [16]). 

The Court held that the Development Tribunal did not err and confirmed the Development Tribunal's decision to confirm the Council's decision to give the ICN. 

The Court's decision confirms that, in this case, the ICN given for a subdivision does not depend on proof that the act of reconfiguring a lot immediately places measurable extra demand on trunk infrastructure, such that an ICN may be given for development that is a dwelling house use that is accepted development when working out extra demand under section 120 of the Planning Act without the dwelling house having been constructed. 

The following key matters from the Court's judgment are significant and important: 

• Reconfiguring a lot may be development "for" a listed use under section 52(3)(a) and schedule 16 of the Planning Regulation even though the subdivision does not, of itself, authorise or directly generate that use. 

• When working out extra demand under section 120 of the Planning Act, a local government may include demand generated by accepted development that may be carried out without a development permit. 

• An adopted charges resolution should be read as a whole.  

• An appeal from a Development Tribunal decision about an infrastructure charges notice is narrowly confined to legal or jurisdictional error. It is not a merits review and must not be about the charge itself.