INSIGHT · DEVELOPMENT & REPORTING
A feasibility treats infrastructure
charges as a number.
The Act treats them as a moving one.
Most lines in a development feasibility are the business's own estimates, and everyone knows it. A few are not: they are figures somebody else published, under an instrument with a version and a day it took effect. Infrastructure charges in Queensland are the clearest case. The Planning Act 2016 lets a local government's charges resolution include an automatic increase provision, so the charge levied on a development approval can keep rising between the day it is levied and the day it is paid. A model holding one number for that line is holding the wrong kind of number.
Analysed 4 November 2026 · Planning Act 2016 (Qld), in force version, chapter 4, read through the Queensland legislation register · all pages read 4 November 2026.
Key takeaways
- A charge exists because a council resolved it, on a stated day: Section 113: "A local government may, by resolution (a charges resolution), adopt charges (each an adopted charge) for providing trunk infrastructure for development." Section 113(4): "A charges resolution must state the day when an adopted charge under the resolution is to have effect." The charge has a commencement date like any other instrument.
- Adopting is not levying: Section 113(2): "However, a charges resolution does not, of itself, levy an adopted charge." The resolution sets the schedule; the levy happens against a particular approval. Those are two different events on two different days, and a feasibility usually conflates them.
- The levied charge can keep rising after it is levied: Section 114(3)(b) lets a charges resolution include "a provision (an automatic increase provision) that provides for automatic increases in levied charges from when they are levied to when they are paid". 114(4): it "must state how increases under the provision are to be worked out".
- The increase has a ceiling, and it is the lesser of two things: Section 114(5): not more than the lesser of the gap to "the maximum adopted charge that the local government could have levied for the development when the charge is paid", or "the increase worked out using the PPI, adjusted according to the 3-yearly PPI average" over the period from levy to payment.
- Which makes the payment date an input, not an administrative detail: If the escalation runs to the day of payment, then a programme change that moves payment later also moves the amount. In a feasibility, the programme and the charges line are usually in different tabs maintained by different people.
- We would mark every published input with its instrument: Our system-design recommendation: separate the inputs the business estimated from the inputs somebody published, and for the published ones store the instrument, its version, the day it took effect and whether it escalates.
01
Three different days
for one charge.
Chapter 4 of the Planning Act 2016 separates events a model usually treats as one. Quoted as read on 4 November 2026.
A feasibility built in March against a charges schedule, for an approval levied in September, paid the following June, has touched all five of these. The model typically carries one figure, taken on the first day, with no field recording which of the five it belongs to.
| Event | Section | What the Act says |
|---|---|---|
| The council adopts a charge | s 113(1) | "A local government may, by resolution (a charges resolution), adopt charges (each an adopted charge) for providing trunk infrastructure for development." |
| That adoption takes effect | s 113(4) | "A charges resolution must state the day when an adopted charge under the resolution is to have effect." |
| Adoption does not levy anything | s 113(2) | "However, a charges resolution does not, of itself, levy an adopted charge." |
| A charge is levied on an approval | s 120(1) | "A levied charge under an infrastructure charges notice for a development approval may be for extra demand placed on trunk infrastructure that will be generated by the development the subject of the approval" |
| The charge is paid | s 114(3)(b) | escalation runs "from when they are levied to when they are paid" |
02
What the escalation clause
actually permits.
Section 114(5) is the part worth reading in full, because it sets a ceiling by reference to two moving quantities rather than a fixed percentage.
The site's reading of the ABS producer price indexes is a separate article; what matters here is only that the Act points at a published series and specifies how it is to be averaged, so the input is checkable rather than assumed.
- The first limb is the headroom to the maximum: "the difference between (i) the levied charge; and (ii) the maximum adopted charge that the local government could have levied for the development when the charge is paid". The ceiling is measured at the payment date, not the levy date.
- The second limb is an index, with its own averaging: "the increase worked out using the PPI, adjusted according to the 3-yearly PPI average, for the period (i) starting on the day the levied charge is levied; and (ii) ending on the day the charge is paid".
- And the averaging is defined: Section 114(6): "3-yearly PPI average means the PPI adjusted according to the 3-year moving average quarterly percentage change between financial quarters." That is a specific series treated a specific way, not a general inflation assumption.
- The lesser of the two applies: Which means the applicable increase cannot be known in advance from the index alone: it also depends on where the maximum sits at payment. Two unknowns, resolved on a date in the future.
03
Three kinds of line
in one model.
The practical consequence is that a feasibility's inputs are not all the same species, and treating them as one is what makes a model unauditable six months later.
The second and third rows are the ones a model usually gets wrong, because they look like the first. A number that came from somebody's published resolution has a provenance, and a number that keeps moving under a stated rule has a mechanism. Neither is improved by a sensitivity range.
| Kind of input | Who sets it | What a record needs |
|---|---|---|
| Estimate | The business, from experience or a quote | Who estimated it, when, and on what basis. It will be wrong by some amount and that is expected. |
| Published schedule | A council, a state body or a utility, by instrument | The instrument, its version, and the day it took effect. It is not an estimate and should not be revised by judgement. |
| Published schedule with escalation | Same, plus a mechanism that keeps running | All of the above, plus the escalation rule and the date the amount is fixed. Queensland's automatic increase provision is this kind. |
| Choice of basis | The business, by deciding which definition to use | Which definition was chosen and why. Land value is the clearest case, and has its own reading on this site. |
04
What this does
to a sensitivity analysis.
Running a feasibility at plus and minus a percentage on every cost line is standard practice. It treats all inputs as estimates with symmetric error, and for the published-and-escalating kind that is the wrong shape.
- The uncertainty is not symmetric: An automatic increase provision under s 114(3)(b) provides for increases. Nothing in the clause runs the other way. A range centred on the current figure describes a distribution the instrument does not permit.
- The driver is the programme, not the market: Because the escalation period starts when the charge is levied and ends when it is paid, the input that moves the number most is the one already in the model: the date. A sensitivity on cost does not test it.
- A superseded resolution is not a variance: If the charges resolution has been replaced since the figure was taken, the model is not running an optimistic case; it is running a figure that no longer exists. Only a recorded version tells you which situation you are in.
What we would put in a system
The point of contact is the moment any number enters a feasibility, and again whenever the model is reused.
Where agents help is narrow. A document intelligence agent can read a charges resolution or a fee schedule, extract its stated day of effect and whether it carries an escalation provision, and draft the input record. A reporting agent can draft the list of live feasibilities whose published inputs were taken from an instrument that has since been replaced. A person decides whether a model must be rerun and whether a project still proceeds. No agent decides what a charge will be, whether a development is viable, or what any council will resolve. Those are matters for the business, the local government and your advisers.
| Field | Why it is load-bearing |
|---|---|
| Input class: estimate, published, published-escalating, or basis choice | The four behave differently under review. Without the class, every line is treated as an estimate and the published ones are quietly revised by judgement. |
| For published inputs: the instrument and its version | A charges resolution is an instrument with a stated day of effect under s 113(4). A figure without it cannot be re-derived. |
| The day the figure was taken | Separate from the day it applies to, and from the day the model was built. |
| Whether the input escalates, and under what rule | Section 114(4) requires an automatic increase provision to "state how increases under the provision are to be worked out". If the rule exists, the model should carry it rather than a point value. |
| The date the amount is expected to be fixed | For an escalating charge that is the payment date, which belongs to the programme. Linking them is what stops a programme change silently moving a cost. |
| A re-test rule per input | Which inputs, if superseded, require the feasibility to be rerun before a commitment. Deciding this once is cheaper than deciding it under time pressure. |
Questions worth asking
of your own models
For a developer: in your current feasibility, which lines came from an instrument somebody published, and can you name the version?
Section 113(4) requires a charges resolution to state the day its adopted charge takes effect, so the version exists. If the model cannot name it, the figure cannot be re-derived and a later difference cannot be explained.
For a development manager: is your charges line connected to your programme?
Where an automatic increase provision applies, escalation runs to the day of payment. If the programme slips and the charges line does not move, the model is describing a timetable it no longer has.
For a finance manager: does your sensitivity analysis run symmetric ranges on inputs that can only rise?
An automatic increase provision provides for increases. A symmetric range on that line describes an outcome the instrument does not permit.
For a board: when a feasibility is re-presented six months later, what tells you which inputs were refreshed?
If the answer is the modeller's memory, the published inputs and the estimated ones have been treated the same way, and only one of those can be checked against a document.
For anyone working across councils: are two projects' charges figures comparable?
Section 114(2) allows "different adopted charges for development in different parts of the local government's area", and each local government resolves its own. Two figures from two resolutions are not one series.
Questions people ask
about feasibility inputs
Can infrastructure charges increase after a development approval?
In Queensland a charges resolution may include an automatic increase provision, which under s 114(3)(b) provides for increases in levied charges "from when they are levied to when they are paid". Section 114(5) caps the increase at the lesser of the headroom to the maximum adopted charge at payment and a PPI-based figure. Whether any particular approval is affected is a matter for the parties and their advisers.
What is a charges resolution?
Under s 113(1) it is the resolution by which a local government adopts charges for providing trunk infrastructure for development. Section 113(2) states that it "does not, of itself, levy an adopted charge", and s 113(4) requires it to state the day its adopted charge takes effect.
What index applies to the escalation?
Section 114(5)(b) refers to "the increase worked out using the PPI, adjusted according to the 3-yearly PPI average", and s 114(6) defines that average as "the PPI adjusted according to the 3-year moving average quarterly percentage change between financial quarters".
What makes an input different from an assumption?
An assumption is the business's own estimate and is expected to be wrong by some amount. A published input is a figure in somebody else's instrument, identified by version and effective day. The difference matters because one is improved by judgement and the other by looking it up again.
Does this apply outside Queensland?
The provisions quoted are from the Planning Act 2016 (Qld). Other states and territories have their own contribution and charging regimes, with their own instruments and their own escalation rules, which we did not read.
What this analysis
does and does not show.
As read on 4 November 2026
- Adoption
- s 113(1): a local government may adopt charges by a charges resolution
- Effect
- s 113(4): the resolution must state the day the adopted charge takes effect
- Adoption is not levy
- s 113(2): a charges resolution does not, of itself, levy an adopted charge
- Escalation permitted
- s 114(3)(b): automatic increases in levied charges from levy to payment
- Escalation must be explained
- s 114(4): the provision must state how increases are to be worked out
- Escalation capped
- s 114(5): the lesser of the headroom to the maximum adopted charge at payment, or a PPI figure on the 3-yearly PPI average
- Area variation
- s 114(2): different adopted charges in different parts of a local government's area
- Queensland only. The provisions quoted are from the Planning Act 2016 (Qld). Other jurisdictions have their own contribution regimes which we did not read; three state planning portals returned 403 or 404 on 4 November 2026 and were not routed around.
- We did not read any particular council's charges resolution, and name none. Whether any council has adopted an automatic increase provision, and on what terms, is a question for that council's instrument.
- The classification of feasibility inputs into four kinds is ours. No publisher classifies them that way.
- Nothing here states what any charge will be, whether any development is viable, whether any approval attracts a charge, or how any provision applies to any project. Those are matters for the business, the local government and your advisers.
- This reading is about the character of an input, not about land value or about what a levy on project value costs. Both have their own readings on this site.
What to watch next
Only what the Act itself makes checkable.
- The resolution that applies to your area, and its stated day of effect: Section 113(4) guarantees the day exists. A business that records it once can tell later whether the figure in a model is current or historic.
- Whether the applicable resolution carries an automatic increase provision: Section 114(3)(b) makes it optional. Where it is absent the charges line behaves like an ordinary published input; where it is present the payment date becomes part of the cost.
Bring us one feasibility
and we will sort its inputs.
Send us a feasibility and we will tell you which lines are your estimates, which came from somebody's published instrument, and which of those carry a mechanism that keeps running after the number was taken.
This article is general information about published Queensland legislation and about how feasibility inputs are recorded. It is not legal, planning, valuation or investment advice. It does not state what any charge will be, assess any development, or interpret any council's resolution. It covers Queensland only. All pages are as read on 4 November 2026 and can change.
Sources
Suggested citation: Planning Act 2016 (Qld) chapter 4, as read 4 November 2026. No figure in this reading is derived by us; no charge amount is stated, because none is quoted from any council's resolution.
RELATED READING
Other readings on the same records.
- Two figures called land value: one is defined in an Act, the other is a method: Queensland defines site value down to what counts as an improvement. Residual land value, the number a feasibility turns on, has no public definition we could find. (Development & Reporting)
- Dwelling completions by state, and the pace the Housing Accord target implies: ABS completions by state, June quarter 2026, original and seasonally adjusted, and our arithmetic: about 70,349 a quarter needed against 44,477 so far. (Development & Reporting)
- An AI audit trail answers one question: who approved what, on what evidence: One construction record, field by field: what the law requires, what guidance suggests and what is our design, with a variation traced from site to ledger. (AI Governance & Compliance)