The case of Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Limited v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2025] QCA 221 concerned the refusal of an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (P&E Court) to the Queensland Court of Appeal (Court), being the dismissal of a submitter appeal in the case of Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Limited v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2024] QPEC 49 which upheld the approval of a mixed use community health and medical centre.

Ramsay Health Care (Appellant) operates Greenslopes Private Hospital and appealed the approval granted to Ron Build Pty Ltd for a community care and health care facility on Newdegate and Hunter Streets adjacent to the Greenslopes Private Hospital grounds.

The P&E Court dismissed the Appellant's submitter appeal in the case of Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Limited v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2024] QPEC 49. The Appellant then sought leave to appeal to the Court under section 63 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld).
The Court refused leave, finding no error of law in the P&E Court's decision.

The matters considered by the Court included:

• application specificity;

• interpretation of the terms "complementary" and "local need"; 

• treatment of need evidence;

• admissibility of expert evidence; and 

• legal reasonableness.

Leave was refused with costs.

The Court affirmed that a development application for a material change of use need only identify the defined uses being applied for, and not the tenants or specific services. The Court described that approach as "entirely orthodox" (at [17(c)]). Requiring detailed tenant information would be impractical and contrary to the relevant planning scheme, Development Assessment Rules, and Planning Act 2016 (Qld).

The P&E Court adopted the dictionary definition of "complementary", being "that which completes or makes perfect", and the Court observed that the proposed uses meet that criterion which it described as a high bar (see [26] and [35]). It declined to authoritatively determine the meaning of "complementary" in this context but accepted that the hospital and development could operate adjacent without interfering with one another.

The Court agreed that the relevant planning scheme provisions requiring services to "serve or support local needs" do not confine uses to local patrons only (at [36]). The Court found that had the Council intended such restriction, it would have used the word "only" in the relevant planning scheme provisions.

The Court found that the P&E Court considered all of the need evidence, including existing supply and expert disagreements over job setting assumptions (see [42] to [48]). Reasons were adequate and no error of law was identified.

The Appellant argued that evidence given by the selling and leasing agent for the proposed development was either hearsay or inadmissible opinion evidence. The Court held that the evidence was rightly admitted and the Court found no factual basis for the Appellant's argument. Furthermore, the Court found that if it had have found an error it would have been immaterial as this was a particularly small aspect of the evidence relied on by the P&E Court with respect to the question of need (see [49] to [52]). The "unreasonableness" ground failed because no underlying error was made and it was found unnecessary to address this ground (see [53] to [54]).

The Court refused the application for leave to appeal, with costs. 

In the circumstances of the case, "local need" does not equate to "only local need", allowing for flexibility where both local and broader needs are met.