In the recent decisions of 1770 Nominees Pty Ltd and Anor v Gladstone Regional Council [2026] QPEC 1 and 1770 Nominees Pty Ltd and Anor v Gladstone Regional Council (No. 2) [2026] QPEC 3, the Planning and Environment Court (P&E Court) considered proposed variations to an enforcement order that had been obtained by Gladstone Regional Council (Council) under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) (PA). The decisions provide an example of how Local Governments can strengthen an enforcement order when there is a history of non-compliance and confirms that costs are likely to ‘follow the event’ when an enforcement order is varied.
Background: A history of non-compliance
In March 2025, Council was successful in obtaining an enforcement order under section 180(3) of the PA in relation to development offences occurring at a marina complex at 1770 (Enforcement Order). The making of the Enforcement Order came following a long history of compliance investigations and actions that stretched back to 2008.
The Enforcement Order required the operators of the marina to, amongst other things, remove various unauthorised structures from the land, construct car parking and driveways in accordance with approved plans and cease the use of a part of the premises as a bar.
Following the Enforcement Order being made, some steps were taken by the operators of the marina to comply with the order. However, there remained continued non-compliance with certain key aspects of the Enforcement Order including the requirements in relation to implementing the approved car parking.
As the date for compliance with the order approached, in September 2025, the operators filed an originating application seeking to change the Enforcement Order and extend the time for non-compliance (Application). The Application was brought under section 181(4) of the PA, which allows a person to apply to the P&E Court ‘to cancel or change an enforcement order.’ McCullough Robertson acted for Council in responding to the Application.
Cutting off a use: Council’s guillotine order
Council did not ultimately oppose extending the time for the operators to comply with the Enforcement Order. However, Council proposed its own variation to the Enforcement Order, through a ‘guillotine’ provision. Under this approach, if the Applicant operators failed to comply with the Enforcement Order in the extended timeframe, any use of the land authorised by the specified development approvals, must immediately cease.1 In short: the operators must comply with the Enforcement Order or their rights to lawfully use the land would be ‘cut off’.
The Court was ultimately satisfied that, given the history of development non-compliance at the marina and the well established non-compliance with the Enforcement Order, it was appropriate for the Enforcement Order to be varied to include this ‘guillotine’ component. His Honor Judge Cash noted (emphasis added):
‘Development approvals are commonly subject to conditions. Such conditions are an integral part of the approvals. Compliance with conditions of a development approval cannot be viewed as optional. 1770 Nominees has had more than enough time to comply with the conditions of the development approvals, and thereby avoid committing a development offence. It now has one last chance to do so, or it will lose at least some of the rights conveyed by the approvals of which it is the beneficiary.’2
Costs for variation of an enforcement order
Under section 61(1) of the PA, if, for an enforcement proceeding, the P&E Court makes an enforcement order against a person, it may award costs against that person.
In 1770 Nominees Pty Ltd and Anor v Gladstone Regional Council (No. 2) [2026] QPEC 3, which concerned the costs of the Application, the Court held that, under section 61(1) of the PA, the P&E Court also ‘has the power to make a costs order in an application to change an enforcement order.’3 This is because an application to change an enforcement order is still an application for an enforcement order and is still aimed at the making of orders to bring about development compliance.4
The Court noted that Council was a Respondent to the Application and it was wholly successful on the contested issues. The operators were ordered to pay Councils costs of the Application on the standard basis.
Key takeaways
- Where there is a long period of development non-compliance, a ‘guillotine order’ as part of a variation to an existing enforcement order may be an appropriate option for a regulatory authority to secure compliance.
- If an enforcement order is varied, it is important to remember that costs will likely ‘follow the event’ – which is consistent with the general rule for a proceeding where an enforcement order is originally made.
For assistance in applying these enforcement tools in your own matters, contact a member of our Planning and Environment team.
- This ‘guillotine’ provision was subject to some exceptions relating to use of the land for marina berths, LARC and Reef tours. ↩︎
- 1770 Nominees Pty Ltd and Anor v Gladstone Regional Council [2026] QPEC 1, [72]. ↩︎
- 1770 Nominees Pty Ltd and Anor v Gladstone Regional Council (No. 2) [2026] QPEC 3, [8]. ↩︎
- 1770 Nominees Pty Ltd and Anor v Gladstone Regional Council (No. 2) [2026] QPEC 3, [6]. ↩︎