The case of 1770 Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Gladstone Regional Council [2026] QPEC 1 concerned an originating application to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) under section 181(4) of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) (Planning Act) seeking that the Court change an enforcement order made by the Court on 18 March 2025 (Enforcement Order) aimed at securing compliance with development approvals attaching to premises at Seventeen Seventy, Gladstone (Premises).

The Enforcement Order relates to the operation by the applicants of a marina within the local government area of the Gladstone Regional Council (Council). The use of the Premises includes marina berths, shops and food outlets, tourism activities, including boat tours and amphibious vehicle excursions, and two large shipping containers containing tools used to work on and maintain tour vessels. It was not in dispute that the shops and food outlets generate demand for onsite car parking.

It is a requirement of the Enforcement Order that the applicants provide 31 car parks and construct driveways in accordance with approved plans and remove or demolish structures that are not the subject of a development approval and are in the location where the car parks are required (Car Park Requirement). The Car Park Requirement was to be completed by early September 2025 and was not.  

The applicants applied to the Court to change the timing of the Car Park Requirement. The Council did not oppose the application but argued that the Court should make an order requiring the applicants to cease the shops and food outlets use of the Premises until a further order is made by the Court, if the Car Park Requirement is not delivered within the extended timeframe.

The Court was persuaded that the orders sought by the Council should be made and ordered that the Car Park Requirement is to be satisfied by 30 June 2026 and, if it is not satisfied by this time, the applicants are not permitted to continue the shops and food outlets use of the Premises until a further order of the Court.

The Car Park Requirement followed a history of noncompliance by the applicants with development conditions relating to car parking in various development approvals. The first noncompliance related to the failure by the applicants to pay the Council $95,000 in lieu of providing car parks. This first condition was overtaken by a later development condition in a development approval given in 2020 for the establishment of marina berths (Marina Berths DA) which required the provision of car parks and sealed driveways. 

Three years after the Council gave the Marina Berths DA, the applicants had not delivered the car parks and driveways. In May 2024, the Council applied to the Court for enforcement orders in relation to that noncompliance. 

The parties reached agreement on the second day of hearing and the Court made the Enforcement Order on 18 March 2025, allowing 120 business days for the satisfaction of the Car Park Requirement.

Under section 181(4) of the Planning Act, a person may apply to the Court to cancel or change an enforcement order or an interim enforcement order. The Court observed that the language of section 181(4) of the Planning Act is broad and does not include criteria guiding the Court's discretion to cancel or change an enforcement order. Thus, the Court's discretion is broad (at [9]).

The Court noted the following general relevant matters related to the exercise of the Court's discretion (see [9] to [13]):

• The power to change an enforcement order is remedial and generally involves exercising a power to relieve a party from a prejudice or injustice arising after the order was made.

• The purpose of an enforcement order includes to secure compliance with the Planning Act by making an order requiring a person to refrain from committing a development offence or to remedy the effect of a development offence.

• The principle of finality of litigation does not warrant arbitrarily limiting the exercise of the power where words of limitation do not exist in the legislation, which is supported by the Court's unfettered discretion to change or cancel an enforcement order.

• The relevant considerations in each case depend on the facts and circumstances, but often include the following:

"(a)    the circumstances in which the enforcement order was made, including whether it was unopposed which may be an indication of the willingness and ability of a party to comply with the order as originally made;  

(b)    the subsequent conduct of the parties, especially the party seeking to change the order;

(c)    the circumstances of any non-compliance with the order; and

(d)    any aspect of prejudice or unfairness which might arise from changing the enforcement order, including prejudice or unfairness arising from the relaxation of the enforcement of a public duty imposed by legislation seeking to promote the public interest in orderly development."

The evidence before the Court demonstrated that if the applicants are allowed to continue to operate in breach of development conditions, unacceptable traffic and pedestrian safety, efficiency and amenity outcomes for customers and the local community are likely (at [49]). It was the applicants' position that compliance with the Car Park Requirement is easy and can be done quickly (see [51] to [52]).

The Court held as follows with respect to the exercise of its discretion (see [54] to [59]):

• The applicants have received a benefit by using the Premises for a number of years without complying with development conditions.

• Little to no work has been done to comply with the Car Park Requirement and the provision of car parking was first the subject of a development approval given in 2008 and the applicants offered no explanation or excuse for the ongoing noncompliance.

• The applicants did not submit that it would be impossible or unduly oppressive to comply with the Enforcement Order and the cost involved in achieving compliance is a private commercial concern that is not relevant to any prejudice to the applicants.

• It would be contrary to the public interest in securing safe and orderly development to delay compliance with the Enforcement Order.

• The shipping containers are on part of the Premises which is to be used for car parks and are to be removed. When the Enforcement Order was made by the Court in 2025, the applicants did take issue with the removal of the shipping containers and cannot now seek to persuade the Court that the shipping containers should be allowed to remain.

Given that the Car Park Requirement was conditioned in the Marina Berths DA in 2020 and there had been prior conditions relating to car parking dating back to 2008 and yet no car parking had been delivered, the Court was satisfied that a "firm hand" was required to ensure compliance with the Enforcement Order and therefore the development approvals to prevent the commission of a development offence (at [64]).

Given the ongoing noncompliance by the applicants and that the shops and food outlets generate the need for onsite car parking, the Court held that an order limiting the applicants' use of the part of the Premises for shops and food outlets in the event that the Car Park Requirement is not satisfied by 30 June 2026 properly balances the applicants' private interests against the community's interests (see [68] to [71]).

The Court subsequently in the case of 1770 Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Gladstone Regional Council (No. 2) [2026] QPEC 3 held that the Court has power under section 61 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) to award costs in relation to a proceeding to change an enforcement order and awarded costs in favour of the Council on the standard basis.