Enforcement and compliance were a recurring theme in the Planning and Environment Court through the first half of 2026, with the Court repeatedly willing to escalate the consequences where an approval or an order is ignored. We have already examined the starting point of that trend in our earlier article, “Development Approval Conditions Are Not Optional,” on 1770 Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Gladstone Regional Council [2026] QPEC 1 and its costs sequel [2026] QPEC 3, in which the Court imposed a “guillotine” requiring the marina’s demand-generating uses to cease if long-standing car-parking conditions were not met by 30 June 2026. This article follows the same theme through three further decisions of the period, in which the escalation ran from an enforcement order to contempt, from a conditions breach to the removal of an unlawful use, and, in one instance, to a measured extension of time that preserved a path back to compliance.
The clearest illustration of the escalation is Bundaberg Regional Council v Douglas & Bonna Pty Ltd [2026] QPEC 4, where an unauthorised shed became a contempt proceeding after the landowner failed to comply with an enforcement order made under s 180 of the Planning Act 2016. Kefford DCJ, exercising the contempt power conferred by s 36 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the order had been breached without lawful excuse, imposed a fine of $5,000 payable by instalments, varied the order to fix fresh compliance dates, and awarded the Council its costs capped at $20,000. The director’s difficult personal circumstances were treated as relevant to penalty but not as a lawful excuse, the Court accepting they showed the contempt was not wilful while confirming that Court orders cannot be treated as optional. The decision is a reminder that unresolved non-compliance does not simply persist as a planning problem; it can mature into a criminal contempt, with the associated fine and costs (and potentially imprisonment).
The Court’s willingness to act quickly, and firmly, appears in Emerald Pharmacy Services Pty Ltd & Anor v Aphrodite Barbayannis & Ors [2026] QPEC 21 and, at final hearing, (No. 2) [2026] QPEC 26. Kefford DCJ dealt with a demountable pharmacy operating in a shopping-centre car park in breach of conditions, powered by a diesel generator in a flood-affected location. The interim decision applied the familiar interlocutory-injunction framework to the interim power in s 180(4), granting relief principally because reliance on the generator, “even temporarily, involve[d] an unacceptable risk to safety.” At the final hearing the first and second respondents admitted development offences under s 164, and the Court ordered the use to cease unless a fresh development permit was obtained and the structure removed, finding several breaches “deliberate and flagrant” and reiterating that conditions are the “community price” a developer must pay for its approval. Two features stand out: a private competitor was able to obtain enforcement relief, and a genuine, evidenced safety risk proved decisive even where the balance of convenience otherwise favoured the operator.
Not every enforcement decision of the period tightened the screw. In Cordwell Resources Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council [2026] QPEC 6, Long SC DCJ extended the time for compliance with an earlier enforcement order for a Kin Kin quarry, so as to preserve the practical utility of the operator’s pending application to change its approval. Where an enforcement regime expressly contemplates a change-application pathway, the Court will protect that pathway, provided the delay is not attended by bad faith or prejudice beyond delay itself. The decision marks the outer edge of the theme: the Court will hold approval holders to their obligations, but it will not use enforcement to shut down a genuine and diligent attempt to regularise a use.
Taken with the 1770 Marina decision, these cases show an enforcement jurisdiction that is patient with those who engage with it and increasingly firm with those who do not. For approval holders, the practical lesson is that the window for negotiation narrows sharply once an order is made, and that the consequences of continued non-compliance, whether the cessation of a profitable use, a contempt fine, or an adverse costs order, will usually exceed the cost of compliance. For local governments, the period confirms that the Court will support firm, well-evidenced enforcement, including the removal of an unlawful use and, ultimately, contempt sanctions, where an approval holder treats conditions or orders as optional.
This publication is general in nature. Its content is current at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and you should always seek legal advice based on your particular circumstances prior to making any decisions relating to matters covered by this publication. Certain details may have been sourced from external references, and we cannot assure the accuracy or timeliness of such information.