Appendix 2 - Caravan Parks v Rockhampton Regional Council & Anor [2018] QPEC 52 · MCU19/0117

                                              27

[130]   During the course of oral argument, Mr Loos submitted on behalf of the Council that
        the operation of the enforcement orders, if granted, should be suspended to enable a
        development application to be made to regularise the use. The submission was not
        foreshadowed in the Council’s Statement of Facts, Matters and Contentions. Nor was
        it a submission made in any outline filed on behalf of the Council. The submission
        was only made in response to a query from the Court as to the time frames that should
        be stated in any enforcement order, as is required by s.180(7) of the PA.

[131]   The proposed suspension of any enforcement order was not an issue in dispute
        between the parties. I therefore decline to suspend the operation of the enforcement
        orders at this stage. That said, in setting the time for compliance with the orders, I
        have fixed a period of nearly three months from the date of the orders. This period is
        intended to provide an opportunity for the Council to make an application to suspend
        the operation of the orders under s.181(4) of the PA if it so wishes.

[132]   In addition to enforcement orders, the Originating Application seeks a declaration and
        consequential orders. Mr Loos submitted there is no utility in the declaration sought
        by CPAQ. This was conceded by Mr Batty on the premise that enforcement orders
        would be sufficient to remedy the development offence. Given Mr Batty’s
        concession, and given I am satisfied it is appropriate for enforcement orders to be
        made, I decline to grant the declaration and consequential relief sought by CPAQ
        under s.11 of PECA.

[133]   Finally, the Originating Application seeks an order as to costs. I will hear from the
        parties with respect to costs.