No Conviction Recorded After Court Finds Enforcement Notice Required Only A Planning Application, Not Planning Approval

By Alric Lindsay

Abby Paulette Rainford and Andre Michael Raymond Rainford appeared in the Summary Court today, September 2, 2026, to face a charge of failure to comply with a planning enforcement notice. They were discharged with no conviction recorded after the court determined that the notice required only a submission of an application for after-the-fact planning approval, rather than receipt of the planning approval itself.

The court heard that the matter involved an unauthorised shed and pergola.  A planning enforcement notice was reportedly sent to the post office box of the owners; however, they didn’t receive it because their post office box number changed.  However, as soon as the couple became aware of the notice, they addressed the matter.

Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions confirmed that, based on the information on their file, the after-the-fact planning application was submitted and fees paid. DPP Crown Counsel added that their office chased the planning department and received an email update while in court saying that the application would be heard in February 2027.  In the circumstances, DPP Crown Counsel asked the court for “assistance and guidance.”

The Chief Magistrate noted that the enforcement notice did not say that the parties must get planning permission. Instead, it required the parties to apply for after-the-fact planning permission.  The Chief Magistrate emphasised that the distinction was important when deciding whether the parties complied with the enforcement notice.  In this case, the parties complied with the requirements of the enforcement notice, and the matter can proceed to sentencing.

After DPP Crown Counsel agreed with the Chief Magistrate, the Chief Magistrate said she accepted that the couple took immediate steps to comply with the enforcement notice and acted promptly.  In the circumstances, the Chief Magistrate discharged the parties with no conviction to be recorded.  However, the parties must pay $250 in costs to the Crown.