Council Approves Unit 1, Attempts To Withdraw Demoliton Order On Un-Permitted Work

At the Tribunal hearing on 20th December, Council lawyer attempted to withdraw Council Application 18/2010 for an order, in part, to demolish un-permitted work on Unit 1, on the basis that is was now approved.

Tony Jacobs objected and pointed out that I am now a full party to the action, and thus it cannot be dismissed by agreement of the Parties unless I also agree. He also said that an Appeal against Council decision would be lodged, as indeed it was on December 22nd. And so 18/2010 was adjourned sine die (indefinitely) until the determination of my appeal. This means work on Unit 1 is frozen.

In an amazing turn around, Council passed the new Planning Application on Unit 1. Its a new Permit but is treated as an Amendment! Planner Liz Wilson in her Discussion and Conclusion says that if solely based on a Unit 1 application it would be refused, but in comparison with what he had a right to build, the changes aren’t significantly different. This is Council logic at it's best.


Three letters were received as representation, meaning this should have gone to the Aldermen. Nope, it didn't happen--it was signed off by Neil Noye of Hobart City Council. It turns out Mehrab-Khani was asked if he could wait till 24th January to see the Aldermen! And he refused to "grant" the extra time! Now there's a surprise. Would you like to see the Aldermen ? Umm, thanks but no thanks! Sort of defeats the whiole purpose of having Aldermen if Applicant is asked!

The Planning Report by Planner Liz Wilson mentions the setback that was given to us by Tribunal in 2006 and then says, "Unit 1, as constructed does not comply with this condition, or with the approved floor plans and elevations".

Read that again. Council now agrees the setback is wrong and that the building does not match the plans or elevations! After 6 months of me saying the same thing! One of the biggest Surveying companies in this country, Pitt and Sherry  who had Peter Ray on the job along with Mehrab-Khani's Structural Engineer Chris Potter have denied this for 6 months.

Chris Potter either couldn't understand or didn't want to understand the difference between what Tribunal gave us (an ADDITIONAL setback of 400mm) compared to what he gave us (400mm setback at the closest point) thought this was the same thing. I am a layman and I can tell the difference. Peter Ray in an email to me "double checked" the setback (presumably this means he did it twice) and maintained it was BETTER than the plans, then he said the wall was "where it should be." In another email to us he said we would be worse off if he followed the approved plans. (the building would be 400mm closer, he said.)

What is going on here? I emailed Council, Peter Ray and Chris Potter and was either ignored or told everything was going according to plans. It turns this is nonsense. So did they lie or did they make a mistake? This is incompetence no matter how you look at it.

Planner Liz Wilson in conclusion says that basically the building would have been rejected if accessed alone, but compared to what he had the right to build and what he built, it's not too bad. Its still a 2 story building. Closer, higher, with illegal deck and windows nearly on the boundary.....what's the problem?

Hobart City Council misses the point--we went to Tribunal  in 2006 and gained hard fought for concessions on a building that breached 10 planning guidelines back then and which was failed by the Aldermen and which was only passed on a technicality when the lawyers came in on appeal because of a Council error  (yes, another one) in conditions. The point of fact is that the building is nearly 1 metre too high (850mm ) and that it was failed at that height by Council in 2005! And they refuse to confirm this because of potential legal ramifications.

Now they feel they can overturn what Tribunal gave us and take no responsibility for passing flawed plans which don't match what has been built. Council is aware that the architect Maria Gigney created a major stuff up in the plans because Head of Compliance at HCC Ross Willis said to me in October in the presence of witnesses that the height is right but the numbers don't add up."  Get that? Council did not know what the problem was with height in October, but they knew something was wrong. And here's why the numbers don't add up, something Council has not been able to figure out for months:

Depending how you look at it, architect Maria Gigney either did not update her figures when she reduced the height of Unit 1(it was knocked back by Council and resubmitted with a reduced height by 1 metre), OR had a bad day at the office and miscalculated the height of our building by 1 metre, the height of the boundary wall by 1 metre, AND the existing brick wall used as a reference in the plans by 1 metre. In other words, my house has been artificially  increased in height by 1 metre on the plans to make the development look smaller than it is!

They knew they had a problem with the building not matching the drawings on the plans because the first point on the original planning application said:

"The use and development shall be substantially in accordance with documents and drawings that comprise the planning application..."

Every survey they commissioned measured Unit 1 and compared it to the numbers on the plan. But they didn't measure my home which was 1 metre higher on the plans making the development look smaller in comparison, nor did they measure the boundary fence which was 1 metre higher in the plans, nor did they measure the brick wall used as a reference which was also 1 metre higher than real life. In other words, the plans artificially increased the height of my house and boundary fence, making it impossible to build as per the drawings. These flawed plans were passed by Council.

In fact after writing to Ross Willis of HCC that the brickwall used as a reference in all the presentations to get this development passed was 1600mm NOT 2600mm as on the plans, Ross said in effect it didn't matter because the wall was not approved under the plan!

Hellooooooo...what about my home? It's also 1 metre taller and wasn't passed on the planning scheme, but it was used as a reference on the drawings and in the documents of this planning scheme to make a judgement on visual impact! And having everything 1 metre taller around the development makes it look smaller!

How hard is that to understand? Council has never responded to this argument in numerous letters and emails over a period of 3 months. They just do another survey which confirms the height to the overblown measurements on the plan and then wonder why the building doesn't match the drawing. It is unbelievable in this day and age that so called professionals (and I use that term lightly) are unable to read plans and build to plans.

Looking at the drawings and looking at the actual building, it is easy to see they are different.

 

The above montage is what has actually been built. This montage height was failed by Council 5 years ago yet this what has been built. The montage was hastily prepared for the Aldermen 5 years ago -- note it says to ignore the height because it had been amended by a reduction of 1 metre. Just look at the colour, it says....which by the way was also ignored by Mehrab-Khani. Every single letter I have written to Council on this issue has also been ignored.

The plans above is what should have been built. The measurement at on my balcony is 5300mm when in actual fact it 4300mm, 1 metre difference from plans to reality. This artificially increases the height of my property.

In a conversation with Council Planner Liz Wilson before the approval, she agreed the building did not match the drawing plans and she didn't know why because the survey had come back and was deemed to be correct! She told me it was now built and she was not concerned with what had happened in the past, she was only concerned how it affected me now!  Subtext--forget about what was approved or knocked back in the past, forget about what concessions Tribunal gave you 5 years ago....that's all history!

ACTUAL measurement marked off with tape on my balcony, showing the 4300mm point. In fact 5300mm is close to my gutter.

The balcony floor should be level with the existing brick wall says architect Maria Gigney. It's 850mm too high. Inconsistant? Never mind, ignore it. And that is what has happened. Every single letter and email to Council has ignored the inconsistencies and ignored the differences in the drawings to the actual build.

Planner Liz Wilson says the building does not match elevation but then thinks my 1 metre height difference is wrong because her survey tells her so!  When she was told that that the figures on my house were inflated to make the unit look smaller in comparison and that is why the actual building looked higher than the drawings, I was met with a "I don't know". Well, this is not good enough from Council. We are in the 21st Century, not building pyramids.


The architect says in the plans that the balcony floor is 1.1 metres lower than our balcony floor. Actual measurement? Yep, its 850mm out!

The architect says in the plans that the first floor of Unit 1 should be level with the existing boundary fence. Actual measurement? 850mm too high!

That's why the bedroom window can look at our bedroom door and visa versa. And that is why the kitchen and glass ceiling were deleted in these plans-- Peter Ray and Chris Potter realised the plans were flawed and that the building would have gross inconsistencies because the kitchen would become a "parapet" in the words of Potter, when the architect clearly says that the kitchen ceiling will be the same height as the existing boundary fence.

Inconsistency after inconsistency has been ignored, with only the numbers from a demonstrably flawed plan being used.

The final insult being that the supposed 403mm that Peter Ray measured "twice" and which was NOT what Tribunal gave us, actually measures at 380mm. They couldn't even do this right.

And now, going into the sixth year since the plans were submitted, the building is confirmed to be too close, has the wrong elevation and does not match the drawings!

What a surprise! Actually, what is surprising is that I, being a complete layman can read plans and see problems and inconsistencies 6 months before "professional" Surveyors and Engineers and Council Compliance Officers can't see.

So it's off to Tribunal (again) for Tony and I.  What is the point of a Tribunal if they can override it and take away things you were given? This is so wrong it needs to be defended vigorously, and it will be. I am backing myself and Tony at short odds on this one.

Notice Of Planning Amendments Not Put Up

So Mehrab-Khani applies for Planning Amendments and needs to re-advertise and display a notice on his property so people can make representation and object.

Except that the notice is NOT put up. It's on the ground behind some building materials. On day 3 I went to Council and notified them.They assured me that someone would go on site that very day. Indeed, within the hour a silver car stops and a young lady gets out. She doesn't talk to anyone or look for Mehrab-Khani--she just tapes the notice to the window and drives off.

Twenty minutes later I am outside my property when the Mehrab-Khani comes out and notices the sign stuck to the window of Unit 1. He assumes I did it and starts telling his workers I trespassed on his property! Back on the phone to Council, I tell them this is not on, someone should have spoken to Mehrab-Khani that they has taped the notice up and that they had better phone him now ASAP because I would not be happy if he tries to slap a Trespass Summons on me!

The Senior Planner at Hobart City Council phones me back and assures me he would phone Mehrab-Khani this very moment telling him a Council Officer taped up the notice!

Unbelievable but true.

Appeal Against Cutting Down Walnut Tree -- Tribunal Decision Is Out

Last week the decision was handed down by Tribunal. But first a recap--

We appealed a Council decision to cut down a walnut tree that had heritage significance. No reason was given why the tree was to be cut down. On appeal we learn that an aborist from the Botanical Gardens, Jerry Romanski said the tree was dying and should be cut down. The tree was dying because the roots had been cut and no 3 metre boundary had been put around the tree during construction as directed by a Tribunal.

We appealed on the basis that  Mr. Romanski said to Tony Jacobs in a private conversation that he could really only be positive the tree had no hope when examined in January with the stress of the summer dry (he examined it in June). So that was our appeal--lets examine the tree again in January and if it has no hope, we will withdraw our appeal.


This wasn't good enough for Mehrab-Khani or Hobart City Council. They wanted no adjournment, they wanted decision from Tribunal there and then.

Notice NO barrier around tree. It had been hacked with a chainsaw and had it's roots cut and driven over by a bobcat and even Mehrab-Khani's black BMW as seen above. Council ignored any letters or emails over a 2 year period and only enforced a perimeter during a Council blitz right at the end. Even then there was no 3 metre protection all around the tree, only at the sides.

The decision from the Tribunal came out last week. We won! Unbelievably, we won with a long shot. The tribunal basically said that the object of the clause was to protect the tree and Council had no power to change a Tribunal decision! Ironically, if Mehrab-Khani and the Council agreed to adjourn the proceedings until the tree could be examined in January, it is likely we would have withdrawn our appeal!! Now the tree stays. Tony Jacobs played this beautifully, while maintaining a realistic exit strategy. The gung-ho tactics of Council worked against them.

This ruling is good news for us for the next Tribunal against Unit 1 because there were breaches of the last Tribunal 5 years ago. The "take away" from all this as far as I am concerned is that Council had no power to change a Tribunal decision!

Tribunal number 2 for Unit 1 will happen some time next year, meanwhile there is an indefinite freeze on building at Unit 1 until this is resolved!

Development Before Tribunal 20th Dec 2010--Court To Follow

Mehrab-Khani continues to build illegally, and the Tribunal and Court cases mount up. I am in Tribunal against him along with HCC on the 20th December (although this appear to be a directions hearing only, meaning the actual Tribunal will probably be some time in Jan 2011).


I am alleging Unit 1 was built too close to the boundary, it was built too high, lack of privacy issues as well as sunlight deprivation. It seems that Hobart City Council may be getting a bit more serious and are taking Mehrab-Khani to Court. There are potentially large fines involved, and Mehrab-Khani has been convicted of 3 building offenses already.

The charges brought against Mehrab-Khani By Hobart City Council relate to Unit 1 on my boundary (better late then never --I have been complaining about it for 6 months!) and the collapsed retaining wall on the boundary of Melville Street.

Thanks to Tony Jacobs for uncovering these charges as well as supplying Tasmanian Legislation indicating the potential severity of the fines.

Glenorchy Council Judgement Against Mehrab-Khani

I posted some details of Glenorchy Council vs Mehrab-Khani, but here is the full judgement. I love the bit about the Dry Cleaning sign, the mind boggles!

 

Mehrab-Khani Lies To Magistrate

After listing Mehrab-Khani's very full Court diary, this will seem even more ludicrous:

Tony Jacob's mentions that when Mehrab-Khani appeared before Magistrate Olivia McTaggart on November 30 in respect to Damage Of Property and Breach Of Restraint Order, she specifically asked if he had any other matters and he answered, "No, only Anti Descrimination."

This is the second time he has denied having any other matters before the Courts.

Mehrab-Khani Court Diary for New Year

Thanks to Tony Jacobs for his superb work in keeping up with all the doings and undoings of Mehrab-Khani. Tony has supplied the latest court updates:

Following several requests here is the complete (as far as I’m aware)

KHANI JANUARY COURT DIARY.

Tues Jan 11^th -Court 6,Magistrates Court (upstairs,hard left [city end] & the only Court facing Liverpool St. Quite a few seats available-The Anti-Discrimination case against me by Mr K has been long relished.

Wed Jan 12^th -Anti Discrim case
Thur Jan 13^th -Anti-Discrim listed to continue.

-he is listed in another Court room for trial date allocation on charges of:-

a)      Damage Property,&
b)      Breach of Restraint Order

Fri Jan 14^th  -also listed for Anti-Discrim hearing

Thur Jan 20^th -his trial on charge of Dishonestly Acquiring a Financial Advantage,also in Magistrate Court.

Fri Jan 21^st   -his Dishonestly Acquiring case listed to conclude

Mon Jan 31^st -he listed to Plead & likely trial date allocation on 4 HCC Complaints:-

                a) Breach of S.85 (1) Building Act [re Unit 1,161 Bathurst St],

                         b) Breach of S.63 (2) (c) the Land Use Planning & Approvals Act [unit 1],

c)      Breach of S.121 Building Act [carried out building work (effecting the residents of 138 Melville without notifying them),and
d)      Breach of S.127 Building Act (carried out work effecting neighbours without their agreement)
 

In ADDITION on Mon Dec 20^th he is appearing before the Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal at a Directions type hearing that may set a date for the hearing of an HCC application (now joined by Tom & Kerrie Berger) for an Order that (inter alia) all work at Unit 1,161 Bathurst St that has been carried out contrary to the planning permit be demolished.

His HISTORY with Building,etc matters in the last 4 years includes:-

1.Glenorchy Council v him TASRMPAT 219 (Oct ’06)

He was ordered to apply for a planning permit for a block wall he had erected on Main Rd & Regina St within 7 days;if not done or if a permit not granted he Ordered to demolish the wall.

He Ordered to construct a solid panel to interrupt the “original planter which has been removed from the front window”

He Ordered to re-install a Dry Cleaning sign on the Main Rd facade & box around it.

2.Him v HCC TASRMPAT 1/7/09

He did work at 33 Marlborough St without a permit.

The Council acted.

He then applied for a permit.

This was an Appeal by him against the permit conditions then granted.

The decision includes these words-

-“the development application…sought approval for work already carried out”,

-“eventually after a protracted & somewhat tortuous process,this appeal came on”,

-“no evidence,at all,or any material was filed on behalf of [K]”

(with one small exception the Appeal was dismissed)

3.HCC v him TASRMPAT 169 26/8/09

This gave him 6 months (expiring in Jan 2010) in respect of 33 Marlborough St to:-

-remove the fill dumped there,

-reinstate any excavation works.

-submit a vegetation management plan for revegetation of the property,&

-within 21 days of approval of a vegetation plan-carry out that work

{the property has a condition prohibiting vegetation or ground disturbance except in a small building envelope}

{it would seem that this has been ignored & repeated attempts made to sell it}

{no enforcement action appears to have been taken as yet by the HCC}

4.About October 2009 HCC prosecuted him for breach of s.170 Building Act re 178 Brisbane St. He eventually pleaded Guilty about June 2010 & was fined.

5.About November 2009 HCC prosecuted him for breach of S.170 Building Act re 44 Bay Rd,Newtown.

He eventually pleaded Guilty mid 2010 & was fined.

6.About November 2009 HCC prosecuted him for breach of S.170 Building Act re 157-161 Bathurst St. 

He eventually pleaded Guilty mid 2009 & was fined.

Happy Christmas & a Great New Year,

Tony

Mehrab-Khani Court Appearance Gets Mercury Newspaper Mention

Mehrab-Khani has been mentioned in the Mercury in connection with Court appearance on 30th November for smashing Tony Jacob's windscreen and for breaching a Restraint Order against myself. Notwithstanding that the Mercury got the spelling on my name wrong, it is fantastic to see that Mehrab-Khani is picking up media interest. He is a very worthy participant in any media interest!

He will be in Court on 13th Jan with a possible hearing on 20th Jan. I have been contacted by the Police as a witness.

Mehrab-Khani has a very full Court and Tribunal diary for the New Year. Details to follow.

Tale Of Two Tribunals

On 29 September, after 5 months of complaints about illegal work on Unit 1 next door to me,
 I wrote a 28 page letter with dozens of photo's and delivered a copy to Neil Noye Of Hobart City Council, as well as the Managing Director Mr. Pitt of Pitt and Sherry as well as Government Minister David O'Byrne as well as the Greens (the 100 year old Walnut Tree is apparently dying -- 3 years of driving over roots with cars bobcats and graders might have something to do with it).

 The next day a Tribunal on Unit 1 was launched but no-one was informed because it was done in a "hurry." I was informed at 3.00pm the day before because I happened to be at Council with Tony Jacobs trying to get a meeting with Neil Noye. I made myself part of the proceedings along with Tony Jacobs who will be my advisor, adding another 7 points to the 5 points that Council are following.

Council has listed 5 points for a "demolish" order, but to my despair have left out what I consider the most important points, the Height and Setback discrepancies. A second Tribunal has been launched regarding the close to 100 year old Walnut Tree. It is apparently dying and Council have now given permission to cut it down. I am in an appeal, along with neighbours Alistair and Jenny Home.

What has me gobsmacked is that after 3 years of complaining about the tree being hacked with a chainsaw, driven over roots with all manner of mechanical devices, all of which I photographed and reported to Council but never heard a thing from, let alone a 3 metre barrier never being put up as required by Heritage to protect the tree which was deemed to have significant heritage value (a tape barrier was thrown around the tree just before a Council blitz towards the end).....now the tree is reported to be in poor shape!

I have made myself part of that proceeding too, alleging Unit 2 is built closer to the tree than planning permitted and also being built too high.

At this point Council is doing an "Audit" on Units 2, 3 4. A survey was done on Unit 1 and it was deemed to be "correct in height". This is a point on which I differ.

Mirroring

Spotted neighbours Alistair and Jenny talking to Mehrab-Khani today. And they were mirroring each others body language!

Persuant

I love it that Council are using 14th Century English to start off their sentences to the Plebs... Persuant to Act 8 (1) etc etc. I received a letter today from Council starting off with Persuant basically telling me I have 2 weeks to object about the latest modifications to the development, never mind that it was never built legally in the first place.

It's been advertised today and now we have 2 weeks to object to these changes in the development. This is like Yes Minister, they build a property that is out of specifications, then add even more illegal bits that even the architect never dreamed about. And Council say.."forget about what happened 5 years ago...how does this affect you NOW? (yes, they said that to me!)

Council have a fabulous techniques for ignoring the past, but it doesn't work for me. They build too high, take my daylight and privacy and then say...don't worry about it...what do you think of these latest additions? We have a balcony right outside your kitchen window, taking all your daylight wasn't that bad etc etc.

So we have 2 weeks to respond to to the latest raft of illegal additions before the other illegal additions have even been dealt with in Tribunal!

Tree Adjournment Fails--Full Hearing Dec 8

The attempted adjournment was turned down by Tribunal today, so there will be a full hearing to try to save the walnut tree on 8th Dec.

Parking Ticket Sets Him Off

I am sitting in my office and look out my window. A parking inspector is writing a ticket on and sticking it on Mehrab-Khani's black BMW. As I watch, Mehrab-Khani comes running, he tears the ticket off his windscreen and tries to hand it back to the inspector. The inspector doesn't want to know about it.

Then Mehrab-Khani launches into a tirade, calling us F..ing Pigs as he points to our house staring at the top window (he doesn't know I am on the bottom floor because our windows are tinted) and carries on shouting expletives, thinking we called the Parking Inspector (we didn't). The inspector has a look at what Mehrab-Khani is freaking out about then walks off, none the wiser. The tirade continues as he continually looks up to our balcony, thinking we must be upstairs for some reason. He moves his car and carries on giving our property filthy looks.

It's moments like this why I always have a camera charged and ready to go!

Walnut Tree Greening Up

The walnut tree that Mehrab-Khani wants to cut down is getting greener by the day. The Tribunal to consider the case for adjournment till January whereby the tree can be re-examined by an expert as to it's condition and health, is on tomorrow.

I have lodged a letter for the adjournment, as has neighbour Alistair via lawyer Craig Mackie and Council have said they will not oppose adjournment, leaving Mehrab-Khani to oppose it on his own. I will post the outcome tomorrow. Here is a pic of the tree today, 10th November 2010.

Amateur Hour

Two shipping containers have been boxed in. Mehrab-Khani phoned for a truck to pick them up today. Truck number 1 appears, the containers are on the right of the picture:

No luck, truck can't turn into driveway. Mehrab-Khani hits the phone:

Truck number 2 appears:

It can't get in either, but undaunted, Mehrab-Khani tells the driver to try again. Come out wider, he says:

Another conversation ensues.

"There is no hope," I hear Mehrab-Khani say. Truck number 2 drives off.

The next day he finds a shorter truck. Truck number 3 arrives and with some fiddling, manages to get the two shipping containers out and off site. Wouldn't it be a coincidence if two shipping containers arrive at Sandy Bay at 33 Marlborough Rd?

Walnut Tree Tribunal--Case For Ajournment Now Thur 11 Nov

Received an email today from the Tribunal. They are having a hearing on Thursday morning the 11th Nov to determine whether the case will be adjourned till January as requested by myself and Alistair + Jenny Home so that an expert can testify as to the condition of the tree in the summer dry season.

They have brought this forward from Dec 8. There is now a very real chance to save the tree  because Craig Mackie representing the Homes is seeking an adjournment till January, as am I, and Council have said they will not oppose such an adjournment. Leaving only you-know-who to oppose it. And in my opinion (being a layman, of course!) the tree appears to be fine. Time will tell.

The outrageous demands made of your time along with the lodging of $68 at a Tribunal (which are useless unless enforced!), all in the name of getting Council to do a job properly means that I have resolved to write a book on how to defend your property against Developers, building breaches and Council apathy.  It might be called something like Lies, Damned Lies and Developments.

A pic of the tree from a minute ago:

And from a few weeks ago when Tony and myself went to the Homes residence:

Walnut Tree -- Council Agrees to Cut it Down

In 2007 Mehrab-Khani took possession of 157-161 Bathurst St. On the same weekend he took possession, he started cutting the Walnut Tree, which has heritage significance, with a chainsaw and did not stop until I started taking photo's.

I sent them to Council and never heard from them again. In April 2008 along with my neighbour at 153 Bathurst St, we mailed a letter to Council complaining about Mehrab-Khani driving over the roots of the tree with a Bobcat and a car. I supplied photo's and have a copy of this letter. Nothing was heard from Council.

My wife and myself made two more phone calls as well as sending another 2 letters by email, one in April 2010, another on 10th May 2010. A generic response from Ross Willis of Hobart City Council saying that they received our letters about the lack of barrier that was supposed to be put around the tree, and that they would get back to me. He didn't. We also complained about the bobcats and grader and caterpillar driving around the base of the tree. Again I supplied photo's. The letter on 10th May was an 11 page letter detailing various breaches of building code and it was this letter that prompted a Council Blitz and inspection.

Mehrab-Khani was obviously tipped off about this because the day before the inspection in May 2010 he threw up a plastic tape barrier.

Notice even then was it a 3 metre boundary as required by Council. Meanwhile all types of excavation machinery around the tree carried on unabated.

On top of that I am also claiming that Unit 2 is built too close to the tree and too high, resulting in the branches being intertwined in the roof.

 

Now comes the interesting bit-- Mehrab Khani claims the tree is dying and wants to cut it down. (shock horror!) He supplies a letter from a tree expert from the Botanical Gardens that says it should be cut down. Council agree. We dispute this and Tribunal sets a hearing for 8th Dec 10. Now this would appear to be a cut and dried case of expert opinion prevailing, however Tony Jacobs does some brilliant detective work and seeks out the expert that was used in this assessment!

It turns out that the expert didn't really want the tree to be cut down at this point, but would have preferred to have waited until summer (it was assessed in June 10) to see how it handled the dry season, because there is a chance it can survive if it is fine at that point. We are now seeking to adjourn the Tribunal till Jan where we can get expert opinion on the condition of the tree in the dry summer season.

Thanks to some superb sleuthing from Tony, this issue is now alive again (pardon the pun). There is also engineering opinion that leaving the tree in the ground will stabilise the embankment that has already collapsed -- thanks to Craig Mackie for that. Craig is the lawyer representing Alistair and Jenny Home on the Melville side of the Development.

Last week I received a letter from Council lawyers, seemingly oblivious to the fact that I have complained about the treatment of the tree for over 2 and a half years, to tell me that when  Council became aware of the fact that there was no boundary, they enforced it!! Yeah, right.

This is pure fiction, I have letters and photo's with complaints going back to 2007 and nothing was ever done until an 11 page letter on 10th May 2010 initiated a Council inspection, and even then the "barrier" was not at 3 metres! All I can say to that letter is....where is the evidence? Where is the evidence Council acted to save the tree? There isn't any. There has been zero enforcement from Council to erect a barrier around the tree for well over 2 years.