Development -- Looks Like Height Problems To Me.

The front of Unit 1 has been completed enough to gauge height. However, completing the ground floor walls gives you a base reference to check against the plans.

The existing brick wall running along our property is in the plans as a reference, but bears no resemblance the the height of Unit 1 in the plans. Either the architect is wrong or the builder is, it seems to me.

According to plans, the building should be at a lower level so that the balcony is basically level with the brick wall! It is nowhere near this, with the floor slab still to be poured. I have notified Ross Willis at Council and Peter Ray at Pitt and Sherry. I have not heard anything yet, but Ross did say on the phone today that Council would do a site inspection in a week and a half.

This made me think that if this Unit was so far out on the plans, what about the others?? I sent 2 emails complaining about the height of Unit 2 behind me and twice Council and Pitt and Sherry said it is compliant. This morning I went to my neighbours house and asked to shoot some pics of the back Unit 2 from over his fence. Because the floor slab had been poured, there was a point of reference.

The slab to the fence appears at least 3.5 floor slab thicknesses, even accounting for the slight elevation.Yet the plans show the bottom of the floor slab nearly in line with the fence, making the unit far lower.

I will report this to Council too. Finally, there appears to be something wrong when looking at the plans in a panorama --

So looking at the plans, the first floor slab of unit 2 should line up with the top of the second floor of unit 1?? Accounting for parallax error notwithstanding, this doesn't come anywhere near what the plans say. I am a layman here, so I may be missing something, but it doesn't make sense to me. There is a complete discrepancy on height. I would love to get these buildings independently surveyed. I will be writing a letter to Council to let them know my view.

 I overlayed the architects plans against the photo in Photoshop. Remember, the floor hasn't been poured on Unit 1 but you can plainly see a large discrepancy in height. Click on picture for a larger view. When the floor is poured we will get a better estimate, but it looks like a metre-plus in extra height to me once the floor goes on.

Note: Just heard from Peter Ray from Pitt and Sherry:

I have measured the height of unit 1 as follows:

Finished ground floor level to underside of bondeck = 2580mm

Slab thickness (Engineering drawings) = 100mm

Total height floor to floor 2680mm

Approved plans:

RL ground floor 3400

RL first floor        3670

Total height floor to floor 2700mm

Therefore the first floor slab once poured should be 20mm less than approved.

I consider this OK

NB: Slab is poured, it's 9th August. The ACTUAL HEIGHT floor to floor is 2780mm, measured with tape measure. Therefore it is higher than estimated, not less by 20mm!! So what is cumulative error when you measure ground to floor slab?


I also measured from the brick wall to Unit 1 wall, measuring 380mm, 20mm closer than it should be. See pic.

Doesn't capture full measurement because camera was just held up in the air, but wall to wall is 380mm. I have emailed Peter Ray to see what I am doing wrong.


Because if measurements are correct, it would seem to indicate the architect Maria Gigney has drawings that don't reflect the true dimensions. They are not drawn to scale because they don't match the building when overlayed with plans, assuming the building is correct!

As an aside, I emailed architect Maria Gigney, asking her opinion of the illegal changes such as removing the glass ceiling strip which results in the bulk of the second floor of Unit 1 being CLOSER to our boundary...I have not heard anything yet. I also mentioned that both Council and Pitt and Sherry indicated that the changes might be an "improvement." An improvement for whom we have not be able to determine.

It sort of makes the concept of award winning architectural design redundant if illegal changes can be done on the fly.

And a Tribunal  is surely a waste of time if it's rulings can still be modified afterwards--and if you get caught out with illegal changes, apply for approval retrospectively!

Hobart Council To Prosecute Over Illegal Building Modifications

Just been told by Ross Willis that Council will prosecute Merab-Khani over illegal building changes at 159-161 Bathurst St based on the Building Notice given out on Monday.

Also, breaking news today July 21: I was served papers claiming Mrs Mehrab-Khani fears for her life from me and seeks a Restraint Order. They don't want me near the Development taking photo's! No surprise there. Even his own Engineering/Overseeing company as well as Council have told me that my photo's have been responsible for most the checks and Building Notices that have been done. And both want the photo's to keep coming.

I appeared in Court and opposed the charges, asked for an adjournment since I wanted to bring a witness -- none other than Tony Jacobs! Case adjourned till the 12th August. I am looking forward to this one.

More Illegal Building Modifications

Three days after the Building Notice was delivered last week, the back wall of Unit 2 was demolished.

Building then commenced on Unit 1, the closest unit to our boundary. My wife and myself took a two day break starting on Thursday 15th July and came back on Sat 17th July.

As we drove in our driveway, we saw illegal changes made to Unit 1. There were 3 windows on our boundary where there should have been none, the wall of Unit one seemed to extend too far, the kitchen was moved so that we get the lounge on our boundary increasing noise pollution and invading our privacy.

You can see that we still have no covering over our footing, only black plastic, the original reason for the Building Notice last week. Speaking to Peter Ray of Pitt and Sherry who are overseeing this project, tells us that Mehrab-Khani MUST cover our footings, however he can't tell the Developer WHEN to do it! So a midget may need to be found to get in the space, time will tell.

We phoned Peter Ray when we got back on Saturday. Peter said he would come out and inspect the site on Monday morning. On Monday 19th July Peter has a meeting with the Developer. He tells the Developer that due to the illegal modifications he will return that afternoon with a Building Notice (again!)

Meanwhile Mehrab-Khani carries on with the bricklaying till the notice arrives.

Peter Ray emails us back on Monday, telling us the outcome.

In simple terms unit one is not being constructed in accordance with the planning and building approvals and as such I will be issuing a Building Notice.

The main areas of difference are as follows:

·         3 x 600 x 1800 glass block windows in the Southern elevation
·         Relocated kitchen to the north eastern corner of unit and as a result alterations to openings facing into the courtyard
·         Alterations to the entry including a 1.5m high masonry wall.

I have been advised that to some degree HCC planning have been consulted through Chris Potter and that he has been doing plans for submission. However it is noted that there is no guarantee of approval and hence the notice.

So a Building Notice is given Monday afternoon, but building is continuing Tuesday afternoon. I email Ross and Peter again letting them know.

We speak to Peter on the phone (who has been extremely helpful and obliging throughout this process) and he tells us that the Developer wants to put glass bricks into the windows because they are too close too the boundary (and the windows can't be opened!!), and that it would be OK because the glass bricks are fireproofed so that there would be good sound insulation and there wouldn't be any visibility so privacy would be assured.

 But no, we are concerned that this Developer will replace the glass bricks with window glass just before selling the properties. Then we hear from Mehrab-Khani's neighbour Tony Jacobs who tells us that Khani did they same thing on his own property, replacing the glass bricks in the boundary window for glass!!

Bingo! So this morning, Tuesday 20th, we visit the Khani residence at 178 Brisbane Street and take photo's. Indeed, my wife remembers the glass bricks and Tony is prepared to testify in a Tribunal that the glass bricks have been replaced.

New photo's in hand, we email Ross at Council and Peter Ray again, saying that since the Developer changed glass bricks in his own house (as well as more illegal modifications such as seizing 5cm of a neighbours property and putting up a post!), we do not believe he won't do the same here. We want the windows bricked up! Ross says that the application for changes will be considered, and if they are major, it will go to Tribunal again.

Now considering that we fought Council Planning for 2 years over this Development, went to Tribunal and won some concessions, then had problems and intimidation from Mehrab-Khani for another 2 years which forced us to take out a Restraint Order, we now have a situation where a Developer can change the plans on the fly and apply for approval retrospectively if he gets caught! And it's not ending because we may be in Tribunal again. At this point we are getting fed up.


We believe this is grossly unfair and urged Ross at Council to advise who ever was making this decision whether to pass or fail these modifications to send it to Tribunal or reject it.

In fact we feel so strongly about this that if the windows and other modifications are passed, we are going to into Protest Mode. We are already looking to have large banners made, and have been given the names of 2 journalists at The Mercury newspaper.

Update: Just been informed by Peter that the Developer is allowed to carry on with work on Unit 1, but the parts of the unit that are non-compliant must be left as they are until a Council decision is reached.


On the 27th of June we notified Council that the kitchen was in the wrong position because my wife noticed the plumbing was in the wrong place as the slab was poured. So it was intentional to change the kitchen position and put a potentially noisier lounge on our boundary before the slab was poured. Only  2 weeks prior, Engineer Chris Potter sent us section 121 plans--the final version of the plans and all the conditions!

Notice the email above that ***SOME*** alterations had been discussed with Council...Now what I asked Council and Peter was -- did Engineer Chris Potter discuss with Council relocating the kitchen AFTER June 27 when we reported it?? This was after the slab was poured and the plumbing done, and it would have been known long before this date..... because this could imply that applications for approval for changes are sought only after being caught!

Council Shuts Down Building Site!

Following up on the photo's we sent to Council, we were told that the Supervising Building Surveyor was assessing the situation. On Tues 6th July at 11.00am my wife received an email from Ross Willis saying that a building notice was going being issued against Mehrab-Khani.

At 2.00pm that day two police officers issued him with papers. Mehrab-Khani waved his hands and complained to the police for about 10 minutes. But it was an instant shut down! Workers were paid up and and they took away a cement mixer and wheel barrow and assorted equipment. Ross said that the Building Notice was issued against the retaining wall of Unit 1 by the Building Surveyor. This is the unit on our boundary that I was subjected to abuse and threats trying to get photo's from the public pavement a little while ago.

We don't have any more details on the specifics, but it appears our photo's have come to some good. The back retaining wall at Melville Street side is still to be addressed, and this will become another problem for the developer...a lawyer has been looking at the issue.

We are hoping the floor slab that has been poured to our boundary is the reason for the shut down, but have no other details at the moment.