Legal Or Illegal?

Trying to determine what plans have been approved and what is now being applied for approval after being caught is not as easy as it seems. As I mentioned before, in my view this quaint concept of applying for approval after being caught illegally modifying a building is a bit like robbing a bank and offering to give the money back if you are caught.

I wrote an email to Ross Will of Hobart Council and Peter Ray of Pitt and Sherry last week:

 I sent an email about this already but I haven't heard from anyone yet.
As a layman, it appears to us the the second floor of Unit 1 has not been setback
an additional 500mm according to plans, is that correct?

Also, if this is true, has Council approved this already?
We haven't been told anything about this, and considering setback was an issue at Tribunal,
I would have thouight we would have been told something.

Finally, the windows on the ground floor that were added in need glass bricks because
they are so close to the boundary, we were told.

So the fact that the second floor is not setback a further 500mm,
in other words is still 400mm--does this mean that glass bricks are
going to be put in there too??

We can see in their bedroom, and they can see our bedroom doorways.
So does all this mean there will be glass bricks there too??

Do fire codes apply here--the windows are close together and a fire in one
property could easily affect the other, you would think?? Is ***window to window** distance
covered by the building code??

Any response by either of you gentlemen would be appreciated.
Many thanks.

Tom+Kerrie Berger
163 Bathurst St


Response from Peter Ray only:

Hi Thomas.

1.       The second floor unit 1 is as per plans that I understand have been lodged with Hobart City Council Planning and Building Authorities.
2.       The wall is where it should be. There is no setback because the lower level glassed roof section is not proposed for construction.
3.       Any glazing closer than 900mm to boundary will need to consider fire spread requirements of the BCA. This may not necessary be by installing Glass blocks.


 I still don't fully understand the response. The bulf of the top floor of Unit one should be back another 500mm according to the plans as I understand it.

No says Peter--he "understands plans have been lodged" and that it is built according to those plans. So are these new approvals we know nothing about that have been passed ignoring our input and knowing full well that this is an issue we went to Tribunal for?

Or am I not understanding the original plans? No idea. But I a narly positive that we have been bypassed for the very issues we fought for 4 years over, resulting in a Tribunal.

So the question is, what is the point of planning or a Tribunal if building plans can be broken at will and then apply for approval?