Study Shows Small Fines Encourage Bad Behaviour!!

This is something Hobart Council really needs to look at. They think small fines such as the $750 ***whoppers*** levied on Mehrab-Khani curb bad behaviour-- studies show the opposite. Small fines encourage bad behaviour!

Studies at an Israeli kindergarten showed that when a $3 fines was levied on late pick ups of children, this behaviour actually increased. Here is the graph:

Here is a link to read more about this (Hobart Council, take note!)

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/31/fines/

I have been told this verbally by Mehrab-Khani in February this year, now it is confirmed with studies.

Building Notice Issued on Unit 1

Peter Ray of Pitt and Sherry has issued a Building Notice (again) for illegal building modifications on Unit 1. This has not stopped Mehrab-Khani in the least. It is full steam ahead with building. Speaking to Peter last week, he did concede that the Developer was a little "bullish"!!!

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?

Khani Back in Court This Week...

For smashing the windscreen of Tony Jacob's in a public street. In all likelihood it will be adjourned with the prospect of a Launceston Magistrate hearing this next year. I am told that his Court Hearing for acquiring financial gain by deception is definitely still on in Oct.

I believe the dates are 14 and 15 Oct. I plan on being there if I can, it should be great entertainment value as well as affording Mehrab-Khani a very real prospect of a conviction.

Sensitive To Heritage

Architect Maria Gigney advertises herself as "sensitive to heritage". This is just as well, can you imagine what the development would look like if it were otherwise?

Our only source of light in the lounge room of our old 1847 heritage building is about to be bricked up, and the giant structures  in the backyard were going to be "hardly visible from the street" we were told in Tribunal.

The first pic is a view from the lounge door, the second is facing backyard.



The ground floor of Unit 1 is being built virtually on our boundary with 3 illegal windows that Mehrab-Khani decided to put in while he was going along. He is being prosecuted by Council over this, but it allows him to apply Tom's Third Law -- if you are caught with illegal building modifications, apply for approval afterwards!  It's based on the same principle that if you rob a bank and get caught, offer to give the money back.

Now the question is--will the second floor windows abide by the plans? We should know within the week.

12th Aug Court Proceedings

On the 12 of Aug, Mehrab-Khani's neighbour Tony Jacobs and myself appeared in the Hobart Magistrates Court to vigourously defend the Restraint Orders brought against us by Mehrab-Khani and his wife?? Jaklin Rahimi.

There were about 6 or 7 of Tony's friends as well as a representative from Sandy Bay to watch the spectacle. Tony had 9 pages of questions and cross examination as well as dozens of Police Reports and Intelligence acquired through the Freedom Of Information, now renamed to Right to Information. I turned up with even more--as well as dozens of pages of Police Reports I had a laptop with 2 video clips, and large presentation posters printed in A1 format from the Xerox shop.

In the end it wasn't heard because the Magistrate decided to dissolve both applications if we gave our word not to enter 44 Bay St where Mehrab-Khani was going to move in 2 weeks time (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), and the Harrington Hotel. All of this was reasonable, so the claims were dismissed.

However, something came out of this Court Proceeding that I am unable to elaborate on, but it was an incredible revelation concerning Mehrab-Khani and his wife. I have been advised to say no more about this at the moment but suffice to say, the revelation is sensational--and that's an understatement!

If it becomes appropriate, I will mention more about this.
Stay tuned.

Council Inspection on Friday 30th July -- More Illegal Changes

On Friday 30th July Hobart City Council  inspected the Development at 157-161 Bathurst Street and found "unapproved changes". Ross Willis, from Council Compliance just wrote to let me know...

"Council’s inspection confirmed a number of deviations from the approved plans.  The unapproved changes will be subject to enforcement proceedings.

The developer has indicated he intends to submit several amendments including changes to Unit 1.  All changes will be subject to the normal planning process."