One Tree Constructions - Builders Blog

Builders Blog

The Eurobodalla Shire Council has, over the last few years, become harder to deal with, harder to relate to and almost impossible to understand. Since the arrival of some key new management staff, the council has relied on intimidation and bullying tactics to get its way.

This is the one space where I can have my say and show in detail, to anyone who is interested, just what a pack of bully-boys and stand-over merchants inhabit the council. The only big-city change that these new managers have brought to our little shire is the capacity to mislead and shroud everything that they do. These people belong to the bureaucratic nightmare that brought us the children overboard nonsense and the weapons of mass destruction fiasco. We choose to live in the country to avoid that sort of nonsense, but it has caught up to us anyway.

86 Trafalgar Road, Tuross Head
Part 1

As a part of acquiring a final certificate for a completed house, the council must sign off on the plumbing and sewerage. Our private certifier must sign off that the house conforms with the approved DA, including the stormwater and rainwater tanks. With final certification the owners of the house can occupy their house and it is usually the time of the final payment to the builder for a completed job, therefore an anxious and stressful time. Like anyone who has done their job they wish to be paid for it.

On the 19th of July 2006 Mr Paul Scholze a plumbing inspector with the Eurobodalla Shire Council, of his own volition, did a final plumbing and drainage inspection at the above address. This was an unnecessary inspection as we have paid a private certifier to do this work for us and so the inspection was unwarranted on the part of the council.

He then sent us a letter on the 20th of July (link to Scholze letter) advising us that remedial work was required in some areas. These areas were:

Gutter guard to be installed as per Council’s Policy Code of Practice for rainwater tanks
Outside shower is not allowed to connect to stormwater overflow which terminates at the street
Outlet from rainwater tank to be protected from mosquitoes and insects entering
Works as executed plan to be submitted showing the tank location, stormwater drainage and non-potable water reticulation to the building.
A completed works as executed standard tank detail as shown in figure 9 & 10 of council’s & Code of Practice for rainwater tanks

All of the requirements requested were immediately attended to except the first one, as we were unaware of any deficiencies in the installation in relation to the code of practice. Note the lack of information regarding council’s problem with the gutter guard, just a statement that implied that the gutter was incorrectly installed without anything in writing saying what exactly the problem with the gutter was.
We wrote at letter back to Mr Scholze on the 16th of August advising him of the work carried out and explained our reason for not using leaf guard (link to OTC response to Scholz 1). An excerpt from that letter is as follows:

A wire mesh has been securely installed at all downpipes to stop leaves from going into the rainwater tank. These are to be cleared and gutters maintained on a regular basis by the owner. The mesh will not allow the leaf litter to enter the downpipes and obstruct them at the bends of the downpipe. The rainwater re-use system also has a first flush and a filter installed to take care of any residual leaf matter. It is our experience in 25 years of building that no current system on the market does not block or require ongoing maintenance. In fact our experience has been that leaf guards can cause gutters to overflow back into the residence causing water damage that we would be held responsible for. If a leaf guard system has to be regularly cleared then it is no different to maintaining and cleaning the gutter. If a leaf guard has to be installed then we ask that the council recommend the brand that they can guarantee will not to cause the problems mentioned. We have spoken to a large number of suppliers who sell such products and none of them guarantee that they will not block-up. We feel that this more of a hazard than a help.

After receiving no response for a week we rang Mr Scholze on the 21st of August to enquire what was happening in regard to the letter we wrote. Mr Scholze acknowledged that he had not read the letter as yet. He insisted that leaf guard had to be used and we asked him to please respond to us in writing to explain where, in the regulations, it is stated that leaf guard has to be used. He told us that he would not.

We wrote to Mr Scholze again on the 4th of September again asking for a formal response to our questions that we had raised. (link to OTC response to Scholz 2)

After no response for another two weeks we rang Mr Elik Kloczko, Mr Scholze’s boss, on the 12th of September. We asked Mr Kloczko to please explain to us were it said in the council’s DCP that a leaf guard had to be installed that Mr Paul Scholze was insisting on.

He was unable to do so. He stated that a “leaf eater” had to be used. We explained that this system allows water to flood back into the house when strong winds are blowing and that we had a similar system that stopped leaves from entering the rainwater tank. Mr Elik Kloczko then said, if we were to use a galvanised sieve wire, that we would need to get a Hydraulic Engineer to certify that it would do the job of not allowing the leaves to enter the rainwater tank. Again we asked could you please supply us with the relevant regulation that states that leaf-guard has to be used? And that what we are doing is not sufficient.

After three weeks of no response, we wrote a letter (link to Levy letter pg1 & 2) to Mr Jim Levy on the 5th of October, General Manager of the Eurobodalla Shire Council. Asking him to give us some resolve to the situation we were in.

On the 19th of October we received a letter (link to Ransce Salan pg1 & 2) from Mr Ransce Salan, Group Manager, Development and Natural Resources. This was a prolix and loquacious letter that talked about leaf guard having to be installed in Bush Fire Prone Zoned areas. It should be noted that the block we are talking about is not in a Bush fire zoned area.

We responded to Mr Salan’s letter on the 31st of October (link to response to Salan pg1&2) which said, in part:

We accept that your are the authority, however, even authorities usually justify their decisions, in this case we were asking why it was not considered similar. Mr Elik Kloczko said he could not accept it because it was “cheap and homemade”, which sounds like a recommendation, not a reason for refusal. We also asked for council to recommend an accepted similar council approved product as we could not find one on the market or, for the council to direct us to use a product which we know to have problems and thereby take responsibility for their demands.
You have said that the “guttering proposed does not meet the bushfire requirements as contained in AS3959-1999 “Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas” or self-cleaning provisions…” etc and further “…provides that new residential development in bushfire prone areas are also required to have special leaf guards…” etc. However the development is not in a Bush Fire Prone Zone as far as we can ascertain from the Property Information Sheet supplied by the council (link to Property Info Gunn) nor is there any mention of this zoning in the DA approval. With this in mind it is hard to see the relevance of your statements or the point.
Could you please supply us with the relevant documentation that you supplied with our proposal to the CUPDR for their consideration and their response and reasons that our system, as presented by you, was not accepted.
We have been given to understand that it is council policy to reply to all technical matters in writing. We may have got this idea from the prominent notice on the counter in the council foyer which reads, in part, “ It is in the interests of the enquirer to obtain a written determination before making decisions….” (link to Council counter sign).

We originally wrote to Mr. Scholze on 16th August and when we enquired as to the progress of the matter on the 21st August he responded that he hadn’t even read the letter at that stage. We wrote again on the 4th September and once again have received no response. The responses that we have received, at our instigation, have all been verbal, unhelpful and no effort has been made to respond and/or resolve the problem, but I guess you’ll just have to take our word of that as we have nothing in writing to back up our claim.

We believe your comments have clarified nothing in regards to the issues at hand, in fact they have only added to the muddiness and, in a funny way, have really helped to illustrate the ongoing problems we find in our dealings with council.
We now formally and politely request that you respond in writing to the following concerns;

We have found that the leaf eater system is an inappropriate system in this circumstance and request advise on a suitable “similar” system that the council would recommend. We are unaware of any bushfire zone that is applicable to this location and no such zoning is apparent on council records and advice. Could you please advise us on whether the house is bush fire zoned and, accordingly, whether the present guttering system is sufficient. Is the council now prepared to sign off on this development so that we can get the final certificate and paid for the work completed. Will you be changing the sign on the counter to better reflect the council’s position on the subject of technical advice given by council officers.

We are still, to-date, waiting for his response. This problem has now taken 5 months to get to this stage. The council has been unresponsive, uncooperative and unaccountable. Their reasons have proved to be unsubstantiated and unfounded and, still, the problem remains. However you cannot help but shake your head at the totally trivial nature of the dispute and the totally intractable stance of the council. Let me ask? Does any of this relate to a helpful, efficient, compassionate and knowledgeable method of doing business and resolving minor disagreements in an appropriate way. Trust me, doing business in this fashion is unsustainable on our part, the council staff, of course, still get paid every week regardless of their ability, accomplishments or worth, unfortunately it doesn’t work that way for us. We get no recompense for this sort of nonsense, which, as you can see, is unproductively time consuming. Basically it is an unwarranted major extra cost to our business.

A thought to leave you with, we are a local construction business that designs and builds new homes, extensions, pergolas, etc. Standard run of the mill building business, the type that has been here since forever. We employ local trades, use local suppliers and build for local people whether they be permanent residents or frequent visitors to their homes in the shire. Our clients, bye and large, are very happy with our work, the local people think our work enhances the area and people are constantly seeking us out to look at doing work for them. Our children were born, raised and educated here in the shire. We are not whingers bellyaching about unfounded problems with the council, we are local ratepayers wanting a fair go and asking what the hell is going on. The council, in this year alone, has cost us two jobs worth up to $600,00 to the local economy and will be probably cost us another $200,000 job very shortly. The cost of this to-ing and fro-ing to us this year is well over $100,000, an unrecompensed and unnecessary expense.

scroll to top

86 Trafalgar Road, Tuross Head
Part 2

As part of the requirements for a final occupation certificate to be issued an inspection of the driveway is required.

In May 06 we had designed and started earth works for the construction of a driveway and road side drainage. When we did the design we followed the supplied council’s plan 4400 “Standard Maximum High and Low Driveway Profiles – No Footpath” and plan 4400 Drawing 5 “ Access Construction Over Road Table Drains- Rural / Residential.”

When we had done the preliminary work we rang the council to get someone to inspect the work that we had done to insure that it conformed to their guidelines. They gave us the phone number of Mr. Peter Lock, Subdivision Inspector for the shire council. We rang Mr. Lock and organised a time for him to come and inspect the work. Mr Lock visited the site and advised us that we needed to remove an additional 300mm of earth on the crest of the driveway to achieve a better profile.

At this time we checked that the position of the stormwater pipe was correct and he agreed. We also discussed the position of the turn-around bay that had been drawn on the approved plan by Mr Wayne Nicholson, Engineering Development Assessment Officer from the council. Where Mr Nicholson had placed the turn-around bay was in the middle of an embankment and immediately below the front steps. Causing two major problems.

Extensive retained walls would need to be constructed as well as the removal of one of the two trees on the block. Not only was this inappropriate it was also a very expensive solution.
The position was immediately below the front steps and would create dangerous and obstructive entry to the dwelling

With the advice of Mr. Lock the turn-around bay was re-located to the front of the property, which was a far better position for manoeuvring and access to the dwelling. With this instruction we completed the works.

On the 10th of October we rang the council to get an inspector to come and check the works carried out to obtain the final certificate. We were given Mr Nicholson’s name as the person that could sign off on the works. We organised an appointment on the 12th of October for an on-site meeting with Mr Nicholson.

At that meeting Mr Nicholson said that the stormwater pipe was in the wrong location and said the drive had to be dug up and the pipe moved 500mm further into the block. He also stated that the headwalls either side of the drive had to be removed.

He also stated that the turn-around bay was in the wrong place and said it had to be moved into the property by some 3 meters. This would mean the removal of the only other mature habitat tree on the block. This would also require major earthworks and the destruction of the existing driveway and feature rock retaining walls.

On the 16th of October Mr. Lock visited the site and inspected the work carried out under his instruction. He placed a file note (link to Peter Lock File note) stating that the work had been done as per instruction. He had written, “ I trust that the existing construction can remain with the exception of the pit on the high side of the driveway”.

We modified the table drain as per Mr lock’s instruction on the 17th of October.

On the 18th of October we received a letter (link to Wayne Nicholson pg1&2) from Mr. Nicholson stating that the construction has areas of concern regarding public safety and drainage problems.

He made note that the reversing bay was partly built on public road reserve as opposed to the approved position within the property boundaries. He reiterated that the position he had suggested earlier were the turn-around bay was to go, regardless of the removal of the tree or the expense. It also should be noted that there is a Tree preservation Order on this property.

We had a surveyor give us the exact dimensions of how much we had encroached onto the road reserve. It was 1.2m by approximately 4m.

On the 29th of October we rang Mr. Nicholson to come and inspect the change to the pit that we had made. During that conversation we explained why it was not practical to move the turn-around bay and that it was only about 4 square meters of road reserve involved. We also explained that it would mean removing the habitat tree.

He responded that one day the council may place a footpath along Trafalgar Road and that it may interfere with it. We had spoken to Mr Lock about this and he said to us that there is a power pole and a Telstra pit where the footpath would go. Also he said the logical place, if a footpath is ever constructed, would be on the other side of the road were the land is level and on the commercial side of the road were the public amenities are. As well as there is a steep drop off on the property’s side of the road that would be a public safety problem and would require very expensive earthworks and hand rails if they were to place one there. Basically a footpath on our side of the road was impractical and obviously so.

We are at the stage now were we have followed advice from a council employee with substantial practical experience, whom we were directed to for advise on the matter by the council, only to be told that the work is not acceptable by another officer of the council.

We now have to write another letter to the General Manager, Mr. Jim Levy to resolve this issue. He will get the appropriate member of staff to respond who will, on the evidence of our experiences to date, deny any culpability on the part of staff, reiterate their position that we are to unquestioningly do as we are told and that they hope that this has clarified the matter for us. Then we will write to the councillors pointing out the illogical and indefensible position of the council and they will refer our letter (as per procedure in these matters) to the General Manager who will get the appropriate member of staff to respond.

Let me ask? Does any of this relate to a helpful, efficient, compassionate and knowledgeable method of doing business and resolving minor disagreements in an appropriate way. Trust me, doing business in this fashion is unsustainable on our part, the council staff, of course, still get paid every week regardless of their ability, accomplishments or worth, unfortunately it doesn’t work that way for us. We get no recompense for this sort of nonsense, which, as you can see, is unproductively time consuming. Basically it is an unwarranted major extra cost to our business.

scroll to top

Report to HIA regarding problems with Eurobodalla Shire Council
Case number 1.
6 Currowan Street, Nelligen

Our client approached us last November, 2005, with a view to re-locating a house to Nelligen and had been referred by the proprietor of the house re-locating business. We had been involved in a similar project with him a few years previously. On that occasion we had submitted the plans to council and completed the project in about 3 months. Based on this experience we entered into negotiations with the client and had agreed to terms by mid-January.

In February 06 we had a meeting with a council officer to explain our intentions and to seek relevant information regarding bush fire zones, peculiarities pertaining to the location, etc. At that meeting we suggested putting the driveway and carport to the front of the house in keeping with the existing streetscape and consistent with other similar dwellings in the area. We were advised that council would not allow the driveway at the front of the proposed relocated dwelling as it was contrary to council requirements. We then started to prepare our DA submission.

We had another pre-planning meeting with council staff Phil Costello and Janette McDonnell on 22nd March 06 to establish if the proposed driveway was acceptable and to see if there were any other concerns that council may have. As Council had advised us, the driveway was to be positioned beside the house as they would no longer allow parking in front of buildings. The Councils Development Control Plan states that “ Additional parking must be behind the building line” and, as this case shows, should include the words “where practicable”. This is not additional parking, we required parking space for one car only. There are many examples in the surrounding area of garages and carports to the front of residences, probably because this is the most practical solution. Be that as it may, the council directed that the carport was to build beside the building.

We were also required to supply an assessment as to the type of cladding the building had. We did this and were informed that the cladding contained asbestos.
We were also required by council to obtain a structural engineer’s report to assess the state of the building before it was re-located . We did this and were informed by the council that the cladding containing asbestos would have to be removed before the building could be re-located. The cladding is part of the bracing for the building. It begs to ask the question as to why we had to do a structural report before the building was to be moved, when the cladding is part of the structural bracing of the dwelling. The removal of the cladding would compromise the structural integrity, particularly during the re-location process, meaning the house may no longer be in the same condition as stated in the report upon arrival to the site. Ultimately we are liable for the finished building, that has to be proven structurally sound.

We were also asked to supply a pest report on the building.

At that meeting we were also advised that the house would require a BASIX certificate to be submitted along with the Development Application. We looked into the BASIX requirements and, with the advise of the BASIX support staff, discovered that it was not required for re-located homes. At that stage BASIX certification was required for newly constructed homes only.
We notified council of our advice and were now informed that a NATHERS certificate was required. Again we made enquires with the relevant professionals and they informed us that certification of re-located homes had never been a requirement. [We knew, from the start, that these certifications were not required on this type of project, but were forced to get independent advice that we were right before we could convince the council of something that they should have known, from the start, as part of their job].

After taking into account some other minor requirements from the council we adjusted and prepared our plans accordingly.

We lodged our DA application on the 4th May 06 along with the requested structural report on the dwelling as it exists prior to transport, the pest report, the asbestos report and pictures of the dwelling as it is prior to transport. We received a letter from Council advising us that the DA was registered on the 9th of May 06.

When we lodged our DA we had designed the driveway to the recommended council profiles. On the 15th of June we received a letter from council’s Senior Building Assessment Officer, Garry Ryman asking for a “Engineers design plan and longsection for the construction of the proposed access. The longsection is to be shown with existing and proposed surface levels. They are to commence at the centreline of the road and finish at the garage floor. The property boundary and all other natural features are to shown.”

On the 19th of June we had a meeting with Suzan McCalmont, a qualified Architect. Together we modified the driveway to reduce the slope to the carport by raising the building and supplied a new longsection of what was proposed.

On the 20th of June we had another meeting with council’s staff, Mr Wayne Nicholson, Engineering Development Assessment Officer and Mr Garry Ryhman, to discuss the new longsection. At this meeting we were advised that we would need to have a handrail extending out onto councils land and that they would only accept a qualified engineers detail of the driveway. We proposed to do away with the handrail over council land and simply use landscaping to batter away from the edge of the driveway on council land and begin the handrail from our client’s front boundary. This proposal was rejected.

At this meeting it was raised that the proposed septic system, that had been designed by Mr Phillip Milton, a qualified engineer from Pacific Engineering, was not acceptable and that further details were to be supplied regarding the placement of holding tanks and that retaining walls should be built behind them. They also required engineering details and levels for how the pipe from the house was to get to the septic tank. On our advice Pacific Engineering entered into discussions with the council over their requirements for the septic system and the handrail on the council land. Pacific Engineering got back to us with the plans as required by the council which included galvanised metal handrails that went across the front of the entire block either side of the driveway. We felt this was a ridiculous requirement particularly as we were unable to satisfy Mr. Nicholson with any proposal on how to end the handrail on either side when it reached the neighbours properties.

Using elements of Pacific Engineering’s proposal and another handrail option, on the 27th of June we re-submitted revised plans for the driveway showing the new levels and how the septic tanks were to be positioned. These were deemed to be unacceptable by Mr Nicholson and Mr Ryman, who insisted that they would only accept an engineer’s submission.

On the 8th of August we had a meeting with council staff, Mr Phillip Costello and Mr Wayne Nicholson, to discuss the handrail on councils nature strip. It was again insisted on, that a handrail would need to be placed to avoid anyone falling off the driveway, going from nothing to some 800mm from the ground over some five meters and to provide engineering details for it. Once again it was made clear that other options would not be countenanced.

[Now we have a major drama over what? That someone might fall over the side of a hill that has been there for since the continent was formed and which has been a populated urban area for nearly a hundred years. That with all the similar driveways all over the town, how, suddenly, we are incapable of building one on this block that won’t result in multiple injuries and even death to passers-by. Similarly, the level of detail required for the septic system was extraordinary given the benign nature of the situation and the level of expertise widely available in the building industry that routinely deals with these very standard building situations. It was like the council had never seen a septic system and had no idea how to achieve a viable toilet for Nelligen and so it had to be carefully and pain-stakingly explained to them. Still a lack of knowledge usually makes people wary. Why the council lacked this knowledge stands beside their uncertainty over the BASIX and NATHERS requirements].

On the 11th of August we commissioned Mr James Olive from JCL Solutions who is a qualified hydraulic engineer, with many years experience both in this shire and many others, to design and produce new drawings showing the longsection and a new positioning of the septic system and to find some resolution to the handrail problem.

Mr Olive met with Mr Nicholson on the 17th August to discuss the council’s position and objectives. [I say objectives because that is what Mr. Nicholson was requiring of us. There has never been any advise from the council on how they would like us to achieve them. They told us their objectives and we were to offer proposals for their consideration].

On the 7th of September Mr Olive had been given final approval for the proposed septic system.

On the 12th of September Mr Olive lodged the driveway plans with ESC.

On the 15th of September, after another discussion between Mr Nicholson and Mr Olive about an amendment that Mr Nicholson wanted to the driveway, new plans were again submitted.

On or about the 20th of September Mr Nicholson rang our office and asked for details on how the handrail was to be attached to the suspended slab and details showing how the underside of the driveway was to be covered in to stop anyone from climbing under it. [Remember we are talking about a very small drop in a highly visible and open area].

On the 26th of September Mr Olive met with Mr Nicholson and had a discussion about how the new levels that were proposed were outside the ESC normal levels because of the site-specific issues.

On the 28th of September Mr Olive lodged new plans with the ESC.

On the 10th of October Mr Nicholson spoke to Mr Olive about revising the driveway levels again.

On the 10th of October Mr Olive met with Mr Nicholson and was advised to again revise the driveway levels because of the handrails and a fall of some 900mm from the edge of the driveway.

On the 23rd of October we supplied the details of the handrails attachment to Mr Nicholson.

On the 31st of October Mr Nicholson rang our office asking for Mr Olive to ring him in regard to changing the driveway design so that a handrail would not be needed. Also requesting full structural engineers details on how the slab was to be constructed on the councils land.

On the 2nd of November Mr Olive met with Mr Nicholson and advised him that Mr. Nicholson’s requirements were unsustainable as computer modelling showed cars would “bottom out” on the gutter and the driveway levels would need further revision.

On the 7th of November Mr Olive had completed the revised plans, which were again submitted to Mr Nicholson for assessment. [These plans had gone back to the original design that we had suggested, where each side of the drive way had fill battered back to reach the desired height. This was the same proposal initially put to Mr. Nicholson on the 20th of June and rejected].

This is the effort required to get a septic system and a driveway through for a standard development in an established area. It is to be noted the lack of written, or any, advice from the council staff concerned. It is also to be noted that after a cost to our client of over $15,000 we ended back right were we had started. And we still don’t have an approval. Now the council wants us to prove that it is possible to build a suspended slab. And remember this is just for a Development Application and nothing more. This is just one story and we have many more, worse stories.

scroll to top