PRIVATE certifiers of buildings have incurred the wrath of Great Lakes Council and an official complaint about one will be made to the appropriate government authorities and licensing organisations.
The complaint will also stress the council's concern about private certifiers in general.
The council says that too often private certifiers, one in particular, do not properly or adequately supervise and approve buildings they certify.
"We're sick of them saying 'Oops', and then having to fix their mistakes," Cr John Weate said.
"Some private certifiers leave their clients with a building problem that needs rectifying and the council has to decide how best to help the ratepayer out.
"We must get it out to the development industry that this is the last time."
At the recent council meeting, Cr Weate boldly moved a motion that a duplex dwelling at Tea Gardens be demolished because it was incorrectly sited on the block and did not meet council's specifications.
While he did not expect the motion to go ahead, he said Great Lakes and other councils were constantly faced with errors caused by private certifiers and were forced to try to find ways of helping the owner, who was always adversely affected financially.
At the same time, the council was exposing itself to litigation and costs.
Director of Planning, Glenn Handford, told the council meeting that the modification of plans by private certifiers and the subsequent construction of buildings not in accordance with the initially approved plans was very disturbing.
"The end result of these types of situations places the council under enormous pressure to approve inadequate developments in order to prevent possible litigation.
"The council is also placed in a difficult situation because if the application is refused, the council will have to defend a possible appeal against the refusal.
"Alternatively, if the council serves a demolition order, it is likely the owner will defend his position in court.
"Either way, unless the council meekly approves the application, substantial court costs could be expected."
He said this was the second building set out wrongly by the same certifier, who had already been restricted in his operations.
The issue came up for discussion during consideration of an application to modify a consent application for a duplex dwelling at Hawks Nest.
Mr Handford said the front setback of the house had been reduced by 1.5 metres than the approved boundary setback.
This had resulted in a landscaped garden area only one metre wide, which was considerably less than that approved in the construction certificate.
He said that if the resulting setback had been originally proposed the development application would never have been supported.
Mr Handford said the construction of the units began after the issuing of a construction certificate by and under the supervision of a private certifier.
Cr Weate said that the faults with the building lay with the private certifier and it was only when the owner began landscaping that he realised the errors.
Email a friend