Council Caper Two

How the owners of a jetty discovered it was dangerous after returning from overseas. How they bought the timber to repair it. How Council found out. How I found myself producing detail drawings to obtain a D.A. for an existing jetty. How I found that the Lake Macquarie Council's DCP required a Visual Impact Statement. How I found out that even to put up a warning sign required a D.A. application!

One day I had a call from people who wanted the replacement of boards to their jetty 'drawn up'. I asked are you sure you don't need an engineer? No, Council had wanted the boards drawn up. I was stunned and was silent.
I finally asked., “And all you want is to draw the jetty?”
Yes – it was a condition of their approval for their house that they had to put in a DA application to repair the jetty.
I repeated feeling amazed, “A DA application for the repair of a jetty, now I've heard it all”.
They said they needed to refer to the clauses of the LEP or something.
“DCP,” I confirmed. “Yes, I can do that”.
I then asked rhetorically, “Why couldn't they accept a labelled photo?!”
They though that was reasonable. But not what Council wanted. They turned up and showed me a survey plan and a photo of a jetty with two large holes in it. They even showed me three excellent drawings in section and plan all to scale – I said these are really good – he said he was a mechanical engineer. It was all there. But not good enough.

They said they had bought the boards to repair the jetty from Macquarie Timber as soon as they had noticed on returning from overseas. They were about to install them when they had rung up Council and found out the new house had been approved. They had been so surprised as it had seemed as if they would be waiting a long time. Then they were told one of the conditions to obatin their Construction Certificate was that they had to put in a D.A. to repair their jetty. They had been told this D.A. would take about eight weeks.
They told me that they had pointed out to the council officer that they had the boards, and, that the jetty was unsafe. The Council officer, they said, had told them they could do no work at all without approval.
I asked “who?”.
I started as I recognised the name, “He's done this before. Stopped work on site.”
I told them that if an engineer puts in in writing that they need immediate work to prevent harm Council cannot stop it. I said this officer should have know better as he was in trouble recently with a collapse because he had stopped work.
He said “I'm an engineer and I say it's unsafe”. He said the jetty was accessible from the public foreshore and in the past he knew it was used by local people to fish from. He said if anything happens he would sue Council. They had put a sign on the jetty as advised by Council.
I laughed without mirth, “And why didn't you need DA approval to put the sign on the jetty?”

It turned out I was right. You do need a D.A. to put up a sign on the waterfront. This jetty was in theory (and practice) accessible by the public. The state of repair of the jetty was a crucial issue. Whereas the owners are aware of precisely which treads are dangerous, the public possibly would think it is 'safe enough' despite signage. The sign the owners could put up was not very effective, as it was not either fixed or vertical on a structure, as this itself required development consent!

Well there it is! – I had to draw up, in record time, a DA application to replace dangerous boards on a jetty.

It turned out the major time spent on the job was in reading the DCP. The following are the 'relevant' clauses.

Section 2.1.1 applies as the repair work to the jetty occurs over a marine and an aquatic environment. Also links to 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.11,2.5 & 3.2 Only 2.1.6 is deemed relevant (see below). See section on sediment control and stormwater.
Section 2.1.3 applies as the repair work to the jetty is adjacent a scenic management zone. Also links to 2.1.4, 2.1.9, 3.1 & 3.2. Only 3.1 is deemed to be applicable.
To fulfil the requirements for this section 2.1.3: see attached 'Visual Impact Statement'.
Section 2.1.6 applies as the repair work to the jetty is within 40m of Lake Macquarie and therefore over aquatic habitat. Therefore reference must also be made to Section 3.1 and 2.4.4. Also section 2.1.6 links are to sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.7, 2.1.11, 2.5.3 & 3.1. Though the assessing officer must check all these links it is deemed that only 2.1.1, 2.1.7 and 3.1 are applicable. See 2.1.1 above.
Section 2.1.7 may apply as this repair work is in an area within land subject to flooding. The 6(1) zone to which the jetty is attached would be subject to flooding. Section 2.1.7 links to 2.1.6, 2.1.8, 2.5.3 & 3.1. Only 2.1.6 and 3.1 are deemed applicable.
Section 3.1 may apply as this section relates to Waterways.
Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 both apply as the land to which the jetty is attached to which the repair work is to be carried out is on the lake front and with-in one km of the lake.
Section 3.1.1 links to sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.7.2, 2.7.7, 2.7.6 & 2.7.8 it has been deemed that only section 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.7 are applicable (see above).
Section 3.1.2 links to Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.10, 2.7.6. Most of these may be applicable.

I wrote in the Statement Of Environmental Effects:

“When a hazard has been identified rectification work should proceed as soon as possible as reasonable care must be taken to avoid omissions which can be reasonably foreseen as likely to injure one's neighbour (Cooke, J.R. Architects Engineers and the Law , The Federation Press. Sydney). It is the writer of this statement's opinion that, to prevent possible injury, immediate repair work should be carried out and that an unfixed sign laying on the deck (that could be blown away in wind) is insufficient warning. It should be noted that the DCP should make allowance for warning signs to be erected without approval, which is not the case in the current regulations which require approval for the erection of any sign. As the owners have the material to repair the jetty (and indeed bought it as soon as they became aware of the state of the jetty), it would be in Council's interest to expedite immediate approval of the repair work. The owners can take no responsibility for any adverse consequences that result due to delay in carrying out repair work.”

I think that says it all.

Except for one further incident.

I conveyed the essence of this to the Council Officer in a phone conversation. They added another concern. They commented they wished for some statement as to the structural stability. Apparently it had 'rocked'. They suggested we may require an engineer to certify the structure.

I rang the client to convey this information and for my peace of mind organised a time to visit the jetty again. We walked on it and tested it. We concluded the movement was due to the boards that were in need of replacement not the supports. We concluded an engineer would arrive at the same conclusion.

The approval did take a little over 8 weeks. The client range me with joy. And, thankfully, nobody was injured.