Dealings of South Burnett Regional Council (SBRC)
Unapproved Dwellings
Last updated: 6th November 2019
SBRC turns a blind eye to unapproved dwellings in rural residential subdivisions
in the western reaches of the South Burnett.
Click to select, or scroll down the page:-
The Reason for the Blind Eye
Unapproved shed dwellings are allowed to proliferate
on rural residential properties in SBRC's electoral Division Six,
which is approximately the former Wondai Shire.
This phenomenon began under the former WSC (Wondai Shire Council),
long before the amalgamation of local councils in 2008.
Analysis of
SBRC's black strategies
has led to new insights into many of SBRC's activities,
including the blind eye that SBRC systematically turns
towards unapproved dwellings on rural residential properties
in SBRC's electoral Division Six.
In the original version of this report
published many years ago,
the blind eye had been identified as being part of
SBRC's property caste system,
which at the time was thought to exist mainly to facilitate
preferential dealing,
whereby less resources are allocated to lower-caste areas
than to upper-caste areas.
Since then, it has been deduced that there is another
substantial but much less obvious purpose behind SBRC's blind eye,
this purpose being to hinder population growth.
See
SBRC's Black Strategy 4
for more information about the various ways in which SBRC
hinders population growth in the South Burnett.
How Shed Dwellings Hinder Population Growth
The rural subdivisions in the west of the South Burnett
were created in the nineteen seventies and eighties.
Many of the properties are still native bushland.
Due to the land being of relatively poor quality,
these bush blocks of forty acres and upwards
are in most cases too small for commercial agriculture.
Instead they are used for rural lifestyles, retiree lifestyles,
hobby farming and weekend recreation.
The existence of nearby unapproved dwellings
deters property owners from
developing their blocks in accordance with the laws of the land.
This results in many blocks remaining undeveloped.
The owners of undeveloped blocks mostly live outside the South Burnett,
so they are unable to enrol on the South Burnett's electoral register
because their main residence is elsewhere.
The more undeveloped blocks there are,
the fewer the number of properties with permanent residents
who can enrol on the electoral register.
Similarly, the owners of shed dwellings that are used as weekenders
mostly live outside the South Burnett,
so they are also unable to enrol on the South Burnett's electoral register
because their main residence is elsewhere.
This appears to be the main reason why SBRC,
like WSC before it,
takes no action to discourage the building of shed dwellings.
The more weekenders there are,
the fewer the number of properties with permanent residents
who can enrol on the electoral register.
People who reside permanently in unapproved shed dwellings
in the subdivisions
are often unwilling to enrol on the electoral register because
many wish to minimise any official evidence of their presence.
Also, an outlaw philosophy is prevalent among those
who flout the building regulations.
As long as these people keep their heads down,
SBRC seems happy to take no action to enforce
the building regulations.
The more permanent shed dwellers there are,
who cares as long as they don't enrol on the electoral register.
However, if there was a properly-approved dwelling on every property
in the rural residential subdivisions,
then there would be hundreds of extra
non-farming non-elderly permanent residents whose names
would have to be added to the South Burnett's electoral roll.
It can be assumed that if the hundreds of rural lifestyle
blocks in the area were properly developed,
then they would attract a fair proportion of people
who have progressive tendencies.
The extra voters would all be in Division Six,
meaning that there might no longer be a
guaranteed conservative majority for
the Division Six seat on the council.
It would also be a big step towards
eliminating the overall conservative
majority in the South Burnett.
To help ensure that this will never happen,
SBRC turns a blind eye to unapproved
shed dwellings in Division Six.
Overview of the Problem of Unapproved Dwellings
SBRC turns a blind eye to unapproved dwellings,
while pretending to enforce the building regulations.
The main area where this happens is
in the rural subdivisions in the west of the former Wondai Shire,
between the Stuart River and Durong.
SBRC's failure to enforce the building regulations in this area
is a continuation of a practice that began
under the former WSC.
Searches of the "Ballogie" and "Durong" areas
on property sales websites such as
realestate.com.au and
domain.com.au
always reveal many properties for sale with descriptions such as "weekender" or "rustic shed"
or "liveable shed" or "weekend retreat with shed" or "ideal weekend getaway".
These phrases and other similar phrases all mean unapproved dwellings.
Any building that is used for human habitation is a dwelling,
even if it is only used at weekends.
A storage shed requires a Class 10 building permit.
Each new building intended for use as a residence
requires a Class 1 building permit for a dwelling,
even if the building is intended only for use as a weekender.
In normal areas,
it is unusual for a shed to be constructed on a property
that does not have either a dwelling or a plan for a dwelling.
It does happen, but it is not usual.
Yet in SBRC's electoral Division 6,
it happens all the time.
Most new buildings constructed in the rural residential subdivisions
are sheds,
constructed on properties that do not have an approved dwelling.
The most usual purpose of building a shed
on a vacant block of forty acres or more
is for human habitation,
either as a permanent residence or as a weekender.
SBRC issues building permits for the construction of sheds
on empty blocks, without question and without follow-up.
There are now many buildings fitted out as dwellings
that have a permit only for a shed.
Some shed dwellings do not have any building permit at all.
Some shed dwellings have a
Class 1 building permit for a dwelling that was issued many years ago,
but there was clearly never any intention
to complete the dwelling to inspection standard.
Kingaroar.com has never heard of SBRC making any effort
to follow-up these blatant violations of the building regulations.
Councils do have some latitude in deciding
how building regulations will be enforced,
but it is hypocritical of a council
to pretend to enforce the regulations,
while not actually enforcing the regulations.
The law should be the same for everybody
and the law should be enforced the same for everybody.
Either SBRC should enforce the building regulations
to the same standard throughout the entire area of SBRC,
or SBRC should formally declare zones
where the regulations are different.
Effect of Unapproved Dwellings on Property Values
The existence and use of an unapproved dwelling
can have an adverse impact
on the value and quiet enjoyment of nearby properties.
The impact is multiplied
when there are several shed dwellings nearby.
Property owners who have spent a lot of money
on ensuring that their residences comply with all relevant laws
are disadvantaged by the presence
of substandard shed dwellings near to their properties.
It is a logical consequence that anything that reduces the
desirability, attractiveness or amenity of a property
must affect the value of that property.
Unapproved dwellings reduce the value of nearby properties
due to a combination of factors,
which include potential sociological problems.
A significant factor is that shed dwellings
often give a rundown, ramshackle and lawless appearance to an area.
Visible evidence of SBRC's failure
to enforce the building regulations
encourages more people to construct unapproved dwellings,
thus compounding the problem.
While most residents of unapproved dwellings are good citizens,
there have been some examples of residents of unapproved dwellings
causing excessive sociological problems in their neighbourhoods.
Weekenders have the potential to instantly become permanent residences.
Past history indicates that in the event of a major global economic recession,
which could potentially happen at any time for a variety of reasons,
the number of people living illegally in shed dwellings will rise substantially
with a corresponding rise in regional crime rates.
SBRC's Property Caste System
Preferential dealing and hindering population growth are activities
carried out by SBRC via the mechanism of a
property caste system.
By turning a blind eye to the proliferation of unapproved dwellings
in rural residential subdivisions,
SBRC has seriously disadvantaged those nearby property owners
who have done the right thing
and obtained all necessary building approvals in accordance with the law.
In contrast, unapproved dwellings in towns are not tolerated.
In higher caste areas, all that a nearby property owner
has to do is complain and
the building regulations will be enforced.
For example, when Deputy Mayor Kratzmann of the former WSC
complained about unapproved dwellings near his hotel at Tingoora,
lo and behold,
action was immediately taken against unapproved dwellings in Tingoora.
It is not known to kingaroar.com
whether Deputy Mayor Kratzmann had been concerned
about the impact of shed dwellings on the value of his hotel.
Deputy Mayor Kratzmann retired from politics for a few years.
Then he sold his hotel
shortly before he became SBRC's Mayor Kratzmann.
Example 1
Lot 6, RP197617,
is a 65 acre property located on Shellytop Road near Durong.
It used to have a small machinery shed, open on one side.
The machinery shed was constructed in 1989.
Nine years later, in 1998, a new owner
built a larger shed as a dwelling on the crest of a ridge
approximately 200 metres from the machinery shed.
No building permit for the dwelling was applied for.
The small machinery shed was subsequently demolished
and materials from it may have been
used to extend the new unapproved dwelling.
No trace of the original 1989 machinery shed remained.
The unapproved dwelling was used as a residence from approximately 1998
until approximately 2009.
This building still exists (as at November 2019).
As far as kingaroar.com is aware, no building permit
has ever been granted for this shed
and no enforcement notices have ever been issued in relation to it.
People travelling along Shellytop Road
could see that the newer 1998 shed was a dwelling
because a new electricity connection appeared
soon after it was constructed.
Also, the shed later sprouted a chimney stack.
The unapproved dwelling
had a ramshackle and improvised appearance that indicated
that it did not conform with building regulations.
It was highly visible from the road,
being located on cleared ground on the crest of a ridge,
blatantly advertising that the local council
did not enforce the building regulations in Shellytop Road.
Several other unapproved dwellings
were constructed nearby at around the same time.
A local resident complained to WSC,
which was a monumental waste of time,
and eventually referred the matter to the Queensland Ombudsman,
which was also a monumental waste of time.
The unapproved shed dwelling on Lot 6
was just one of four unapproved shed dwellings
that were the subject of the complaint made to WSC,
all constructed within a few months within a small area.
To cut a long story short, here are some of the things that happened:-
-
WSC did nothing to enforce the building regulations,
despite inspecting the properties.
No enforcement notices were issued
for any of the four unapproved dwellings.
-
WSC pretended that the new unapproved dwelling on Lot 6
was in fact the old machinery shed,
and that therefore the new dwelling did have a building permit,
albeit a permit for a shed not a dwelling.
-
WSC claimed that it had lost the file containing
the permit application for the original machinery shed on Lot 6,
which would have shown that the size, location and plan of the machinery shed
did not match the size, location or plan of the unapproved dwelling.
-
In 2002, WSC granted a Temporary Accommodation Permit
to the owners of the unapproved dwelling on Lot 6,
in contravention of its own local laws.
-
WSC lied about the matter to all and sundry,
including to the office of the Ombudsman
-
WSC used trickery to ensure that the name
of the complainant was published in the local paper,
apparently in the hope that the occupants
of the four unapproved shed dwellings
would silence the complainant.
-
The Ombudsman took more than two years to pretend to investigate this matter.
A competent person could have dealt with it in two days.
-
The Ombudsman repeatedly accepted WSC's lies,
and took no action even when it was proved that WSC had lied.
-
The Ombudsman eventually accepted that an error had been made by WSC.
However, the Ombudsman still did nothing about the unapproved dwelling,
despite having pretended at the outset that it would definitely do so
if it could be proved that the dwelling was unapproved.
-
Eventually it was unequivocally proved by the complainant
that the unapproved dwelling on Lot 6 was a completely different building
in a different location from the old machinery shed.
WSC and the Ombudsman still did nothing.
Click here
to see a report that includes ground-level photos
and information extracted from aerial photos.
The evidence categorically proves that the 1989 shed
and the 1998 unapproved dwelling
differed in size, shape and location.
The shed that is an unapproved dwelling on Lot 6 RP197617
is not the machinery shed for which a permit was issued in 1989.
In 2010, an effort was made to discover SBRC's official position
regarding the permit status of the unapproved shed dwelling on Lot 6.
SBRC took nearly six months to reply.
SBRC's eventual response was an uninformative and evasive
waste of paper.
From this,
and from a continual increase in the number of shed dwellings
in the area,
it can be concluded that SBRC
is following along exactly in the footprints of WSC.
In 2011, the property was sold.
The new owner installed a properly-approved prefabricated house
beside the former shed dwelling.
This favourably transformed the look of the property.
The unapproved shed with a chimney stack
is no longer used as a residence,
although it still exists.
The issue of the appearance of the shed is now of little concern,
but this story remains of public interest for the following reasons:-
-
WSC deliberately made a serious error that should not have been made.
-
WSC stoutly resisted accepting that it had made an error.
-
WSC took no action to resolve the problem.
All of WSC's actions appeared to be aimed at perpetuating the problem.
-
It took years for the Ombudsman to officially accept
that an error had been made by WSC.
-
Even when the Ombudsman was compelled
by incontrovertible evidence
to concede that an error had been made,
the Ombudsman still declined to do anything about it.
-
There still exists a building without a building permit
that could again become an unapproved dwelling at any time.
-
SBRC appears to be following exactly in the footprints of WSC.
Example 2
Another error made by WSC
concerned the permit status of a building
on a different nearby block on Shellytop Road
that was also inspected by WSC in early 2000.
Here WSC stated that:-
"A permit was issued in 1991
for the dwelling erected on this property."
In fact, the "dwelling" was a new improvised shed
being constructed by the tenants of the property.
The original dwelling had been destroyed in a fire.
Anybody who believes that WSC in 2000
genuinely mistook a new improvised shed still being constructed
for a properly-approved 1991 dwelling
would also have to believe that WSC
was not aware of the destruction by fire of the original dwelling,
a fact that had been reported in the local newspaper.
Believers would also have to believe that
nobody had ever discussed the matter with WSC.
If WSC's deliberate error had not been challenged,
the error would have had the effect
of awarding a de facto building permit for a dwelling
to a shed that did not in fact have any building permit.
In this case the Queensland Ombudsman
was instrumental in getting WSC to eventually state in 2002 that
WSC had received information that:-
" ... the original structure for which
a permit was given in 1991 was destroyed by fire in 1998.
... A permit was not obtained for the new building work."
The Queensland Ombudsman did this,
not as a result of its own investigations
which concluded that everything was proper,
but only after conclusive evidence had been presented to it.
As in Example 1 above,
the Queensland Ombudsman
refused to take any action.
6th November 2019
Involvement of WSC Mayor Iszlaub
It can now be revealed that Mayor Iszlaub of Wondai Shire Council
was one of two WSC officers who inspected the properties in
examples 1 and 2 above.
On the same day,
he also inspected two other unapproved dwellings
in the same locality.
A written complaint had been made to WSC
about four unapproved dwellings
that had been constructed within a few months of each other
in a small area near the complainant's residence.
The complainant had been informed by WSC that
WSC could not do anything about the four unapproved dwellings
unless a complaint was made in writing.
Prior to inspecting the properties,
Mayor Iszlaub phoned the complainant to discuss the issues.
The complainant mistakenly assumed that Mayor Iszlaub
was acting in good faith.
There was a lengthy discussion,
during which Mayor Iszlaub was fully briefed on all aspects of the matters,
including detailed histories.
Included in the discussions were suggestions made by the complainant
about ways in which WSC could easily assist the property owners
who clearly required assistance if they were to abide by the building regulations.
Later events revealed that Mayor Iszlaub's phonecall had been
a fishing expedition designed to find out as much as possible
so that, among other things,
WSC's official response could be carefully tailored
so as not to conflict with anything that could be proved.
For example, after having digested everything that was known,
WSC claimed that it had "lost" the
building permit application
for the original small open-sided machinery shed on Lot 6
that had now been demolished.
This enabled WSC to falsely pretend that it
could not possibly know that the location
of the new unapproved shed dwelling
was two hundred metres from
where the small shed had been located.
It turned out that there had never at any time
been the slightest intention by WSC
to take any action to enforce the building regulations.
The reason why WSC had insisted that the complainant must put
the complaint in writing
was simply so that the matter could
be formally mentioned at WSC's next meeting,
after which the complainant's name would
then be published in a news report
by the obliging "South Burnett Times"
which sent a reporter to attend the meeting.
WSC appears to have hoped
that the large number of people involved with the
four unapproved dwellings
might then have taken matters into their own hands
to discourage the complainant.
It is relevant to mention that there had been a previous disagreement
between Mayor Iszlaub and the complainant.
The complainant had previously expressed to Mayor Iszlaub
some objections to a proposal to construct a railway for transporting coal.
The railway was to be routed close to Wondai
and would have carried loud one-kilometre-long trains
in the middle of the night.
Mayor Iszlaub had been vigorously spruiking
on behalf of the proposed railway,
championing it by making rosy claims
that were demonstrably false and misleading.
The complainant had been instrumental in persuading
a member of the Queensland parliament
to withdraw their support for Mayor Iszlaub's railway project.
Suffice to say, Mayor Iszlaub
was not favourably disposed towards the complainant.
Also, throughout all the complainant's dealings with Mayor Iszlaub,
the mayor had repeatedly confused the complainant with a different person
who, concerning a different matter,
had apparently previously hurled abuse at the mayor
in an impolite manner.
The complainant was always polite towards Mayor Iszlaub,
who also was always polite.
Mayor Iszlaub's confused misidentification may have contributed
to his motivations for wrongdoing.
Mayor Iszlaub later retired from local politics
and many years later he passed away.
He appears to be regarded by some people in the South Burnett
as being one of the region's finest sons,
alongside better-known politicians
such as Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.
On the other hand,
it is the opinion of some that Mayor Iszlaub will now be
contemplating the errors of his ways.
Mayor Iszlaub has been nominated as a candidate
for the inaugural award of kingaroar.com's
"Order of the Snake",
a posthumous honour reserved for only the most crooked of snakes.
One of Mayor Iszlaub's biggest mistakes
was that he did not foresee
that his misdeeds would ever be brought to public attention.
The internet at that time had not yet evolved into what it is today,
and the news media
appears to have been firmly under the thumbs of politicians,
much as it apparently still is today.
See
SBRC's Black Strategy 6
for information about SBRC's present-day influence on the media.
6th November 2019
Involvement of Deputy Ombudsman
It is interesting that the Deputy Ombudsman at the time
dealt in person with some aspects of the matters
described in examples 1 and 2 above.
Kingaroar.com thinks that this public servant's handling of the case
was strongly biased in favour of WSC's wrongdoing.
In other words,
it appears that the Deputy Ombudsman
was strongly biased in favour of what is now
thought by some to be part of
a deliberate strategy aimed at maintaining
a rightwing conservative majority in the region.
The Queensland Ombudsman took no action
to remedy the incorrect actions of WSC
regarding the enforcement of the building regulations.
After two years of prevarication, all that the
Queensland Ombudsman decided that it could possibly do
was to inform WSC of what WSC already knew.
This was an appalling betrayal of the public interest
by an organisation that is supposed to protect the public interest.
It was clearly not foreseeable
to public servants at the time
that any failure to act in the public interest
would ever be brought to public attention.
The same public servant was later appointed to the
"Regional Conduct Review Panel"
and then to the "Councillor Conduct Tribunal".
It is relevant to mention Adermann Park in this context.
The Regional Conduct Review Panel assessed several complaints
against SBRC councillors in 2012,
relating to the sale of part of Adermann Park.
It dismissed all complaints except one complaint against Councillor Tessmann.
This was unusual.
Usually, the panel appeared to treat SBRC even more leniently.
It is thought by some that the only reason that any action at all
was taken by the panel in the Adermann Park matter
was because some of the complainants
appear to have been connected to the late Sir Charles Adermann,
who had been one of the most important rightwing politicians
in the history of the South Burnett.
It is most unusual for a rightwing faction to criticise SBRC.
However, this appears to have been a case of an offended rightwing faction
having been able to wield slightly more influence than SBRC.
Hence, instead of its usual total whitewash of SBRC,
the conduct review panel delivered a single minor penalty.
Click here
to see a report about the Adermann Park scandal.
The public servant is still a member of the
Councillor Conduct Tribunal.
Kingaroar.com can have no confidence in the ability of the
Councillor Conduct Tribunal to act in the public interest.
