Council says "fill the site" on top of the mountain.
However, not a teaspoon of fill is required to fill the front lots for lawful point of discharge
Side elevations-Ashridge Rd Lots above kerb by 1 metre
Council sham says "fill the site" three times.
The blocks are already high and mighty above the front kerb by .753 m to 1.9 m without a teaspoon of fill required. The proof is above staring at you for the world wide web to study every day.
Filling in dirt won't change the neighbour's stub height
Council sham plan to fill won't work.
Brisbane City Council have not done a side elevation like I have . Laziness? They would have then realised that no amount of fill can assist with the raising of the connection to the rear neighbours. Does the Development Services team have a caclulator? Please message me below if you are in the possession of Brisbane City Council calculations.
Fair dinkum. All surface and invert levels are provided by me and crosschecked and audited. As an accountant I have done tens of fraud audits for the largest chartered ccounting firm in the world, for eight years. 10,000 income tax returns. Licenced Australian Income Tax agent. 20 subdivisions. 3000 loans as a licenced mortgage broker, working with numbers every day. I have never seen a shan kije this before.
I have previously achieved lawful point of discharge in around 100 projects for myself and clients. No problem. Now we get a Brisbane City Council red line with "further detailed design required". "Markups only" What further design? No answer.
Can Council please tell the whole world what their calculations are. You have the chance here. I am waiting. Message me. Even easier- start writing your affidavits for the Planning Court please. I can publish your affidavits here.
Margaret Orr said in writing on 3/10/24 - "The delegate has taken all assessment matters into account" (Except the Council red line are "Markups only" "Further detailed design required. Who is more truthfull - Margaret Orr or the red stamp ? It can only be one or the other. The statements are mutually exclusive. "iassessed by Council's Development Services Team."
The Development Services Team whom remain silent
Margaret Orr
Joel Wake
Lucy Ting
Scott Ruhland
Tom Gibbs
Zarndra Piper
I.
Water falls to the rear of the development says the surveyor
Overall the existing water falls to the rear. Council wants to fill the rear for lawful point of discharge for the alleged upslope neighbours. Can anyone explain that to the Court judge ? . The judge says to Council Barrister - "Please explain this to me - the water flows through the development to the rear. But Council wants to fill up the property somehow to pervert the laws of gravity and get water to fall the other way to Ashridge Rd ? Is that correct ?"
Brisbane City Council have now had 16 weeks plus and still have not explained how their charged red line works.
I will say it again and again. It doesn't matter how much fill someone puts in the back yard this will never ever ever change the level of the Council proposed stub in the rear neighbours yard which needs to be 225mm pipe, 450 cover, total 675mm below the neigbours boundary. Brisbane City Council engineers haven't twigged yet.
Joel Wake of Brisbane City Council rang David Manteit on 1/10/24 (I didn't ring him). Joel Wake was asked 10 questions by David Manateit including if he had the red line calculations. Joel Wake said "no". I asked Joel Wake if he had assessed the application. Joel Wake said "no, but someone in Council assessed, Joel Wake said "you can call them" I said "who is them ? "
Joel Wake said "I don't know their names". I asked Joel Wake "Do you have a copy of the easement to be prepared by Council? " He said "no, I will try" . Minutes of phone conversation sent to Council on 1/10/24 No further response from Joel Wake in any way shape or form. That's 20 days and no Council easement document . What are you doing. Joel Wake? Are you awake or asleep?
Can Joel Wake please provide your affidavit to the Planning Court, as per orders requested filed 18/10/24, No, 2916/24. Case to be heard 18/11/24.
Calling engineers worldwide
As an engineer, can you make water go uphill?
A more conservative 1% fall and 600 cover charged by 1.212
The calculations get worse - 1.429m below kerb and chanel
The previous calculations on this website were done as per BSD 8111. These calculations were based on minimum standards. No room for error.
.5% fall,
450 cover,
15 litres per second maximum per lot = total 30 litres per second at the kerb and chanel.
However, if something went wrong in construction of the stormwater pipe by 1 millimetre, your house will have water under the slab and the slab will crack. $500,000 construction costs to rebuild.
Just imagine someone's house slab cracks and it is found that the pipe laid was one millimeter too high. The engineer had signed off on the construction accidentally by one millimetre wrong. No room for error of one millimetre. So the owner takes the engineer and Brisbane City Council
to Court for $500,000 replacement damages
Will Brisbane City Council take responsibility for it's minimum standards and a construction problem ?
Further problems. Let's say the pie is built to the minimum standard fall. However the original plumbing contractor -
Didn't compact the dirt under the bedding 10mm gravel
Didn't compact the 10mm drainage gravel under the pipe
Didn't compact the 10mm drainage gravel on top of the pipe.
Didn't compact the required spoon drain dirt on top of the drainage gravel on top of pipe.
The contractor's spoon drain had no legal point of discharge
The contractor's spoon drain fails and leaks into the cover, drainage gravel top and bottom of pipe, dirt below.
What a nightmare for Brisbane City Council and the owner of Lot 2 !!!!!
What if the plumbing contractor didn't compact the drainage gravel below the pipe in one place or another ?/
Brisbane City Council plan based on BSD 8111 is already charged between .984 m and 1.429m metre below kerb, being the lawful point of discharge.
So the above calculations are are more conservative calculations and may be what is acceptable to a Planning Court judge.
As previously mentioned, it is obvious that water falls from front to rear of the subject lot and to the right. How can water defy the laws of nature and flow through the development to Ashridge Rd when it wants to flow through the development to the rear of the property ?
Sign up for our newsletter
Stay up-to-date with the latest news, tips, and resources from Brisbane City Council Complaints by subscribing to our newsletter.
Compare the pair 128 and 134 Ashridge Rd approvals
128 Ashridge Rd Darra
Rear AHD 35.162
Front 35.250
Fall to rear .088
1) Fall over site - from 128 Ashridge Rd to rear neighbours
2) Fall at rear boundary - falls from 128 Ashridge Rd to rear neighbours
3) Physically impossible to build stormwater pipe that is not charged by one metre.
4) Approved in 63 days, No information request. No extension of time requested by Council.
END RESULT
Bisbane City Council requires stormwater pipe to DOWNSLOPE (not upslope) rear neighbours.
134 Ashridge Rd Darra
Rear AHD 32.0
Front AHD 32.0
Fall to rear = 0.00
1) Fall over site = no change
2) Fall at rear boundary - falls from rear neighbours to 134 Ashridge Rd site
3) Physically impossible to build stormwater pipe that is not charged.
4) Approved in 23 days
END RESULT
End result - Brisbane City Council does not require Stormwater pipe to rear neighbours.
Note. In respect of this point only - the site has fall from the rear neighbours to the approved site at the rear boundary but stiil no requirement to provide a stormwater pipe. So this is not one of the methods to assess if a rear property is an "Upslope property"
Sewerage stub in the middle of Sham stormwater pipe
Another Shambolic design problem Margaret Orr and the Development Team refuses to provide answers t
It is intended by the applicant to utilise the existing sewerage stub for future Lot 2 .
The sewerage stub of 100mm is owned by Urban Utilities.
There is an existing private drainage connection. There will be a future private drainage connection to the existing Urban Utilities sewerage pipe.
Margaret Orr , 3/10/24 - "The delegate took all assessment matters into account".
How is this possible when the approval conditions say sewerage is not assessed by Brisbane City Council ? A straight out lie from Margaret Orr, unless there is some other explanation for the Margaret Orr statement. Please email me straight away to come clean on this statement. Or better still . Provide an affidavit to the Court to explain how all assessment matters were taken into account including sewerage. (and another 63 questions.)
Or simply did Margaret Orr just believe delegate Joel Wake (sometimes he just calls himself an asssessment officer) ? There is no dispute that there is a conflict between Council statement } All matters were taken into account and Council statement " Council does not assess sewerage."
If you don't assess sewerage , that's your problem , not mine. If you don't ring David Manteit to enquire re where is the sewerage is going, that's laziness.
The applicant has no obligation to provide information in a development application where the proposed sewerage line wil go.
On those examples, the statement by Margaret Orr "The delegate took all assessment matters into account "is a straight out lie,or as Budget Blowout Bailey said "I misspoke". if there is no other explanation. Please email me with that explanation. I look forward to that . Fat chance after 70 days of silence.
Note however , Council does require final certificate from Urban Utilities.
The following Development Services Team members did not assess this matter because they didn't ring the applicant. They just placed a red line on the approved plan straight over an Urban Utilities sewerage line. Crikey. How dumb. There is no other way to say it.
Margaret Orr
Joel Wake
Lucy Ting
Scott Ruhland
Tom Gibbs
Zarndra Piper
This connection of private to Urban Utilities will have a new I/O (Inspection Outlet).
This connection will be vertical, in the middle of the Brisbane City Council easement of 900mm wide. The I/O will have a cap on top with three screws for inspection when there is a problem.
If the problem is in the Urban Utilities pipe, they are responsible for the mainenance..
If the problem is in the private drainage pipe, the land owner is reponsible.
Questions -
1) Can Brisbane City Council forward me a copy of the consent from Urban Utilities to have a vertical I/O sticking up through the heart of the proposed Stormwater Pipe ?
2) Can Brisbane City Council provide a statutory declaration signed by Margaret Orr stating that the proposed stormwater pipe and easement are not in conflict of the Zone of influence legislation Queensland Debevelopment Code of the sewerage pipe and stub proximity to the proposed stormwater pipe.
2) Can Brisbane City Council lodge with the Planning Court statutory declaration signed by all Development Services team members a 3d design of -
- the vertical I/O
- the sewerage pipe
- the private drain connection.
2) Can Brisbane City Council lodge with the Planning Court an affidavit of the consent from Urban Utilities for Brisbane City Council to have an easement over the same land that Urban Utilities has a statutory easement over ?
3) Can Brisbane City Council lodge an affidavit with the Planning Court a copy of the proposed easement document showing the arrangements if there should be a future requirement for Urban Utilities to excavate the land to either replace their 100mm sewerage pipe, or repair.
4) I have ordered a Council drainage for further clarity. Note Melinda of Brisbane City Council Service centre , 11.57 am 19/10/24 said to me "I warn you that Council cannot gurantee the accuracy of the Brisbane City drainage plan.
Please forward the applicant in affidavit form a guaranteed location of the sewerage stub and height in AHD, surface level, invert level, distance from all boundaries on Lot 2. Please put this in affidavit form, for Planning Court purposes. The judge needs this.
5) Margaret Orr, Team Leader, said in an email to David Manteit "They have been assessed by the Development Services Team" "All matters have been taken into account." Can Margaret Orr please provide an affidavit to state that this matter has been assessed, inaccordance with her previous statement "all matters have been taken into account"
6) Could any of the following Brisbane City Council Development Services Team advise which person assessed/addressed the design of the private drain to sewerage stub in the proposed easement plan and easement documentation Since Margaret Orr said on 3/10/24 that all matters have been taken into account.
Margaret Orr
Joel Wake
Lucy Ting
Scott Ruhland
Tom Gibbs
Zarndra Piper
Any budding engineers from around the world have a comment ?
If any engineer know how to drive a 100mm pvc pipe stake into a 225mm pvc pipe at right angle please message me.