A Launceston councillor has reached an agreement with his own council to dismantle an alleged illegal cattle bridge he built on his property.
Joe Pentridge, who also uses the surname Pintarich, was elected to the Launceston City Council last October.
He had argued in Tasmania's planning tribunal that he did not need a building permit to erect a 68-metre steel cattle bridge at Glebe Farm in Launceston last year, as it was replacing a previous bridge.
Launceston council took him to court, arguing the structure did need approval.
It said the bridge could exacerbate future flooding in the area if it was not removed because it has been erected on a flood plain.
The matter became both a civil and criminal one, with Mr Pentridge facing the Launceston Magistrates Court charged with four offences.
The council will drop criminal charges once he dismantles the bridge.
'Pretty disappointed'
Chief executive officer Michael Stretton said he was pleased the matter had been resolved.
"The council is pleased that all parties have come together to achieve a mutually agreed process to address this matter," he said.
"The council will consider the matter to be closed once the TASCAT (Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) agreement is concluded."
Mr Pentridge has until the end of April to remove the bridge.
"I've agreed to pull the bridge down so we will decide whether to start the process again," he said.
"We're a bit sick of the process so we will just remove it. We will make a decision about whether to continue on and try to do it again.
"It's pretty disappointing though."
The council had alleged the land was developed without a permit, that works did not comply with the Building Act and the National Construction Code, there was no valid building permit and the work was performed in a hazardous area.
Mr Pentridge had also taken the matter to TASCAT, appealing against building orders and enforcements requiring him to remove the bridge.
A hearing on the issues was held at the tribunal earlier this year.
The tribunal issued a stay on the removal of the bridge "until further order of the tribunal" meaning the bridge could stay momentarily.
The other main point the tribunal was trying to determine was whether approval for the construction of the bridge was needed.
The council said it was, but Mr Pentridge argued it was merely replacing a wooden cattle bridge formerly used in the same spot.
The tribunal heard that a wooden bridge was used from about 1945 to 1973, but no bridge existed between 1973 and April last year.
