A Tasmanian councillor has been given an interim reprieve from having to dismantle an alleged illegal cattle bridge, but the structure cannot be used while legal proceedings continue to play out.
Joseph Pentridge, who also uses the surname Pintarich, was elected to the council last October.
He is arguing to Tasmania's planning tribunal that he did not need a building permit to erect a 68-metre cattle bridge at Glebe Farm in Launceston, as it was replacing a previous bridge.
His own council is taking him to court, arguing the structure did need approval and it could exacerbate future flooding in the area if it is not removed because it has been erected on a flood plain.
The matter is both a civil and criminal one, with Mr Pentridge set to face the Launceston Magistrates Court on March 2 charged with four offences.
The council alleges 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 is yet to plead to any of the charges.
Mr Pentridge has also taken the matter to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative tribunal (TASCAT) and has appealed against building orders and enforcements requiring him to remove the bridge.
The council issued the building orders and enforcements last year and requested the bridge be removed by February 1.
On January 25, the tribunal issued a stay on those orders "until further order of the tribunal" meaning the bridge can stay for now.
However, it said clear signage had to be placed at each end of the bridge "warning members of the public to stay off the bridge".
The tribunal is yet to make a final ruling on the whole matter and has proposed a full hearing at the end of February.
Council concerned about flood risk
One of the main arguments the council made during Mr Pentridge's application for a stay was the risk of flooding.
It argued a stay was not in the public interest "because the bridge was not structurally sound and could exacerbate floods of the North Esk River".
The tribunal heard the bridge was only partially constructed as work ceased at the time the council issued the building orders.
"There are no gangways which connect the ends of the bridge to the ground level, to allow people, animals or vehicles to use the bridge," the tribunal's Fabian Brimfield wrote in the tribunal order papers.
It was particularly concerned that tie rods were "likely to be a significant trap for debris and logs" and could put a considerable lateral load on the structure.
"As there does not seem to be any lateral keepers provided to the bearings, the structure seems to have little capacity to withstand such lateral loads," said civil engineer David Coe who was called on by the council to give evidence.
However, civil engineer Rod Neville who was a witness for Mr Pentridge, argued the bridge was in place when the North Esk River flooded last October.
He said the bridge was inundated at the peak of the October flood and it did not suffer any structural damage.
The tribunal ruled that it was "satisfied that there is no great risk to public safety in the bridge remaining in situ until the determination of the appeals".
Building approvals in contention
The other main point the tribunal is trying to determine is whether approval for the construction of the bridge was needed.
The council said it was, but Mr Pentridge argues 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.
The tribunal ruled that the question of whether it needed approval or not was hard to determine without a full hearing.
"The fact that two eminently qualified bridge engineers are in disagreement about whether the bridge in question was permit building works or not highlights that this question should not be determined on an interlocutory basis and without a fulsome testing of the evidence," he said.
He said this could only occur "during the appeal hearing proper".
"Accordingly, the tribunal finds that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the bridge required a building permit."
Mr Pentridge was contacted for comment but declined due to the legal proceedings.
