Lance Vater appeals Burnside Council emergency order for placing shipping containers at his Wattle Park property

A contentious shipping container placed on its end on a hillside property is a “threat to safety”, according to a legal letter filed in court.

Lance Vater is appealing an emergency notice from Burnside Council who say the upright container is a threat to safety. Picture: Tait Schmaal.

A shipping container placed vertically at a Wattle Park property is a “threat to safety”, according to a legal letter filed in court.

Lance Malcolm Vater, the joint owner of 55 Wyfield Street, is appealing an emergency order issued by Burnside Council last August for placing the container “vertically on the land near the driveway access off Knox Terrace”.

The council says the shipping container was a “threat to safety” and he had breached sections of the Development Act by undertaking works without approval.

It also issued an enforcement notice, prohibiting Mr Vater from engaging in development work while also directing Vater to remove seven shipping containers alleged to be on the land and reinstating the earthworks said to have been performed on the land.

In a legal letter from the council to Mr Vater in August last year, tabled with the Environment, Resources and Development Court, the council had received “a number of complaints about activities occurring on the land”.

Mr Vater’s shipping container triggered a raft of complaints from neighbours. Picture: Tait Schmaal.

At the time, Mr Vater was instructed to remove the containers, cease building work and earthworks and to reinstate the land to the state it was in prior to the earthworks.

“The council is concerned that the shipping container that is placed vertically is a threat to safety in the event of a strong wind event and has issued you with the enclosed emergency order,” the letter stated.

“It strongly recommends you have the vertical container removed (by September, 2020) rather than relocated elsewhere during that intervening period.

“Given the amount of activity that has occurred on the land, the council suspects that you have intentions of undertaking further development.”

Vater unsuccessfully sought retrospective approval from the council’s assessment panel last month for the placement of seven containers at his property.

However, Vater, in his own submission to the court, said both the notice and order were “ambiguous and uncertain” and therefore invalid.

“The order (and notice) contains allegations that are incorrect,” Vater submitted.

“The shipping container placed vertically does not present a threat to safety.”

He also argued placing containers on the land did not constitute a change of use of the land, building work or a development and did not require approval.

“The placing of shipping containers on the land on a temporary basis does not require development approval,” Vater submitted.

“The placing of shipping containers... as a security measure for the security of tools and equipment does not require development approval.”

The matter will return to court in next week.