Judge to rule on whether works resume in millionaires’ pool spat

Wealthy Brisbane neighbours are locked in an ongoing court battle over plans for a luxury backyard pool and entertainment area.

Millionaire business owner Steven Baxter leaves the Supreme Court in Brisbane. Mr Baxter has an application before the courts which aims to interrupt his neighbours plans to build a pool and entertainment area above his Paddington property. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dan Peled

A defence barrister has argued a multi-millionaire’s court challenge against his neighbour’s plans for a backyard pool has little chance of success because there was no proof of a development offence

Prominent Brisbane architects and planners took the stand in the dispute between wealthy Paddington neighbours at the Planning and Environment Court on Thursday.

Multi-millionaire business owner Steven Baxter. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dan Peled

Multi-millionaire Steven John Baxter, founder of digital signage company Mandoe Media, has taken Anthony Steven Preston and Kylie Anne Preston to court over their plans to build retaining walls next to his property to support a swimming pool and outdoor entertaining area.

The trial, which began on Wednesday, got off to a slow start as the parties, including Brisbane City Council, debated whether Mr Baxter had provided the court with enough detail regarding his concerns with the planned works at the Preston’s property.

Architects impression of the rear of the pool at the centre of the legal battle.

Barrister Andrew Skoien on Thursday amended Mr Baxter’s application to the court after the council, in the days before the trial, issued approval to the Prestons for the works.

The court heard Mr Baxter still had concerns over filling works above his property.

Mr Skoien said the amendments aimed to refine issues in Mr Baxters’ application, which seeks declarations and enforcement orders relating to his neighbour’s planned works.

“The proceeding, as with previous orders in this court, had concerned all of the operational work by way of the filling in the backyard,” Mr Skoien said.

“That is now sought to be refined because there has been an operational works approval issued for those works.”

Lawyer David Hood, also for Mr Baxter, wrote to the Prestons earlier this year telling them that Mr Baxter was seriously concerned about the safety and stability of a substantial retaining wall directly uphill from his $8 million home, and running along the southern boundary of the Preston’s home.

An aerial view of the home.

Defence barrister Susan Hedge on Thursday said the Prestons still believed their neighbour hadn’t provided sufficient particulars about the works he took issue with.

She said her clients denied there was a development offence occurring at their property when Planning and Environment Court Judge William Everson in April ordered works to be temporarily suspended at the home.

She said the Prestons also denied there was proof any ongoing offences.

“We still don’t know exactly what is seen to have been the works that constitute the development offences,” Ms Hedge said

“That’s a very serious thing in the case of allegations of criminal offences in my submission.

“ … There is no utility in these proceedings and there was no utility on the first day because there is no development offence proved by them.”

Architect Bradley Muller, town planner Peter Catchlove and landscape architect Nathan Powell were cross examined on Thursday when the parties questioned them on visual impacts of the pool works, fill photographed on the site and the impacts of the steep nature of the street.

The trial will continue today when it’s expected the parties will also discuss whether an interim order halting works can be lifted.