Moorooka man’s epic battle with Council over $2700 fine for walk-in wardrobe

A Brisbane man says he is exhausted, frustrated and resigned to paying a hefty fine after an epic nine-month battle with Council bureaucrats over a walk-in wardrobe.

An Annerley man who spent nine months trying to overturn a $2700 fine for his “non-compliant’’ walk-in wardrobe says he is too exhausted to keep up his battle with overzealous Council officers.

Terry Brockhall’s battle for justice saw Council officers secretly record his conversations, pleas to Council’s CEO and its disputes commissioner, letters to the Lord Mayor and his local councillor, as well as attempts to get help from the Queensland Ombudsman.

Six months after Mr Brockhall was slapped with the fine, for recycling 10 wooden palings from his rotted front verandah to use in the new wardrobe, he has called it quits.

“I’m exhausted. I was beaten into submission,’’ he said.

Terry Brockhall has fought a $2700 Council fine for nine months for a minor aspect of a home renovation involving 10 verandah palings. Picture: John Gass

“There was no point taking it to the magistrates court for a $2700 fine because that’s only two hours worth of a barrister’s time.

“I’ve now paid the first instalment of the fine and will be paying it off, $60 a month, for the next 48 months.’’

He said the irony was that the sorry saga never would have happened if he had not “dobbed himself in’’ for minor aspects of the reenovation, worth nearly half a million dollars.

“I got a call and the officer said they had good news, they would not take me to court,’’ he said.

“They told me that because I had been cooperative I would only get the lowest penalty infringement notice, but said I could go through a three-stage appeals process if I wanted.’’

Council Civic Cabinet Chair for City Planning, Adam Allan, said Mr Brockham received a fine after unapproved demolition to a pre-1947 home.

“The application for this work was received after it was undertaken and there was no intention to reinstate, like-for-like, the demolished part of the home,’’ Cr Allan said.

The "ugly duckling'' house before Mr Brockhall renovated it.

How Mr Brockhall's house now looks.

Moorooka ward Councillor, Steve Griffiths, said it was yet another example of “one rule for residents and one for developers’’.

Cr Griffiths said a childcare centre developer escaped with no fine after breaching its approval conditions and demolishing a character house only 2km away.

According to that project’s conditions, approved by council, “partial demolition resulting from this approval must be in accordance with the APPROVED DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS (Council’s emphasis) and all building work must comply with this condition’’.

“Retain all existing external original fabric in the sections of the building which are not being demolished,” the conditions continued.

“This will include, but is not limited to, existing decorative detailing, balustrading, wall cladding, windows, doors, stairs and roof sheeting.’’

In contrast, Mr Brockhall was slapped with a fine for recycling 10 wooden palings from his rotted front veranda to help build a walk-in wardrobe.

All that's left of the house at the Beaudesert Rd childcare centre site. The centre has still not been built.

The Beaudesert Rd character house before its demolition.

“What I see from Terry is a genuine attempt to do the right thing, so it seems obscene Council spends so much time on him when he worked with an architect and town planner,’’ Cr Griffiths said.

“He improved the house and retained it but the (childcare centre property) was completely demolished. It’s just bizarre.’’

Mr Brockhall said the problems began when he was trapped interstate in 2020 at the start of his dream to convert an “ugly duckling house’’ into something he wanted to pass down to his children.

He was under the impression that if building works were kept within the roof line, planning permission was not necessary.

Mr Brockhall in the walk-in wardrobe Council officers did not like. Picture: John Gass

The only extension outside the property was to a one-vehicle carport, which he had made into a two-car structure.

But he did not want his children left to deal with a non-compliant structure, so after construction started he submitted a development application (DA).

His builder told him Council officers approved it, with the exception of a new gable entrance on the fence line, the removal of the verandah palings and the walk-in wardrobe.

So he decided to check the legality of those changes with Council.

He said he was passed between several departments before being told the verandah and wardrobe were a problem.

But his offer to reinstate the verandah palings and change the wardrobe were rejected, he claimed.

Cr Steve Griffiths on Mr Brockhall’s verandah. He says the case is an example of double standards. Picture: John Gass

Instead, after a secretly recorded on-site visit by a Council officer, he was called six months ago to tell him about the fine.

The disputes commissioner told him it could not hear the matter, the Ombudsman said it was outside their jurisdiction and the CEO outlined Mr Brockhall’s appeal options, but did not intervene.

Cr Griffiths said his letters to Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner and CEO Colin Jensen went unanswered.