R.I.P. 80-100 Year Old Walnut Tree--Killed by Mehrab-Khani and Hobart City Council Inaction

The whole of Bathurst Street in Hobart loved the old walnut tree. It was killed by Soheil Mehrab-Khani  (of www.developerkhani.com) with no enforcement or protection over a 2 year period from Hobart City Council. The weekend he took possesion of the property, he butchered the branches causing a "rot", as testified by arborist Jerry Romanski. No fines for this destruction were ever imposed on Mehrab-Khani by Council. In fact Council and Mehrab-Khani seem to be oblivious to the Tribunal Order:

When questioned over the lack of barrier at the Anti Discrimination Tribunal last week by Tony Jacobs, Mehrab-Khani responded that the barrier only needed to be up during excavation!  Even then it wasn't up except for the last few months after the roots had already been cut. So he either lied in court or had no idea what the Tribunal had ordered. The lack of action by Council for 2 yeas would suggest that Council also didn't know or didn't care.

In 2010 HCC Learns You Cannot Overturn A Tribunal Decision With An "Amended" Permit That Is "Substantially Different"

Five years ago a Tribunal ordered that a 80 year plus Walnut Tree be protected at a Development at 157-161 Bathurst St. It was attacked over a 3 year period in 2007 with a chainsaw, bobcat and various excavation machines. Eventually it was killed in 2010. The protagonist, a one Soheil Mehrab-Khani boasted to a neighbour in Bathurst Street that he "knew how to kill the tree". Indeed he did -- he cut the roots and Hobart City Council passes an Amended Permit to cut the tree down, ignoring the lack of boundary protection that was never put up..

Except that passing an amendment for a significant change of condition is illegal! And so it was defeated at Tribunal. A **NEW** permit is issued by HCC to overcome this. We are waiting for the outcome of this.

But here is the central point -- considering that this was news to Hobart City Council -- you cannot make "substantial" changes to an amended permit (Planner Liz Wilson notes this in an after the decision which I will get back to).......

So the question is, if HCC only discovered this point of law in November 2010 whilst fighting me and Barrister Tony Jacobs in a Tribunal, what have they been doing over the years?? How many properties have they steamrolled with "illegal" amended permits? I mean, how long has HCC been in business? And they don't know about a simple point in law regarding Tribunals? To me the implications are enormous. Many people have been wronged. Enough.

Here is the point. If you have been aggrieved by Hobart City Council, please let me know. I moved to Hobart 10 years ago and have never seen anything like this Council. I would like to document all the illegal tactics, the bully tactics, the covering up tactics and the incompetence that I have experienced with Hobart City Council.

By the way, Council never enforced the 3 metre protection zone ordered by the Tribunal except in the last months of the Development, at which time it was too late. I have letters and emails spanning 2 years asking Council to enforce the no-go zone. Nothing was ever done. And yet Council Lawyer Kirsten Turner writes a letter to me telling me that when Council received complaints about the tree they did an inspection and enforced an barrier! Yeah, right. After 2 years! I have no idea why she wants to put that spin to me when I have lived and documented this for years. Even when the barrier was put up it was failing in it's dimensions!