PROPERTY DREAMS CRUSHED
PROPERTY owners have been told their dream homes may have to be demolished because they were built without development approval.
Devastated clients of Adrian Hill’s failed company AB Hill Constructions contacted the Bulletin this week because they have been told they may not qualify for the building commission’s mandatory insurance scheme.
For one house in luxury Monaco Street, the Gold Coast City Council finally sent out an officer after a year of complaints from a neighbour of illegal work.
Mr Hill denies he has done anything wrong.
GOLD Coast City Council officers granted development approvals to a now-collapsed building company when construction of the new homes was already under way or complete.
However, some homes built by Adrian Hill’s failed company AB Hill Constructions are all but complete without development approval, leaving neighbours in shock and homeowners with potentially worthless insurance.
Several devastated clients contacted the Bulletin this week as they battle to claim under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission’s mandatory Home Warranty Scheme.
Some have been told their dream homes may have to be demolished.
The QBCC yesterday said it had 16 open complaints about AB Hill, including seven for incomplete homes, and that its insurance scheme would not pay out on claims for unapproved developments.
“The homeowner can obtain development approval and the claim will proceed as normal,” a statement from the commission said.
“If the owner cannot get development approval, they can make a claim under the scheme for demolition of the work and for a refund of the amount paid under the contract to the contractor.”
For one of the houses, it took numerous complaints and more than a year for the council to send an officer to the site after a neighbour reported the illegal work on a waterfront home on Monaco St at Broadbeach Waters.
That home, more than 10.4 metres high among its singlestorey neighbours, has three storeys and a lift and is nearly complete despite council records showing it has not been approved.
But Mr Hill, whose company licence was suspended three times last year before being permanently cancelled in January, denies he’s done anything wrong.
“There’s a building approval for Monaco St — we’re just still waiting for approval for the third storey,” he said.
“It’s in council and we’re waiting for a decision — we have advice that it’s going to be approved.”
In a response to questions asked about the homes two days ago, council’s media department sent a statement confirming the development had not been approved.
“Compliance investigations undertaken by officers have resulted in a development application being made at Monaco St which seeks to lawfully establish the proposed partial third-story dwelling,” the statement said.
“If a development application is lodged retrospectively it does not increase the likelihood of approval.
“Council will take compliance action where a development has either occurred without an approval or where it is not being carried out in accordance with an approval.”
The council would not say why their compliance action took so long, why they did not act on the neighbours’ complaints before the home was nearly finished, or why builders should bother seeking approval before construction when they could apparently go ahead and build without it.
When neighbours Dale and Lexia Kleimeyer were finally given the chance to formally object to the proposal, they lodged a 36-page submission.
It included an engineer’s report showing the building’s unapproved height was bouncing previously inaudible noise from Bundall Rd straight at their home.
“This was supposed to be where we retire and spend the rest of our lives,” Ms Kleimeyer said. “Now all we want to do is go.”
Other neighbours also objected to the home — but construction was close to completion before public consultation began.
At least three AB Hill homes commenced construction at a higher density than zoned and with approvals not in place for partial third storeys before work commenced.
In the case of the Monaco St home, and another in the same suburb, old houses were demolished without approval and work on the new homes also began before proper approvals were obtained.
Asked about one of the jobs that did not have approval before demolition or construction work began, Mr Hill blamed his private certifier for not submitting documents on time.
Further frustrating subbies and clients is the fact Mr Hill still holds a flawless individual licence as a nominee, leaving him free to work for other builders as a supervisor.
His company was wound up last month after a creditor took Supreme Court action against it.
Liquidator Mark Davidson, of Pearce & Heers, said 12 subcontractors had so far contacted the firm with debt claims totalling more than $400,000. He expected the number to rise.
Police were called to one of Mr Hill’s former work sites on Tuesday after someone spraypainted “pay tradesman or burn” across the new fence.
Queensland Fire and Rescue crews have been spotted patrolling the area since and Mr Hill yesterday denied the vandalism was related to AB Hill.
The QBCC said it had started exclusion proceedings against Mr Hill.
“The proceedings require that Mr Hill be given 28 days in which to make submissions about why he should not be excluded,” the regulator said in a statement.
“Otherwise, his individual licence may be cancelled, leading to his exclusion from the industry for three years.