Corrupt Liars and Water Districts; by resolution the Water Authority deceives everyone.
The Water Authority was responsible for water supply within a defined area known as the Kyneton Waterworks District, within that district was a sub district known as the Kyneton Urban District. Property owners within the urban district had an absolute entitlement to water under s208 of the Water Act in that so long as they had tendered their rates they were simply entitled to open and break up the ground and connect with the water main of the Water Authority. Within its Waterworks District but outside the Urban District the Water Authority, at its discretion, could provide water pursuant to a Water Agreement with an owner of land but the Water Authority could not provide water outside the Waterworks District except with the consent of the Governor in Council.
Now the Water Authority had two major problems, the Tylden Rd land was in an area which could only be supplied pursuant to a Water Supply Agreement and it had unlawfully called on my guarantees and unlawfully constructed works to unlawfully provide water to the land in that subdivision all without a pertinent Water Supply Agreement, secondly the Woodleigh Heights subdivision was substantially outside the Waterworks District and many of the allotments subject to the agreement were entirely outside and the consent of the Governor had neither been sought nor obtained.
By 1984 my Woodleigh Heights land was under contract of sale to WHRD. There appeared to be no further need for the unlawful Water Supply Agreement with WHRD so the Water Authority went about legitimising both illegal water supplies. On 8th November 1984, the Water Authority sealed a plan which enlarged its Water District to include the Woodleigh Heights land, and also increased its Urban district to include both the Woodleigh Heights land and the Tylden Rd land.
So all seemed sweet, the “proviso” seemed safe. Then a problem for the Council arose, my mortgagee, AGC, wanted to sell my land by Mortgagees Auction and the “proviso” was in danger again.
My land was scheduled to be auctioned by AGC on 17th November 1984. However as described above AGC’s attempt to sell the land was successfully sabotaged in a coordinated effort by the Council, the Water Authority and WHRD.
After cancelling its proposed auction, AGC wrote identical letters dated 29th November 1984 to both the Council and Water Authority and enquired as to the availability of sewerage and mains reticulated water and to advise as to whether bore water could provide an alternative supply.
By this stage, late 1984, Porter had retired, no doubt on a handsome package and a David Parkinson had replaced him as joint secretary of the Council and Water Authority.
The Water Authority responded to AGC by letter dated 7th December 1984 and said;
“The matter is complicated because of both the Board’s existing water and wastewater agreements with the management of Woodleigh Heights and the Shire of Kyneton’s requirements for the issue of building permits.”; and;
“The Board’s Engineers, Garlick and Stewart, are to report back to the Board after consideration of all of the factors involved with your proposal.” (my emphasis)
The Council responded by letter dated 20th December 1984 and said;
“……the issue of building permits is to remain conditional upon the development being serviced by reticulated water and sewerage.”
At the time of writing these coordinated letters, both the Council and Water Authority were aware that: all allotments within the subdivision were entitled to the 1979 “reticulated water supply” and additionally the Water Authority had sealed a plan which increased the Urban District so my land was soon to be absolutely entitled to connect to the Water Authority’s water pursuant to s.208 of the Water Act, and sewerage was not a condition of any Planning Permit. So in other words at the time of writing those letters my land had lawful right of access to two water supplies, firstly the private “reticulated water supply” and secondly a statutory entitlement to water from the Water Authority but both the Council and Water Authority, not to mention PS&R and WHRD, wished to protect the “proviso” so the Water Authority embarked on an incredible process of deceit.
For the purpose of “commenting” on AGC’s request for information, Mr. Peter Charles Everist of the Water Authority’s Engineers, Garlick & Stewart, wrote to the Water Authority by letter dated 20th February 1985, apparently after having been “coached” by the Council and/or Water Authority in exactly what he should say in respect to “all of the factors”.
Peter Everist’s letter, amongst other things, says: (with my comments interposed)
“Internal reticulation is the property and responsibility of Woodleigh Heights Resort Development.”
This is false, but consistent with the misrepresentations of the Water Authority. Internal reticulation was clearly in the areas marked “common property” and was therefore manifestly common property, owned by the Body Corporate.
“All of the land in the development is known under the name of Woodleigh Heights Resort Development Pty. Ltd. Notices of Acquisition and Deposition have not been received by the Shire……..”
This is not a usual thing for a water engineer to concern himself with! Note that he uses the word “Deposition”, it appears he was not even aware that the document is in fact a Notice of Disposition. The land was known by both the Council and Everist to be under a number of owners, not just Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments.
“The shire sealed the subdivision into separate lots and further subdivision into clusters with the proviso that the lots would remain as part of the total resort development.”
There was no “proviso” related to the initial subdivision in 1978. The further subdivision however was done with that secret and unlawful “proviso” (For discussion on “Proviso” see Chapter 8 part 4)
Peter Charles Everist, water engineer, then went on to say:
“The resort is not in the Board’s Sewerage District or Urban Water District.” (my emphasis)
This was only true because the plan sealed by the Water Authority on 8th November 1984 had not yet been approved by the Governor in Council or gazetted. However, the Water Authority knew that the plan had been forwarded to the Governor and would soon be gazetted, and the land would be within the Urban Water District, and s.208 of the Water Act would apply.
“It is considered that reticulated water and sewerage would be available ………. subject to the conditions of the Agreements with the Board and under the ownership of Woodleigh Heights Resort Development Pty. Ltd”.
This established that, from an engineering or water supply point of view, water could be made available. However Everist, water engineer, added the rider that the supply should be subject to the Agreement and only under the ownership of WHRD, when the Water Authority, and possibly Everist, knew full well the agreement was unlawful.
“However, if lots 7, 10, 12 and 27 are under different ownership then it is recommended that the Board refuse the supply of reticulated water……” (my emphasis).
So Everist, water engineer, recommended against the supply of water based upon ownership rather than water pressure considerations. I say there are excellent grounds for a belief that Everist was coached by the Council and Water Authority to say that water could not be made available and he said exactly what he was told to say. I don’t believe he checked the rate records or the file containing notices of disposition (or “deposition” as he calls it). Water engineers do not form policy as to who does or does not get water according to ownership.
The letter from Peter Charles Everist was fully transcribed into the Water Authority’s minutes of 6th March 1985 and the Council and Water Authority had a major problem in respect to implementing the “proviso”.
Despite being coached as to what to say, Everist, the water engineer said that from an engineering point of view, water was available to my land. This was not part of the carefully laid plans of the Water Authority where the Engineer was supposed to say that water could not be made available, full stop.
An additional problem for this corrupt little water authority was that the plan extending the Urban District had been sealed and forwarded to the Minister for Governor in Council approval and was soon to be gazetted in the Government Gazette, after which I/my land would be statutorily entitled to water.
Faced with these problems, their obligation to respond to AGC and their need to give effect to the “proviso”, at its meeting of 6th March 1985 where Everist’s letter was transcribed into their minutes the Water Authority resolved “that no action be taken” in respect to responding to AGC. In other words, it resolved not to respond to the letter of AGC at that time. (it would be interesting to have been a fly on wall and know what was not recorded in the minutes)
Then, at its meeting of 3rd April 1985, the Water Authority recorded in its minutes the fact that the Woodleigh Heights subdivision (including my land) was inside the Urban District and properties within the Urban District had a statutory entitled to water. At that meeting the Water Authority then, without explanation, went on to resolve to excise the area which included Woodleigh Heights from the Urban District and thereby deliberately remove my statutory entitlement to water.
The plan extending the Water District and the Urban District of the Water Authority was gazetted on 27th March 1985. So, as and from that date, my land had an absolute statutory right to water pursuant to s.208 of the Water Act 1958.
As the Water Authority had, at its meeting of 6th March 1985, resolved to take no action, and accordingly did not respond to AGC, then AGC again enquired by letter dated 9th April 1985 and said: “Your formal communication conveying the Board’s determination to our request of 29/11/84 would be appreciated.”, and “It is believed that the matter was dealt with 6/3/1985.”
This new request from AGC was transcribed into the Water Authority’s minutes of 1st May 1985 at which time my land which AGC was inquiring about was squarely, completely, utterly, at law, entitled to water.
Knowing that water was available from an engineering point of view and from a statutory entitlement under s.208 of the Water Act, the Water Authority’s minutes of 1st May 1985 merely recorded “received” in relation to AGC’s request, apparently determining not to respond to AGC until they had fraudulently “fixed” the problem that my land was entitled to water by law and that the “proviso” endangered.
At the same meeting of 1st May 1985, in full knowledge of the things set out above and its duty to advise AGC that water was available by statutory right, the Water Authority went on to seal a further plan excising the Woodleigh Heights land from the Urban District thereby intending to deliberately remove the statutory right to water from my land.
Then, four days later, by letter dated 3rd May 1985, in knowledge of the above, the Water Authority wrote to AGC and said: “….. I advise that the Board is not in a position to supply water to allotments for which you are mortgagee in possession in C.A. 41 occupied by Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments Pty. Ltd.” and “The Board does not wish to repeat itself in this matter as you appear to be requesting.”
Three days later, by letter dated 6th May 1985 the Water Authority forwarded the new plan diminishing the Urban District to the Department of Water Resources for subsequent approval by the Governor in Council and gazettal.
The Water Authority’s letter of 3rd May 1985 was received by AGC on 6th May 1985. Mr. Des Roberts of AGC was offended by the response. As a consequence, on 7th May 1985, Mr. Roberts telephoned the Council and Water Authority’s Joint Secretary, Mr. David Parkinson. The handwritten notes of Mr. Roberts say;
“S/W [spoke with] Parkinson. This is inadequate and cheeky, this is only official refusal and needs to be enlarged upon. If we are being forced to sell without services …… property will probably not attract a bid let alone an adequate price.”
By letter dated 7th May 1985, one day after sending the new plan to be approved by the Governor in Council and in full knowledge that the plan had not yet been so approved or gazetted, the Water Authority, having been prompted by Mr. Roberts, again replied to AGC and said;
“Water has been supplied to Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments Pty. Ltd. as an outside of the water area agreement on the basis that all costs for construction of the mains were paid for by that company.” and “The Board therefore has no mechanism by which the allotments referred to may be supplied with water except with the agreement of Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments Pty. Ltd.” and “…. a Shire permit to build will not be issued ….. …. unless the blocks are supplied with water.”
At the time of writing this letter, the Council and Water Authority both knew it to be false and intended to deceive and defraud, a) because the water supply agreement was unlawful; and b) because the land was still entitled to water from the Water Authority under s208 of the Water Act until the new plan was gazetted; and c) because my land was always entitled to the 1978 water supply and there was no impediment to building permits; and; d) it was irrelevant who paid for the mains, under the Water Act any mains laid pursuant to a Water Supply Agreement were at law “deemed to have been constructed by and shall be vested in the Authority”.
The plan excising the Woodleigh Heights land from the Urban District was not gazetted until July 1985. The land was squarely in the Urban District, and entitled at law to water from the Water Authority, until that time. It of course remained entitled to the 1978 supply, but these corrupt little men concealed that as well.
The Water Authority deliberately and by resolution fraudulently deceived Mr. Des Roberts of AGC and myself.
A little humorous aside (if it wasn’t so damn serious);
in 1989 one of the Councillors who was horrified by all of this, Cr Joff Allen forced two special meetings of the council and Water Authority and I was permitted to address these meetings, At the second meeting I had the documentary evidence of the things I have described in this chapter prepared in little bundles to distribute to the assembled Councillors and Water Authority members, I distributed those bundles and went through it step by step and directly to their assembled faces.
I demonstrated their dishonesty and told them outright to their faces that they were dishonest.
By agreement the proceeding was taped, the council had their fancy dual tape recording machine on a table in the middle of this large horseshoe shaped table around which they all sat, my recorder was on the floor near a power outlet up the head near where the Shire President was sitting, at the end of the meeting my assistant and witness Chris Robson went to collect my tape machine, the then Shire President, Bill Hickey, then grabbed the tape from my recorder and refused to hand it over saying that there was incriminating evidence on it, I raced to that end of the table to restrain the president from leaving while my friend ran to get the police, my friend was part way down the stairs when one or two of the councillors prevailed on the President to hand the tape back. I called to my friend as he got to the front door. The president was also a Water Authority member, he was so flustered he could not think straight, of course there was incriminating material on the tape, but the hard evidence was in their records and I had the copies. Joff Allen was horrified by my problems and what was occurring but did nothing, he told me he was constrained by council solidarity and majority decisions. A couple of months later MCL sold my land to Deckwood. Unfortunately the behaviour of the Bill Hickey was missing from my tape because he was holding my tape at the time.