Bridge owners must erect warning signs

However, the Tasmanian Civil Administration Tribunal ordered that within seven days Mr Pentridge must erect clear signage on both ends of the bridge warning members of the public to stay off the bridge.

The Parks and Wildlife Department ordered on December 8, 2022 that the 68-metre steel bridge be removed by February 1.

READ MORE: Party In The Paddock ready to roll for 10th year celebration

TASCAT's decision to allow a stay of operation on the removal came after a preliminary hearing last Friday of appeals by Mr Pentridge about enforcement notices and building orders issued by the City of Launceston council.

TASCAT member Fabian Brimfield ruled that there were "serious questions" in relation to the enforcement notices under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act and building orders under the Building Act which must be heard in an appeal.

But Mr Brimfield dismissed an application by Mr Pentridge that the appeals should be delayed until after criminal proceedings brought by the council are heard in the Launceston Magistrates Court.

The proceedings, to which Mr Pentridge has made no plea, are next listed in the court on March 2, 2023.

"The appellants [Mr Pentridge] will be in a position of having to fight two battes where there will be some degree of overlap in terms of evidence and legal principles," he said.

TASCAT ordered that the appeals by Mr Pentridge, also known as Joseph Pintarich, and his two companies Holly Pty Ltd and Pentridge Pty Ltd, be held in the week beginning February 27.

The steel single-span bridge crosses the North Esk River north of the Henry Street bridge between two parcels of land owned by Holly Pty Ltd and Pentridge Pty Ltd which are known as Glebe Farm.

READ MORE: Injured boy transported 35 kilometres after rescue helicopter fails

Mr Pentridge has said the bridge would be used as a cattle crossing. He has also argued that the bridge replaces a wooden bridge which was in place between 1945 and 1973.

The TASCAT decision noted that Mr Pentridge did not pursue a claim that he did not own the land on which the bridge abutments sat but that it was Crown reserve.

The appeal is expected to look at whether the previous bridge allowed an exemption to the LUPA enforcement notice and whether a building permit was actually required under the Building Act.

Experts from either side differ over whether a building permit is required.

READ MORE: Medical staff welcome graffiti cover up

In considering the stay application, Mr Brimfield considered the safety of the bridge saying "it would require a significantly determined person who was cavalier with their own safety to mount and use the bridge".

The council's safety concern encompassed the possibility of the bridge exacerbating the effects of a flood or structurally failing.

The engineering expert called by council, David Coe, said during a flood tie rods on the bridge would trap debris and logs causing damage and the possibility of non-ductile failure.

READ MORE: First Nations death in custody opens call for improvements for justice

Mr Pentridge's expert Rod Neville said the bridge survived the October 2022 floods with negligible damage.

"The tribunal is satisfied that there is no great risk to public safety in the bridge remaining in situ until the determination of the appeals," the decision says.

Under the TASCAT Act, the appeals are to be heard and determined by March 22, 2023.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: