Woman Escapes Planning Enforcement Fine Of $304,000 For Unauthorised Extension To A Property
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Angelina Crowe Velasquez appeared in the Summary Court today, August 20, 2025, to face a charge of failing to comply with an enforcement notice. Reportedly, Velasquez had an unauthorised building extension at her property. After hearing arguments in court, the Chief Magistrate gave Velasquez a 12-month conditional discharge. No conviction will be recorded if she does not re-offend within this period. She was ordered to pay $500 in court costs by October 31, although the total fine calculated by Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was $304,000.
Background
According to explanations in court, the extension to Velasquez’s property was a self-contained room with a bathroom and kitchen.
Reportedly, the extension was discovered when an enforcement officer conducted a site inspection and observed the building extension. When the structure was checked online, it was confirmed that the extension was unauthorised.
A follow-up check of the online planning system showed that no application had been submitted.
Subsequently, another site inspection was conducted, and the unlawful addition was still present.
Reportedly, an enforcement notice was sent to an old P.O. Box address associated with her deceased father. She only became aware when an officer visited her house shortly after her father’s death.
Upon receiving the notice, she quickly engaged an architect and initiated the planning process, demonstrating a reasonable effort to resolve the issue.
Explaining the consequences, DPP Crown Counsel said that a person committing an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine of one thousand dollars for every day after the first day during which the requirements of the enforcement notice (other than the discontinuance of any use of land) remain unfulfilled.
Setting out the dollar amount of the fine in this case, DPP Crown Counsel said that 299 days elapsed, and based on this, the statutory penalty would be $299,000. He added that when the ancillary cost of $5,000 was added, the total fines were $304,000.
After analysing the information presented, the Chief Magistrate accepted that in the circumstances Velasquez did not get the notice sent to the relevant mailbox, and whilst it is not an excuse, it does add to Velasquez’s mitigation.
The Chief Magistrate added:
I’ve also noted that shortly after you came to court, you had provided proof that you engaged an architect and you have moved quickly and reasonably to get everything resolved.
You’ve not wasted any time once this matter was brought to your full attention and you understood you did everything that you were supposed to do.
The Chief Magistrate continued:
You’re not a person of any substantial means, and in all the circumstances, I see no reason to give you a full conviction.
Therefore it’s a conditional discharge.
If [within] the 12 months you don’t come before me in relation to anything, you will have no conviction recorded.
However, you will pay $500 as costs to the crown.
