First published 30 Oct 2026, 1:44pm
The owner of this property had a backyard gully filled in – with the whole process ending up in court.
An Aussie property owner who unleashed a digger to gouge soil from an unsuspecting neighbour’s backyard to fill in her ditch has been dragged before a court after triggering neighbourhood-wide flooding.
The rogue backyard-flattening scheme in a sleepy coastal village backfired spectacularly when a judge heard the excavator rolled straight across boundary lines to scoop up an adjoining owner’s yard without permission.
Boundary lines laid out in government maps show 181 and 46 back onto each other. Source: Qld govt/Qld Globe
Queensland Planning and Environment Court judge, Judge Williamson KC DCJ, heard that landholder Yelena Chkorbatov engaged contractor Johannus Josephus Slaats to carry out major earthworks across her block at 181 Esplanade, Woodgate, in the Bundaberg region.
Instead of paying to bring in commercial fill, heavy machinery was used to carve out hundreds of square metres of earth primarily from an adjoining parcel at 46 First Avenue, owned by Frances Anthony.
The unapproved earthworks pushed the “borrowed” dirt across the common boundary to smother a natural gully – leaving Ms Anthony’s yard gutted, distorting overland water paths and triggering flooding complaints from neighbouring blocks to the north and south.
Bundaberg Regional Council investigators attended the property in December 2024 after whistleblowers reported heavy machinery tearing up beachfront allotments.
In court, machine operator Mr Slaats made a formal admission against interest, confessing he committed a development offence under section 163(1) of Queensland’s Planning Act 2016 by carrying out assessable operational works without a permit.
File images of 181 Esplanade, Woodgate, QLD 4660 when it was last put up for sale showing where its boundary ends – and the neighbour’s yard begins.
Listing image of 46 First Avenue, Woodgate, QLD 4660 showing where its boundary ends.
Neither Ms Chkorbatov nor Mr Slaats opposed Council’s application for enforcement orders – with Ms Anthony telling the court she never agreed to the bulldozers ripping into her block.
Backing Council’s enforcement action, Ms Anthony agreed to orders forcing the rogue project to now be completely undone.
Judge Williamson shut the door on any attempt to regularise or retrospectively rubber-stamp the works.
With Ms Anthony flatly refusing to allow a development application over her gutted block, and engineering evidence proving a half-fix was physically impossible, the court ruled the entire site must be rectified.
Judge Williamson found the evidence proved the statutory breach at the “upper end of the Briginshaw scale” – the heightened legal test required to establish serious unlawful conduct.
Sworn evidence from Council engineer Mr Garrett revealed heavy machinery ripped up a 363-square-metre excavation zone while dumping fill across a 600-square-metre footprint.
On Ms Anthony’s lot, the dig slashed up to 0.5 metres into the earth, while fill was dumped more than 1.5 metres deep.
The beachfront in the sleepy suburb is still relatively untouched.
File images of trees on the 46 First Avenue block.
On Ms Chkorbatov’s land, cuts went up to 0.3 metres down, with fill also piled more than 1.5 metres high.
Mr Garrett testified that heavy plant simply pushed soil from Ms Anthony’s allotment into the gully, leaving the victim’s land in a ruined state with insufficient dirt left on site to rebuild its original pre-work contours.
The erased gully critically corrupted natural drainage channels in an area mapped under Council’s Flood Hazard Overlay. When rain hit, water began ponding on properties to the north and south.
Council records confirmed no development permit had ever been issued, nor had any exemption certificate been granted.
Under the planning scheme, excavation exceeding 50 cubic metres or fill over 10 cubic metres required formal code assessment.
Judge Williamson ordered the development offence be completely remedied by December 14, 2026, setting a court review to monitor Ms Chkorbatov’s compliance, while hitting her with Council’s legal costs.
Help us improve your reading experience
Got a minute? Your feedback will help us build a better experience for you.
