"This has been stressful for staff...it has also been an expensive exercise for ratepayers," he said.
"(It has been) an unnecessary diversion for Council when more pressing matters such as O2NL, growth opportunities, housing and infrastructure, etc, required its attention."
Clapperton said the Tribunal's decision to strike out both Michael Feyen and Christine Toms' claim is not surprising.
"No-one should be under any illusion that elected members can award contracts on behalf of a Council. Or that ratepayers will fund work carried out by a person instructed by elected members."
More than seven years after the council building was built, Feyen and Campbell raised concerns about its structural safety, largely due to visible cracks in some areas of concrete in the carpark underneath the building.
"As a result, four engineering investigations of the building were undertaken and all four have concluded it is safe," he said.
Two structural engineering reports ordered by Council were carried out – one in 2014 and one in 2016. Both found the building was structurally sound and safe to occupy.
The 2016 report looked in detail at the concrete cracking issue, and concluded the cracks were the result of shrinkage and not a sign of structural failure.
In November 2016, Council resolved to support the two independent reports that stated the Council building is safe for occupancy and that no further ratepayers' resources be invested in this matter.
In December 2016 Michael Feyen privately funded another two engineering reports which also showed the building was safe.
"I can categorically state that at no time have Michael Feyen's reports been used by Council. A comparison on all of the reports was undertaken by consultants initially when the reports were provided to Council by Michael Feyen," he said.
"I would have been neglectful in my duties had I not proceeded with this initial comparison. That is the extent of use of the reports."
