In this big bad ugly world of bureaucracy, it’s incredibly difficult to know what and whom to believe – especially if contradictory advice is given by the same source! We just have to wonder why one individual is told ‘no it can’t be done’ and another individual is given an official order to do exactly what individual one wanted done! Are great big porkies being told? – or is this just another example of sheer bureaucratic bastardry, or we simply can’t be bothered doing anything about your case? What’s particularly disappointing about this whole set of circumstances is that poor old Neil Pilling, and Forge in recent times, have had their names attached to these formal letters without we presume any questioning. Here’s what we’ve learnt.
A resident from a local walking group wrote off to council complaining about fences on a property that obscured sightlines and hence were unsafe for pedestrians and traffic. The response from council with Pilling’s name attached said in part: “Following an inspection of the subject site, it was noted that sightlines for motorists exiting the ROW are obscured by the high fence at (address deleted)….In order to substantially improve sight lines between motorists and pedestrians, the subject fence needs to be splayed. However, as this property is already developed, Council cannot require the owners of this property to lower their fence at this stage”.
So, we’re told that there’s nothing that good ol’ Glen Eira Council can do until there is another ‘redevelopment’. Tough luck for pedestrians, kids riding cycles, and motorists. It’s very strange then, that ON THE EXACT SAME DAY THAT THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN, we have another letter, signed by John Bordignon and written to a different resident. In this case, after years of the house being completed, the resident was officially ordered to:
“demolish and remove the illegal building work, being the section of fencing from the eastern and western timber paling fences, within three metres of the street alignment to a maximum height of 1.5 metres from natural ground level in accordance with the Building Regulations 2006”.
They were given 30 days to comply with this order! We also note that the Building Act, 1993 at Section 106(d) states: “the building, land or place or building work on the building, land or place is a danger to the life, safety or health of any member of the public or of any person using the building, land or place or to any property” then an order may be issued. This surely belies the advice given to Resident 1 and is more reprehensible since there is an admission that ‘sightlines’ are obscured and hence logically, create an unsafe environment.
COMMENT
How on earth can two contradictory statements be made about an identical issue? Is this nothing more than an attempt by this council to fob off a resident’s legitimate concerns by resorting to what can only be interpreted as a blatant untruth? Or again, is this just mere incompetence or plain old sloth – we just can’t be bothered? Perhaps it’s even bureaucracy deciding to flex its muscles because the second resident decided to seek legal advice? As we’ve stated before, such incidents do nothing to endear this bureaucracy to residents and certainly destroy any faith that anyone should have in their pronouncements, professionalism and actions. In permitting their names to be attached to such letters, councillors are complicit in these untruths and they are the ones who end up carrying the can – not those who are, and should be held responsible.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 5, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Poor Pilling and Forge. Like lambs to the slaughter, whilst the overpaid real culprits get off scot free. Glen Eira, how about setting up a po.box so all residents can send you the rubbish that council gives them since not everyone might have a scanner. That should make a really good file of blunders, lies, and bullshit.
March 5, 2012 at 10:49 AM
A good rule-of-thumb is not to believe anybody unless they’re prepared to substantiate their claims. Reliance on “authority” is a poor substitute. In this particular set of cases:
(1) Council has relied on its authority to order the height of a fence to be reduced without the courtesy of a detailed explanation why. [Its not sufficient to refer vaguely to Building Regulations 2006.]
(2) Council has not given a satisfactory account of the true nature of standards and guidelines covering driveway safety.
Since I don’t have all the facts, Council may be correct about the fence height. I doubt it though. Did the property require a Planning Permit, and they haven’t complied with the Permit? The reference to BR2006 makes it sound like a Planning Permit was not required. Then there’s the comment about “eastern and western paling fences”, which sure sounds like we’re talking about side fences, not a front fence. What does Council claim BR2006 requires for side fences? [Hint: different rules apply, and I don’t believe the first 3m of side fences have to have a height of no more than 1.5m.]
If one reads through the Planning Scheme, it lists the objective for front fences: “To encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character”. There is no mention of safety. Safety is dealt with separately, with respect to driveway design, where AS/NZS-2890.1:2004 is specified. [Side note: AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 is listed as an Incorporated Document, but its predecessor AS/NZS 2890.1:1999 appears in some Decision Guidelines. Don’t expect professionalism from our Government.] Keep in mind that Standards are only guidelines, and Decision Guidelines don’t contain guidelines. All of the multi-unit developments with basement carparks that I’m aware of in Glen Eira do not comply. The argument from developers, which both Council and VCAT have accepted, is that they can’t make as much money if they have to comply. Of course 2890.1 covers “trivial” matters such as sightlines and gradients. The authors of the standard specifically wanted cars to be essentially stationary at the point they cross the property boundary having accelerated up a slope. VCAT and Council consider this to be providing too much safety, especially if it affects profit. Its not clear from the Post here what the slope of the driveway is.
Although Council and VCAT have rejected 2890.1, they do occasionally insist on 1.5m (driveway) x 1.0m (front) sightlines. Maybe they’re embarrassed about what they have let slip through in the past and are trying to toughen up. If safety is an issue, then its driveway standards that should be discussed. Fences officially are a matter of aesthetics.
March 5, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Thank goodness there are proactive people in our community like those who run GE Debates to highlight such deceit and deception.
Any sense of trust that I foolishly had in the correspondence I received from council has gone out the window.
How can this current administration still be in place after the problems they have continually caused for the Councillors since 2000 when Newton landed?
Disgraceful!
March 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Glen Eira could you clarify that both properties discussed are at different addresses. Are you comparing apples with apples or apples with your spin on two entirely different issues?
March 5, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Here’s a terrific example of being taken for a ride. Residents have got no idea what the standards, guidelines, laws, regulations are in most cases. It’s the easiest thing on earth for officers to say oh that’s section 21a of something or other and you don’t know if this is true or make believe. Every single policy and standard should be up on the website so that people know their rights and can double check if what they’re told is correct or not. Too many examples are cropping up where people are hoodwinked and simply don’t know the law. This is to the advantage of Newton and his lackeys.
March 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Typical “rule by nobody” when bureacracy is allowed to run rampant. I’m assuming that the underlings who give the advice never have their names put to these letters – only councillors. Its a perfect system in the blame game. Let your led by the nose councillors cop all the flak for signing and the underlings remain anonymous and hence not exposed for their deceit and incompetence.
March 5, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Not only that if the a councillor complain, they get dragged up before the conduct panel