By BRIDGET SCOTT
A GROUP of residents bound by a council agreement may be forced to tear down their fences after the City of Casey council has threatened legal action against them.
Seven land owners in the Botanic Ridge Estate may be stripped off their privacy due to the 173 agreement that was created before the area became residential.
Balla Balla Ward Councillor Geoff Ablett raised the issue in urgent business at a council meeting last week and asked that council investigate, reconsidering the agreement.
“Many years ago, before Botanic Ridge was in Urban Growth Boundary, someone decided that if it’s to be developed, we want to retain a rural aspect,” Cr Ablett said.
“At that time, nobody gave any thought to what if a child walked out and on to the road.”
Most of the houses concerned are near or along Brown’s Road or Pearcedale Road.
Councillor Ablett said the issue was two-fold, creating both safety and security concerns.
Some families had purchased a house in this area with fences already erected, including the Williams family who were not aware of the agreement.
Michelle Williams, who lives along Pearcedale Road, said her family purchased their house at the start of last year and were unaware of the agreement.
“We moved in in January and got a letter in September,” she said.
“You don’t expect to buy a house and eight months later get a letter to say you have done something illegal.”
Ms Williams said her main concern was safety.
“We have three small children,” she said.
“We will have no privacy at all and they’re asking us to take it all away.”
City of Casey manager Planning, Duncan Turner, advised that a report will be considered by council on Tuesday 17 February regarding this matter, which will outline the history of this agreement and provide options for residents and council to consider moving forward.
Councillor Ablett said the agreement was now “redundant”. He said as part of the agreement there was supposed to be a tree reserve planted in place of fencing.
“To take away the back fence and 20 metres of each side fence would mean you could walk down and look left or right and see into people’s backyards,” he said.
“It’s a dangerous move to make.”
“I am hoping a sensible solution can be reached and that is that we amend agreement 173,” he said.
He said while some families had decided to leave their properties open, others had gone to great lengths to protect their privacy.
“It’s changed from rural to residential and with residential and roads you need protection for kids and families,” Cr Ablett said.
“Living on a farm is different, but if you have a main road seven or eight metres from your back fence, you’re entitled to a back fence.”
