Adelaide couple have to demolish 700k home

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subsc...c5867152e8168673bcacde695e3&memtype=anonymous


A MARINO couple have been ordered to demolish their $680,000 dream home after their neighbours won a court order last week.

Environment, Resources and Development Court judge Jack Costello gave Chris and Deborah Fleetwood until March 14 to respond to an order for their house on The Cove Rd to be bulldozed.

It followed his January ruling that Marion Council should never have approved the Fleetwoods’ two-storey house because it was too big for the site.

Neighbours had complained about its size.


The house on The Cove Road, Marino, stands on a rise and overlooks the ocean. Picture: Stephen Laffer
Mr Fleetwood last week told the court the couple had met with an architect and planner to “formulate a way forward”.

Under the order, they can suggest compromise plans to alter the home so it meets development requirements for the area, although these would carry the risk of not being approved.

“There’s an opportunity to modify it pretty drastically so some of it may be having to come down, but not all,” Mr Fleetwood told the CoastCity Weekly Messenger after the hearing.

He would not say what these changes might be.


The view of the house in Marino, as seen from Westcliff Court. Picture: Matt Loxton
The couple are still considering whether to sue Marion Council for compensation.

“That’s probably what we need to do,” he said, but stressed they had not yet decided.


The council approved the two-storey, four-bedroom home in 2012, 2013 and 2015.

Each approval was appealed by the Fleetwoods’ neighbours, Alex and Debra Paior.

The first two approvals were quashed by the court in 2014.

The Paiors last week did not return the CoastCity Weekly’s calls.

In his January judgment, Judge Costello and commissioners Alan Rumsby and Stephen Hamnett found the Fleetwoods’ house was too big for the sloping site, was not set back enough from the rear boundary and created “unreasonable” and “excessive” overlooking.


The Environment Court has ruled Marion Council should never have approved the house. Picture: Stephen Laffer
Neither the council nor the Fleetwoods can appeal the judgment.

The council paid $262,000 in legal fees to defend its position, while the Fleetwoods paid $100,000 in legal costs.

They were unrepresented at last week’s hearing.

Marion Mayor Kris Hanna declined to comment, saying the situation was “delicate”.

 

It should probs come down due to being a hideous eyesore, but what a nightmare for the owners.

 

This is a screenshot from Google Streetview so you can make your own opinions. Doesnt seem that bad from that angle? They're not blocking anyone's view as they're across the road from a train line.

 

Why was it approved in the first place?
The council is liable to pay as it was approved.

 

If it was approved and more than once, then surely it should not now have to be knocked down!!! This is saying that the approval counts for nothing.

 

Can't read the original article as it is behind a subscription barrier. But I do remember reading quite a bit about it some time ago.

But from memory the initial approval was overturned on appeal but the owners went ahead with the building. Subsequent approvals were also overturned, at which point the owners decided to proceed with the build in contradiction to a stop work order???
Marg

 

Based on this comment -
"In his January judgment, Judge Costello and commissioners Alan Rumsby and Stephen Hamnett found the Fleetwoods’ house was too big for the sloping site, was not set back enough from the rear boundary and created “unreasonable” and “excessive” overlooking."

Doesn't sound like it's an issue of whose view they're blocking, rather a case of who they're overlooking - the house between them and the beach view.

 

The owners may have a right of recourse to sue council for their loss attributable to negligence. Council may argue owners didnt stop when instructed.

 

Far out what a view. It's a pretty ugly house as a lot of the modern build are

 

But it appears the initial approval was immediately appealed, as was each subsequent approval. Surely even commencing work in those circumstances was unwise?
Marg

 

October 2012: The Fleetwoods start building the home while living in the neighbouring house.

November 2012: The Paiors lodge an application asking the ERD Court to declare the approval invalid because the council did not consult them on the designs.

May 2013: The ERD Court rejects the Paiors application to order construction of the home to stop.

June 2013: The house is completed.​

 

I don't really get the judgement. Looking at the block it was always going to overlook the lower properties regardless of what you built. And surely they knew that buying their blocks.
Should just build a hedge on the property boundary.

While it doesn't look great and has some bulk to it, it doesnt seem different to what you find anywhere else.

 

Neighbourhood Xmas Barbeques are gonna be a bit awkward...

 

Build it and they will come.....errrr.....or not.

 

All - I am one of the affected residents. Below are some facts on this. Bottom line is the Council continue to try and cover up their mistakes and Mr Fleetwood doesn't have a clean pair of heels either.

Recently (18 APRIL 2018) the Council administered a closed session to review another application from Mr Fleetwood. The residents were not permitted to have sight of the latest application, with Council stating they have legal right to review the application in confidential conditions given Mr Fleetwood has litigation proceedings against the Council.
My solicitor (Tim Mellor) requested information on the latest application and the decision from the Council. The Council would not provide this information.
Following a submission to the ERD from me, Judge Cole ordered the Council to release the latest application to the residents and the Council's decision - the Council approved this latest application from Mr Fleetwood on 18th APRIL 2018.
Further the Council employed the services of Helen Dyer to review the latest application, even though her first report (6 SEPT 2017) was heavily criticized by the assessment panel on 6th SEPT 2017 assessment panel meeting (minutes retained for evidence).
Please note, that Helen Dyer's first report (6 SEPT 2017) stated the "Residents Generally Support The Application" - verbatim from the report. Four residents were consulted and made representations - one of which was Mr Fleetwood. The three others rejected the application. Clearly Helen Dyer has bias and was commissioned by the Council. I advised the Mayor in Dec 2017 of this bias, and despite her report and my correspondence to the Mayor, the Council commissioned Helen Dyer again for the latest confidential application, even with the heavy criticism from the panel members.
My suggestion is the Council are subverting the law and have a clear conflict of interest - on one hand a claim from Mr Fleetwood for providing the first approval in 2011, and later overturned, and on the other hand being the decision maker over a series of further applications from Mr Fleetwood.
Please note that it took action in the Supreme Court to force the Council to comply with their own development plan in 2013 and award a category three status to the latest application at that time from a category one to a category 3. Note a Cat 1 does not require consultation with residents and there is no automatic right of appeal.
Following the award of the category 3 status, the Council later changed their Development Plan to permit the application to be categorised as a 2 - meaning residents are to be consulted, but no automatic right of appeal. I have submitted a FOI request to ask for justification for this change in the Council's Development Plan - like several other FOI requests the answer did not address the question posed. I have checked several other Council's development plan around the same period (Dec 2015) to see if they made a change to their Development Plans, and could find no evidence of such. This suggests to me the Council changed their plan to prevent residents' right of appeal for this case.
Fast forwarding to present day, the latest confidential application has been approved by the Council with no resident's representation - this seems a clear subversion of the legal instruments within the PDI Act 2017. I managed to speak to the assessment panel and asked if they had sight of the resident's representations for the 6th SEPT 2017 panel. They advised no, as the case was to be viewed as a new application. This is not true, as the application is a variation and as such all relevant information must be presented to make an informed decision. Note - the Council staff were not keen that I talk to the panel members when they visited for the 18 APRIL 2018 confidential meeting.
Another relevant factor is the latest application (as approved by the Council in private) has reduced the property size by a mere 4m2. This information was provided by the Council to me following the order from Judge Cole for the Council to release this information to the residents.
The Council's assessment panel on 6th Sept 2017 stated the property "has a fundamentally flawed starting point"; "there is no happy for this property"; "the bulk and size are major issues". Despite these opinions (as captured in the residents minutes and sent to the Council), there is now a 180 degrees in opinion, based on a reduction of 4m2 in property size.
The Council continues to spend ratepayers money on this case, believed to exceed $500k on this case alone for legal fees. Attached is my earlier representation. Happy reading. Ultimately a sorry saga for the ratepayer - my guess is >$1m spent in costs from the Council alone, parking aside the residents' legal costs (>$350k).

 

DT, I am new to property chat and am one of the residents affected by this property.

Below is a summary of the current position and attached is my planner's report. Bottom line is that Council and Mr Fleetwood are culpable.

 

Would be more concerned about overlooking from Google.

Single house on a block, would have thought all you had to comply with was rescode.

Have fun paying for those legal bills in your rates.

 

I don’t think it’s ugly but that’s a matter of personal opinion.
Bottom line, it’s their house and they like it and they got approval to build it that big.

They should just buy the blocks of the complaining neighbours and bulldoze those properties too and use them as car parks.

One of our relatives did this, purchased all affecting neighbours houses and knocked them down. Complaining stops then