Private security pole decision deferred

Private security pole decision deferred

A report to Cockburn Council had recommended that it refuse to grant retrospective planning approval for the pole, as it did not comply with residential design codes and had a negative impact on the amenity of nearby residents.

There were also concerns support of the application would set an undesirable precedent in residential areas.

Owner Ivan Bacich argued the cameras wouldn’t encroach on neighbouring homes and that he had received no complaints.

He said previous cameras mounted at gutter level had failed to identify two people involved in the firebombing of his son’s car a few years ago, and that his new set-up was purely for security.

‘I should be entitled to look after my family,’ he said.

‘People see cameras and know they will be caught on video, so they think again.’

Mr Bacich believed he should be allowed to keep the cameras, as the residential design codes do not have specific provisions for camera poles.

Strategic planner Andrew Trosic said, however, that in his opinion, the camera pole met the definition of provision C4.3 of part 5.4.4 or the R-codes relating to ‘other external fixtures’.