A FENCE at the front of a Scarborough home is dividing neighbours.
The owner of the Moorland Street property applied to the City of Stirling for retrospective development approval for an extended retaining wall and 1.8m street fence above the 1.3m wall at the front of their property in March.
The City sought changes to original plans submitted last December to address issues with sight lines and fence height, but in January found work had already started.
The applicant applied to the State Administrative Tribunal in May after the City refused the amended plans and following mediation, it was referred to council for consideration last week.
A report by the City found the streets walls and fences, sight lines, site works and retaining walls did not meet the R-codes requirements but could be supported under design principles.
“The amended proposal is recommended for approval, subject to minor modification and conditions requiring the landowner to install landscaping on the verge, alter the existing glass panels for visual permeability, remove solid sections of the masonry street fence, and provide new glass panels set back 0.55m from the western boundary,” it said.
Neighbour Don Telfer used public question time at the meeting to ask if councillors could further amend the plan to make a “compliant truncation” of the fence corners and believed council would risk public safety by approving the structure.
Cr Giovanni Italiano moved an alternative motion to refuse the application because it was not compliant with R-codes and lacked sightline truncations. He said he initially supported it but changed his mind after visiting the site, which gave him a “different perspective”.
“Why should this significant variation be approved just because it’s already been built?” he said.
Cr Elizabeth Re believed it was not “in keeping with the area” and noted both immediate neighbours objected to the development.
Councillors will reconsider the application after Cr Karen Caddy moved a procedural motion to refer it to next Tuesday’s planning and development committee.
The report said if the matter was not resolved by council, the applicant could appeal to the tribunal, which would cost the City about $15,000.