Cockburn resident told to take down his 200m metal fence, ‘inconsistent’ with local rural zoning laws

The City of Cockburn may face a legal battle after rejecting an application for retrospective approval for a 200 meter metal fence in Beeliar because it failed to meet expectations for a rural fence.

Colorbond steel fencing was constructed in 2023 along the front, rear and side boundaries of a property on rural zoned Lorimer Road.

Owner Sean Naidoo did not obtain the necessary approvals before building the fence. The city later received a complaint from a neighbor about the size and style of the fence.

He determined that the front portion of the fence, which spans 200 feet, required approval under the local fence code.

But the council rejected Mr Naidoo’s request for retrospective approval for the fence at a meeting last year, claiming the Colorbond material did not support the rural character of the site and did not allow native wildlife to pass through, as would be expected from a rural area.

Mr Naidoo requested a review from the State Administrative Tribunal in October, stating that the fence had cost more than $100,000 to build and he expected dismantling it would cost around $50,000.

He presented four alternative fencing options to the municipality; city ​​officials recommended that the municipality reject it because it failed to meet rural informality and openness standards.

Urban Regional Planning Solutions director Justin Hansen, who represents Mr Naidoo, told councilors at the April 14 meeting that this was not a realistic expectation.

“The proposal collapses when it is judged against the reality of the area rather than an idealized version of the rural character that no longer exists,” Mr Hansen said.

“The fence keeps the height consistent… and provides permeability in key sections adjacent to the driveway.

“If the council’s position is that robust or non-traditional hedges are detrimental to rural character, then this issue should have been checked decades ago, when the area was first established and rural character was still intact. This has not happened.”

Mr Hansen said the fencing policy had been applied “inconsistently” over the years, noting that he had identified more than 90 properties in the area with “sturdy and visually dominant fencing”.

About 20 include front fences, he said.

“There are numerous examples where Colorbond fencing, bricks and various materials have been installed (for front fencing), but again these properties, which are in rural areas, have never been pushed to have these fencing removed,” he said.

“The City has already agreed that Colorbond fencing is appropriate for the side and rear boundaries at this site, so the material itself is not an issue. It remains a matter of decision regarding the front fencing alone.”

Councilor Carol Reeve-Fowkes suggested the solid metal fence be approved as it was not an “unreasonable” request.

“It is neat, orderly and replaceable by cultivation. This is a fair and reasonable outcome and if we consider further action in court, the costs incurred by the defender and the costs of the local authority will also be taken into account,” he said.

“This is not a good use of public money to be spent on the SAT or litigation…don’t we have more important battles to spend public money on?”

Cr Tarun Dewan agreed, saying it wasn’t worth “wasting taxpayer money” over a dispute between two neighbours.

Refusal of retrospective fencing approval would likely lead to a full State Administrative Tribunal hearing, which would lead to legal fees for the council.

This is estimated to cost around $30,000 and is expected to be funded from the council’s statutory budget.

Deputy mayor Phoebe Corke argued the front fence was “not in compliance” with Cockburn’s local fencing laws.

“I’ve walked around the area and haven’t seen anything else like it. It’s an incredibly tall fence. The way it’s presented on the street is quite contradictory. It’s against our policies and our fencing laws,” he said.

“I truly feel sorry for the residents… but the front fence is simply not appropriate given our current regulations.”

Cr Chontelle Stone said this would set a bad precedent for the conversion of rural areas into urban areas.

“Under our town planning scheme, a rural area means an area that is open to character. If you put up a tall, continuous metal fence, it is no longer open and is inconsistent with what we as a council have declared to be a rural area,” he said.

“If we’re not going to keep our rural charm, why don’t we just rezone it as urban and be done with it?

“I am very opposed to this property being fenced off in an urban-like manner which would absolutely undermine what we are trying to preserve as a rural character.”

The council voted five to four to deny retroactive approval of the front fence.

Mr Naidoo told PerthNow he built the fence to protect his family from wildlife and provide “reasonable” privacy, saying he received no objections until the fence was installed.

“While the fence was being erected, a city planning official advised me to make certain changes, including shortening the height of the fence. From this recommendation, I understood that if these changes were made, the fence would be acceptable,” he said.

“At no point during this process was I informed that the fence was not appropriate in the city’s opinion. However, after the fence was completed and we had spent more than $100,000, I was informed by the city that retroactive approval was required.”

“If this position had been made clear from the beginning… I would have applied first.”

Mr Naidoo said he planned to take the matter to the SAT for further consideration.

“I have engaged extensively and in good faith with the city throughout this process… but have been unable to reach a resolution that appropriately recognizes the practical realities on the ground and the importance of my family’s safety,” he said.

“In these circumstances it is now appropriate for the matter to be decided by an independent court.”