Monday, January 2, 2012

Pool Fence Fracas

BY MARIO CHRISTODOULOU
31 Dec, 2011 04:00 AM

Wollongong City Council has threatened Mangerton grandfather Peter Abba with a $1.1 million fine after accusing him of having an unsafe pool, despite it being surrounded by a 1.5m fence with two locked gates.
Earlier this week, a Stanwell Tops family went public with their own threat from council - a $1.1million fine if their cubby house was not pulled down.

Mr Abba, a pharmacist, thought he was doing the right thing when he responded to a request from council to inspect his home in Mangerton in November 2010.

But what followed was an expensive battle over the safety of a pool, which would have required a toddler to break through two security gates and scale a 1.5m brush fence to enter.

He was later told the fence was a fire hazard, despite it being hemmed in by towering gum trees and a nearby highly combustible turpentine, with which the council took no issue.

Mr Abba said he spent about $4000 commissioning planning reports to fight the charge and replacing the surface of the brush fence with a thin veneer.

"This is absolute bureaucracy gone mad," he said.

"Anybody being aware of the situation and looking at the scene would have to understand how frustrated I was."

A council spokesman said he "rejects the allegation of harassment".

"Council has a duty to ensure that all pool owners comply with the swimming pool [legislation]," he said.

"The fines outlined in the letter to the resident are applied by the courts if there is a case, not by council."

Mr Abba said he had gone to great lengths to make his pool safe after his granddaughter was left critically ill after a horrific poolside accident in 2003.

His fence ranges in height from 1.5 to 1.8m, well above the 1.2m legal minimum height.

Despite this Mr Abba said he was told the fence was still dangerous because toddlers could clamber over it, gaining purchase on the embedded fastening wires.

He decided to fight the claim and commissioned a planning consultant to review the council's ruling.

No comments:

Post a Comment