Costly rubble trouble

SOME local government and environmental regulations go too far.

We’ve all heard the horror stories of families being forced by petty bureaucrats to repaint their houses.

There’s a point at which too much red tape, even in small domestic contexts, becomes a serious impingement on the way a vibrant and free democracy is meant to function.

But much regulation is there for good reason.

And in most cases if you disagree with it there is a pathway, albeit sometimes arduous and annoying, to try to appeal for an exception to the rule.

Usually the rules are there for the greater good — to prevent rampant, unchecked selfaggrandisement from ruining the whole community’s enjoyment of peace and the amenity of shared areas.

Not long ago the anti-social hobby of perpetrating illegal acts of vandalism was the sole province of naughty delinquents often from the wrong side of the tracks.

A disturbing contemporary phenomenon is the rise of the rich, adult vandal who ignores reasonable regulation simply because they are not used to being told ‘no’.

Certainly, the property owner who was accused of felling dozens of endangered trees to erect an illegal extension to her Barwon Heads home, is likely today to be regretting her actions.

A court has ordered the million-dollar renovation, which includes an indoor swimming pool, be bulldozed.

That owner may have got away with her reckless expansion if it wasn’t for the fact her neighbour objected and pursued a hugely costly litigation through the Supreme Court.

You would think if the rules and regulations are worth having there in the first place then the public officials overseeing them would be the appropriate watchdogs of their compliance.

We agree with that neighbour’s sentiment: “It is appalling that a private citizen had to take this on alone.”