Saf­fi­oti weighs into gate dis­pute

Western Suburbs Weekly - - News - By JON BAS­SETT

COTTES­LOE res­i­dents al­legedly block­ing a pub­lic lane with a pri­vate gate may be told by the State Gov­ern­ment to re­move the bar­rier.

“I have asked the Depart­ment of Lands to in­ves­ti­gate and if there is an en­croach­ment on to crown land, the State Gov­ern­ment will be seek­ing the re­moval of the gate,” Min­is­ter for Lands Rita Saf­fi­oti told the Western Sub­urbs Weekly yes­ter­day.

The gate cuts off about 54sq m of the lane, which has prompted a 15month fight be­tween neigh­bours who claim the land could be worth $250,000.

Their tus­sle ended up with the State Ad­min­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal in De­cem­ber, be­fore be­ing with­drawn in March.

Tonight, Cottes­loe Coun­cil will con­sider le­gal ad­vice on the gate block­ing pub­lic use of the cul-de-sac right-of-way 64 (ROW 64) off Lil­lian Street.

Curtin Av­enue neigh­bours al­lege they and their chil­dren have been pre­vented from safe beach and walk­ing ac­cess by the gate, al­legedly in­stalled by Lil­lian Street res­i­dents Sonja and Greg Mad­den.

“It af­fects half of next door, about half of my ac­cess, 4.5m of my other neigh­bour and a prop­erty in Regi­nald Street,” Curtin Av­enue neigh­bour Bri­die Howe-keete­laar said.

When the Western Sub­urbs Weekly vis­ited last week, Mrs Howe-keete­laar pointed out other fences, gar­dens, re­tain­ing walls and a large tree in ROW 64’s orig­i­nal bound­aries.

The lane was used to cart out­door toi­let sewage from ad­ja­cent Curtin Av­enue and Lil­lian and Broome streets homes, but the coun­cil now has an an­nual pav­ing pro­gram for the routes, in­clud­ing sub­di­viders con­tribut­ing to some of the up­grades.

Mrs Howe-keete­lar be­came aware of the gate block­ing her paved lane when she and her hus­band ap­plied to ren­o­vate their re­cently bought home, in­clud­ing their own rear fence en­trance for lane ac­cess last Fe­bru­ary.

She said the gate might not have been re­ported ear­lier to the coun­cil be­cause ad­ja­cent homes were rentals or oc­cu­pied by the el­derly for many years.

At­tempts to con­tact the Mad­dens were un­suc­cess­ful and the coun­cil did not re­ply to ques­tions re­gard­ing the gate’s re­moval be­fore dead­line.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.