Stoush in suburbs

How 2½-year dispute over a fence ended up in court

THEY HAVE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PURSUING ME AND IT’S JUST UNREASONABLE. IT DOESN’T SEEM LOGICAL.

CHERYL ANN LYNCH

A WEST Hobart retiree is fighting the Hobart City Council in court over a wooden screen she put up on her fence more than three years ago for privacy from her neighbours.

Cheryl Ann Lynch appeared in Hobart Magistrates Court on Thursday charged with one count of failing to comply with a building order.

Appearing without legal representation, Ms Lynch told Magistrate Reg Marron there “isn’t a case to answer for”.

“The issue is, I haven’t actually done anything wrong,’’ the 59-year-old former public servant told the court.

“It’s really upsetting. My neighbours stand on the side fence and give me hairy eyeballs. I put up a screen (for privacy) and this is the upshot of it all.”

The court heard there had been an “ongoing dispute” between Ms Lynch and council about the fence extension.

Lawyer Michael Flanagan, appearing on behalf of the Hobart City Council, said Ms

Lynch had been served with a notice in March 2018 over the fencing works.

“The allegation is not about the fencing work itself, but failing to comply with the building order subsequently issued,’’ he said.

Mr Flanagan said the notice instructed Ms Lynch to either remove the fence extension or be made to comply with building standards.

He told the court he did not believe the matter could be resolved at court on Thursday and suggested it be listed for a further hearing.

The court heard there were three council workers who were witnesses.

The fence extension remains and council this year initiated court proceedings for Ms Lynch’s alleged failure to comply with the notice.

Outside court, Ms Lynch said she had paid $20 to buy the extension at a hardware store and could not understand why council continued to pursue the matter.

“I feel that the Hobart City Council have the discretion to allow me to have my privacy, and they’ve just got stuck on semantics rather than doing the right thing,’’ she said.

“They have spent thousands of dollars pursuing me and it’s just unreasonable. It doesn’t seem logical.”

Mr Marron adjourned the matter until September 11 for a contested hearing.

The council said it had tried to resolve the dispute.

“The matter has been ongoing for some time and we have made numerous attempts to resolve the matter, prior to pursuing legal action as a last resort,’’ HCC general manager Nick Heath said.

“The matter is now in the hands of the court.

“If a building matter is raised with us — no matter how minor — the city is obliged under the conditions of the Act to follow it up with the property owner to achieve compliance.”

Applications requiring planning approval for works costing less than $10,000 had a minimum $200 fee.