Secret Fencing Business

WHILE the Twaddells are trying to find out where their 82 square metres disappeared to, (Land Disappears Despite Deeds) Upper Hunter Shire Council has threatened to take them to court or fine them $3,000 as a fencing dispute continues.

Helen and Bob erected a colourbond fence, but after a complaint from a neighbour that it was too high Council became involved and things escalated.

Council did not ask for the fence to be lowered, but said the fence concealed a driveway and instructed them to change five panels.

A double standard that has confounded the Twaddells.

The fence next door which is solid colourbond.

“The neighbour on our other side has solid fencing panels to the end, so why do we have to have something different?” questioned Bob Twaddell.

“When I asked that of the Council they asked ‘is that a complaint?’ and I said no!

“I wasn’t going to put in a complaint against my neighbour, it wasn’t worrying us, you just need to be a bit careful as you drive out, but I wouldn’t ask him to change it,” said Bob Twaddell.

Helen Twaddell went to a Council meeting last year to explain their position, but she didn’t get the opportunity to hear the Councillors debate the matter, because it was deemed ‘confidential’.

Mrs Twaddell feels they closed the meeting so that individual Councillors did not have to be accountable for where they stood on the issue.

“Because they didn’t want me to know which ones were for me and which ones were against me,” said Mrs Twaddell.

“So why couldn’t I hear what they were saying and their reasons for it? They just don’t want to be accountable,” she said.

“Deidre Peebles, Lee Watts and Peter Bishop they backed me, but the rest of them Bedggood and Campbell were absolutely rotten, they had sent me outside while they decided what was going to happen but I could hear some of the things they were saying as they argued,” she said.

“They had a real ding-dong over it,” Helen Twaddell said.

scone.com.au asked Council why the discussion about the fence was not open to the public and they cited S10A (2) (g) of the Local Government Act 1993, which is because there was ‘advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.’

Cr Lee Watts who was in the meeting said it was the decision of the Chair to close the meeting.

“The matter was some time ago and I can’t recall the specifics of it and certainly some minutes may be able to be made available with any confidential items withheld,” said Cr Watts.

“I would generally prefer for people to be in the room when matters are discussed as it gives them an understanding of the background of why Council has reached the decision it has,” said Cr Watts.

“When legal advice needs to be given to Council that can also be done prior to the meeting so the meeting can remain open,” she said.

The Twaddells have replaced three panels, but Council are insisting on five.

The Twaddells erected three see through panels, but Council want five so have not approved their fence and have threatened court action.

“They want another one at the side and another one at the front, but now he (Bob) has his back up and won’t do it,” said Helen.

“They spent thousands of dollars chasing us over this, ratepayers money over something so stupid, they are bloody idiots!” said Bob.

“They have sent us letters saying they will either fine us $3000 or take us to court,” said Helen.

Bob’s general practitioner wrote to Waid Crockett, the general manager of Council telling him of his concerns for Mr Twaddell’s health and asking him to consider a mirror which are regularly used for concealed driveways in other Shires.

“…I am trying to help to resolve this situation as quick as possible, as it seems to me most of Robert’s recent deterioration is related to this conflict over the fence,” wrote Dr Jasem.

The letter was written more than a year ago and the dispute continues.