Association to speak against fence
The Wagstaffe-Killcare Community Association has asked to speak at Central Coast Council's residents' forum at on January 29 against approval of a fence at Killcare Heights.
The association is hoping to convince the councillors to vote against allowing an illegally-built colorbond fence to stay, according to association president Ms Peta Colebatch.
The owner has two applications; the relocation of the shorter run of fence south of a driveway and approval of the fence to the north of the driveway.
The association wants a fence that complies with council rules.
The fence, at 49 Wards Hills Rd, Killcare Heights is higher and not transparent.
It was built early in 2017 without council approval and is estimated to cost about $4350.
Ms Colebatch said a council staff member told the association in November 2017 that council would require the fence to be removed, but that staffer no longer worked for council.
And the fence is still standing.
In December 2017, the owner Mr AJ Denny started the process for retrospective approval and Ms Colebatch said the association offered twice to meet to seek a compromise but had no response.
Ms Colebatch said the association would tell Council that this is not just a fence, but an extremely long fence in a sensitive area at the gateway to Bouddi Peninsula and that the prime asset of the area was its scenic nature and open welcoming approach.
It will remind council that its planning provisions (development control plan and local environment plan) reflected these principles.
Ms Colebatch said the principles meant buildings and structures were intended to allow dominance of the landscape, requiring retention of trees and minimal fencing, so that the landscape was appreciated.
"Fences are required to be of a see-through nature, not solid, and not of metal construction,'' she said.
"The current long fences are light in colour so they further stand out."
She said the planning provisions required retention of framed views along Wards Hill Rd to be rural and scenic.
She said they did not allow the solid edges and continuous edges as in these fences.'
Ms Colebatch said the staff statement in the council papers that the solid fence "is consistent with the character objectives of the area'' is clearly wrong as the objectives include "protect and enhance environmental character'' and enhancing the identity "by development that displays improved standards of scenic, urban and civic design quality''.
The owner has proposed to move part of the fence back two metres from the boundary and to use planting of shrubs and trees to soften the effect.
But Ms Colebatch said there were guarantees or remedies for failure of the proposed planting to hide an ungainly structure erected without consent.
"It is still there as an example of failure of process in Council,'' she said.
"Any approval now rewards improper behaviour, disregard of community standards, process used, and provides precedent to others to similarly breach process and standards.''
The council staff have recommended approving both applications for the fence.
Media release, 24 Jan 2019
Interview, 24 Jan 2019
Peta Colebatch, WTKCA
Reporter: Merilyn Vale