Take a bow 29 Delegate Street Kaleen

liability said :

WARREN GARDNER & JULIE BEAVER v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY, if you want some light reading about the efforts that ACTPLA have been through in an attempt to have it cleaned up.

http://www.acat.act.gov.au/judgment/view/4381/title/warren-gardner-julie-beaver

2. Clean up the leasehold and keep it clean by removing items including, but not limited to, whitegoods, parts of whitegoods, lawn mowers, parts of lawn mowers, motor vehicles, parts of motor vehicles, trailers, parts of trailers, tyres, sheet metal, metal poles, oil drums, bicycles and parts of bicycles; and

keeping the neighbours’ house values down?! i doubt it in kaleen but if so then think of fridge guy as a natural check on prices – the first home buyer’s friend. personally i think warren and whatsername sound like they have some pluck – no bad thing in neighbours, and they’d be able to fix your fridge for you.

thatsnotme said :

Robertson said :

…the conditions of ACT leaseholds should be rewritten to provide better protections for leaseholders….

You realise that goes both ways right? Or do the rights of a white collar leaseholder who’s unlucky enough to live next door to a blue collar worker who’s decided to turn their home into a mini-industrial estate take a back seat in your view?

I read that as recognising the need for balance in terms of the leaseholder that owns the land and the leaseholders surrounding it. But I could be wrong.

In any case, it’s normally not *discrimination* against blue-collar jobs per se, but just the fact that things such as panel beating, large durable goods repair (or more to the point, storage), automotive spray-painting, and hydroponic progagation tend to impose larger costs on the neighbors than ‘white collar’ or more discreet home businesses, such as web design, management consulting, or prostitution.

Robertson said :

…the conditions of ACT leaseholds should be rewritten to provide better protections for leaseholders….

You realise that goes both ways right? Or do the rights of a white collar leaseholder who’s unlucky enough to live next door to a blue collar worker who’s decided to turn their home into a mini-industrial estate take a back seat in your view?

Skidbladnir said :

liability said :

WARREN GARDNER & JULIE BEAVER v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY
http://www.acat.act.gov.au/judgment/view/4381/title/warren-gardner-julie-beaver

What a nice insight into the ACT Public Service…
Despite these tenants having received tidy-up orders roughly every 18 months for twenty years and each time dragged kicking-and-screaming into eventual compliance (and as a result being almost singularly experienced with the requirements of tidy-up order compliance), the residents claimed the requirements of a tidy-up order were now too broadly-defined to be enforced by anybody except the resident without significant invasion of personal liberty, and as a result impaired their ability to conduct activities (such as a home business), so the expansive requirements of the Tidy-Up Order were a violation of their privacy this time?

Even if you accept their rigidly cross-referenced definitions (of businesses, home business, structural confies of storage, etc) or the fact that poeple at ACTPLA decided to explicitly identify sub-items which needed to be removed nstead of the original “Its all crap and get rid of it please” orders they had been receiveing (and accepting) for years, some incompetent at ACTPLA decided to respond to them as legitimate equals instead of intentional repeat offenders.

That was way more eloquently put than my comment, though we came to similar conclusions.

One of the arguments the property owners used in the court case was that ACTPLA’s instructions to remove clutter from the place were not specific enough because they did not describe in detail what needed to be removed. There’s also the argument that “clean” is something entirely different from “tidy” (my interpretation of the proceedings).

The magistrate did seem to agree with the wording of the order being too vague, but didn’t think it was enough grounds to accept the owners’ request for a review of the order.

The owner also tried to argue that he wasn’t running a business but than voluntarily gave examples of selling goods from his house. I think he claimed only to be selling goods cheaply to low-income earners. He claims he also does work for charities, which is nice. But it’s just the wrong place to be doing this from. Surely some charity could offer him some space somewhere where he wouldn’t annoy the neighbours?

liability said :

WARREN GARDNER & JULIE BEAVER v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY
http://www.acat.act.gov.au/judgment/view/4381/title/warren-gardner-julie-beaver

What a nice insight into the ACT Public Service…
Despite these tenants having received tidy-up orders roughly every 18 months for twenty years and each time dragged kicking-and-screaming into eventual compliance (and as a result being almost singularly experienced with the requirements of tidy-up order compliance), the residents claimed the requirements of a tidy-up order were now too broadly-defined to be enforced by anybody except the resident without significant invasion of personal liberty, and as a result impaired their ability to conduct activities (such as a home business), so the expansive requirements of the Tidy-Up Order were a violation of their privacy this time?

Even if you accept their rigidly cross-referenced definitions (of businesses, home business, structural confies of storage, etc) or the fact that poeple at ACTPLA decided to explicitly identify sub-items which needed to be removed nstead of the original “Its all crap and get rid of it please” orders they had been receiveing (and accepting) for years, some incompetent at ACTPLA decided to respond to them as legitimate equals instead of intentional repeat offenders.

devils_advocate said :

From my very quick skim of this case, it seems like ACTPLA issued a notice to remedy, the leasholders applied to ACAT for review, and the tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds it was frivolous and vexatious (in turn, on the grounds it was foredoomed to fail). So I presume the order is still in force or otherwise valid, and if it wasn’t complied with there should be some other proceedings in train.

As for the previous 20 years (since 1994) it seems as if the approach to enforcement/administration was a bit inconsistent, as was the behaviour of the leaseholders. In some cases it seems like they actually complied, more or less, with what was required; in other cases consent orders were reached, presumably because the leaseholders offered a resolution that was acceptable to PALM/ACTPLA or whatever it was called at the time; and for whatever reason they thought the applicants would comply.

I took three other things away from reading this:

1. You are permitted to conduct a business on a residential lease provided the business occupies an area of no more than 40 metres. This is repeated twice within the decision, so it isn’t a typo.
Two problems with this:
a- “40 metres” is not an area.
b- Clearly, this discriminates very heavily against blue-collar occupations.

2. You are permitted to conduct your business provided it isn’t visible from outside the lease.
Again, two problems:
a- as Google shows, it isn’t possible to conduct such a business that is invisible unless it is entirely indoors
b- This discriminates very heavily against bluye collar occupations

3. Your business has to be conducted in approved structures on your lease
a- “approved structure” includes “fence”
b- they didn’t to interpret “in”

All in all, there’s a lot of slop there, as well as a healthy dose of extremely anal upper-middle-class petty white-picket-fence mentality and the conditions of ACT leaseholds should be rewritten to provide better protections for leaseholders. privacy from government interference.

Seems every suburb has one. In Duffy it’s at 22 Tullaroop Street where the guy has a backyard panel beating business, unfortunately it’s in his front yard! When you look at the place, you have to wonder how good his work might be if his maintenance to his property and the fact that he obviously has complete disrepect for his unfortunate neighbours is any guide? Seems he parks half wrecked and unregistered cars up and down the local streets too, very considerate to the locals!

Billy_Shears said :

Love these new tourist attractions – can we get a list of 100 together and send it to the Centenary people?

I want a tour bus, not unlike the real kramer tour of new york. I would gladly pay for my international guests to see this aspect of our nation’s capital, just for the LOLS.

wildturkeycanoe said :

It’s just a home business repairing whitegoods.

He’s too tight to rent/buy himself a shed somewhere industrial like he’s supposed to, and he’s clearly got a requirement for it due to more than a garage worth of business.

So you can tell us all you want about how nice he is to customers, but he’s still a jerk to anyone that lives near him.

Jethro said :

liability said :

WARREN GARDNER & JULIE BEAVER v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY, if you want some light reading about the efforts that ACTPLA have been through in an attempt to have it cleaned up.

http://www.acat.act.gov.au/judgment/view/4381/title/warren-gardner-julie-beaver

So basically twenty years and the government has been unable to solve it.

From my very quick skim of this case, it seems like ACTPLA issued a notice to remedy, the leasholders applied to ACAT for review, and the tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds it was frivolous and vexatious (in turn, on the grounds it was foredoomed to fail). So I presume the order is still in force or otherwise valid, and if it wasn’t complied with there should be some other proceedings in train.

As for the previous 20 years (since 1994) it seems as if the approach to enforcement/administration was a bit inconsistent, as was the behaviour of the leaseholders. In some cases it seems like they actually complied, more or less, with what was required; in other cases consent orders were reached, presumably because the leaseholders offered a resolution that was acceptable to PALM/ACTPLA or whatever it was called at the time; and for whatever reason they thought the applicants would comply.

The problem is that it appears the leaseholders are able to temporarily comply with the requirements, even for a short time, have an inspection to show they’ve complied and then go back to business as usual. This would be at most an inconvenience, certainly not a deterrence.

Realistically nothing can or will come of this until ACTPLA mans up and exercises its power of entry and seizure, then issues a bill to the leaseholders. They seem to have pushed their model litigant aspirations well beyond their usefulness.

Billy_Shears said :

Love these new tourist attractions – can we get a list of 100 together and send it to the Centenary people?

21 Northmore cres Higgins. The guy has about 20 cars on his property. Government clean it up every few years and give him a skip every now and then.

Takes him only a matter of months to clutter it right back up again. Usually worse than what it was.

There was a large skip in his front yard for about 2 months. Pretty sure when it got picked up it was less than 25% full and most of that would have been from the neighbourhood using it.

Love these new tourist attractions – can we get a list of 100 together and send it to the Centenary people?

460cixy said :

I got a fridge of that bloke got price good fridge nice bloke too.

We bought our second hand washing machine from him about three years ago, with delivery and 1 year warranty included in a great price. Since then I have had occassion to call him twice to assist with something breaking down on the machine, he provided awesome over the phone troubleshooting on both occasions and spare parts (with detailed instructions on how to fit them myself) at less than it would cost for a washing machine repair man to take his first breath inside the door!

melon1234 said :

I found this place in Richardson last year whilst house shopping. The house behind it was for sale, so I’m sure glad I looked on Nearmaps and Google Maps to notice what I may have been living next to. It’s a shame Nearmaps removed the free personal user option, as shots over the past 3-4 years showed the only thing that changed was the addition of more cars/boats to the front yard.

16 Howson Place for those playing at home.

http://www.filedump.net/dumped/howson11360743234.png
http://www.filedump.net/dumped/howson21360743234.png

From the street view it doesn’t look so bad, a few boats under tarpaulins and behind a line of shrubs. Aerial view is a bit more disturbing though…

I got a fridge of that bloke got price good fridge nice bloke too.

liability said :

WARREN GARDNER & JULIE BEAVER v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY, if you want some light reading about the efforts that ACTPLA have been through in an attempt to have it cleaned up.

http://www.acat.act.gov.au/judgment/view/4381/title/warren-gardner-julie-beaver

” The storage area contained a body of material which Mr Gardner compared to an auto wrecker s premises, though the depth and the thickness of the piles of material made it difficult to classify what type of material was contained there. The material appeared to be predominantly white goods however there was material from a range of sources, some identifiable some unidentifiable.”

It’s the vibe your honour. It’s just… the vibe.

Thanks for posting that link. It’s an excellent read.

rosscoact said :

milkman said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Call the scrap metal guys who do free pickup in return for not paying you anything and give them the address. Problem solved.

+1 to this. One phone call and it’s all gone.

Or at least one phone call and watch the fun through the venetian blinds

Ha! Please post the video.

Wow, if only there was an Australian version of A&E’s show, Hoarders…

liability said :

WARREN GARDNER & JULIE BEAVER v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY, if you want some light reading about the efforts that ACTPLA have been through in an attempt to have it cleaned up.

http://www.acat.act.gov.au/judgment/view/4381/title/warren-gardner-julie-beaver

So basically twenty years and the government has been unable to solve it.

I remember a similar house in Brisbane. The city council gave the owners something like 90 days to clean their front yard up and then sent in a dump truck and workers to cart everything away, with the bill for removal sent to the home owner.

I wonder if the neighbours would have any legal remedy for the devaluation of their property?

It looks like if you want a free fridge, dishwasher, dryer etc, Delegate Street in Kambah is the place to go. Roll up after dark and take your pick.

The neighbours will applaud you!

WARREN GARDNER & JULIE BEAVER v ACT PLANNING AND LAND AUTHORITY, if you want some light reading about the efforts that ACTPLA have been through in an attempt to have it cleaned up.

http://www.acat.act.gov.au/judgment/view/4381/title/warren-gardner-julie-beaver

All that stuff under the canopy of the tree on the left in the top picture would be interfering with the flow of rainwater to the roots of the tree and would thus amount to a strict liability offence of high treason (or something like that) under the relevant tree protection legislation with, as I recall it, a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment and a one million dollar fine (at least).

Meanwhile, dutiful, forelock-tugging folk of this fair town will be applying in triplicate and consulting at length with every householder within half a mile about the design and siting of a new letterbox. There are times when urban administration in this town is a complete and utter farce – one ridiculous bloody thing laughing at another.

The preceding comments are, of course, on the basis that the images are current and the mess has not, or is not shortly to be, cleaned up.

wildturkeycanoe said :

It’s just a home business repairing whitegoods. Good on ’em I reckon, instead of chucking it out, they are fixing it. Maybe it’s just someone waiting for a big truck so they can take it all in one go to scrap? Either way, big deal.[b] Nothing to see.[/b]

Sure.. if you’re blind. Wake up to yourself.

Some neighbours are just nothing short of arseholes.
Can you imagine living next to this? Can you imagine trying to sell?
Is it any wonder neighbours come to blows?

And WildTurkey? That’s the lamest troll from you yet.

milkman said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Call the scrap metal guys who do free pickup in return for not paying you anything and give them the address. Problem solved.

+1 to this. One phone call and it’s all gone.

Or at least one phone call and watch the fun through the venetian blinds

It’s just a home business repairing whitegoods. Good on ’em I reckon, instead of chucking it out, they are fixing it. Maybe it’s just someone waiting for a big truck so they can take it all in one go to scrap? Either way, big deal. Nothing to see.

Haha, thing is, there is no more free scrap pick ups besides ferals like these. They are all hoarding while ez scrap and the like have their doors shut.

9 coningham st gowrie also has an impressive car yard happening. It used to have more… must have had a clean out. Still over 18 cars in the yard.

This is nothing compared to what it used to look like about 5-6 years ago. He used to use quite a lot of the reserve besides his house too before being ordered to remove it by TAMS. You may notice in the aerial shots that the reserve has a line of boulders to restrict vehicular access to the side of his property which is a feature you won’t find on most urban parks.

I’m sure this place has been the subject of a previous post

thebrownstreak69 said :

Call the scrap metal guys who do free pickup in return for not paying you anything and give them the address. Problem solved.

+1 to this. One phone call and it’s all gone.

I found this place in Richardson last year whilst house shopping. The house behind it was for sale, so I’m sure glad I looked on Nearmaps and Google Maps to notice what I may have been living next to. It’s a shame Nearmaps removed the free personal user option, as shots over the past 3-4 years showed the only thing that changed was the addition of more cars/boats to the front yard.

16 Howson Place for those playing at home.

http://www.filedump.net/dumped/howson11360743234.png
http://www.filedump.net/dumped/howson21360743234.png

Hmmm… we can’t identify cars that are parking badly/wrongly/illegally/dangerously but it’s OK to identify an address where various items have been placed in the front yard?

Call the scrap metal guys who do free pickup in return for not paying you anything and give them the address. Problem solved.

WOW! That is very disturbing. I’ll take the crane and some unkempt gardens any day.

This is blatant hoarding though. There could be issues with vermin and pedestrian hazards. One hopes there is scope for this crap to be forcibly towed, surely.

Maybe that nice @Cmdr_Hadfield will take a picture of the whitegoods mountain from space.

Put Kaleen on the (places to avoid) map

Is this the group house that ‘aceofspades’ and ‘antigonist’ live in ? Can understand now why they put up a spirited defence that you can have as much gear on your front lawn as you can fit in.

Ah, that explains the massive trailer full of washing machines in the green space! I had been wondering.

This trumps the Chifley crane by a fair margin I’d say.