Open letter to the South Gippsland Shire Council and the community.
NO DOUBT by now the council persons would be aware of Aileen’s plight in relation to her being evicted from her home in Meeniyan.
Michael Giles of the Sentinel Times newspaper yesterday gave a very good account of the situation, and his editorial summed up the disgraceful situation that South Gippsland Shire Council has placed her in.
I am a friend of Aileen Hughes and wish to advocate on her behalf (with her consent), and hope that this impasse can be broken in a sensible and non-combative court situation. My way forward is to suggest a mediation be held by the parties. That meeting and process be convened by a mutually agreeable, non-conflicted third party. I will go on further to explain her situation and why I believe this to be the best approach going forward.
During 1994/1995 she wanted to build a shed for her storage of various items etc. She consulted with the relevant departments relating, and was informed that if the shed was built more than 100 metres from the road, and professionally built, that would be ok. These authorities being the Department of Building for Woorayal and South Gippsland Shire Councils.
(A) She was informed by two council officers who made notes on the conversation and requirements that the construction of the shed was done within professional standards and council construction standards that would be ok, and no permit required.
(B) Less than 12 months later, and due to travel distance between her abode and her property in Meeniyan she considered that she needed to be closer to her animals etc. That is when she revisited the council offices to seek requirements relative to constructing a liveable small unit within the shed confines. Her advice from the council (again with two council officers taking notes) was that so long as the construction (including septic system, plumbing, electrical services etc) were completed by professional local trades persons, that this would be ok.
All done in accordance with this advice, there was no mention of any additional permit requirements – this was not exceptional with requirements that existed at the time.
Twenty years on, in or about 2016 Aileen received a call from a SGSC officer [name] who requested a visitation appointment, and this was completed by [name] immediately following. Aileen considered that she should have a witness present at the inspection that has now proven to be prophetic and vital to her case and somewhat absolutely damning against the council.
The officer [name] stated at that visit that she did not see any issues but that she needed to report back to council superiors about her observations. Before she left, she stated that should there be any concerns council would revert that day. No communication for seven years.
Recently Aileen put in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to council for disclosure of information and documentation on her file.
The council produced a file that did not include the following:
• File notes relating to both the shed construction and subsequent conversion to a unit within.
• Officer’s notes [name] from her visit and report to her management’s involvement.
We understand that within the FOI regime there are exclusions that allow the council to relieve their obligation to disclose such information – in this case, I suggest there is no such exclusion, and more appropriately it is a non-disclosure of material facts. Production of these documents is absolutely crucial to Aileen’s defence, against a considered trumped-up charge. I’m sure the council will refute this, but as there was a witness present (and as we believe [name] is still employed by SGSC). Maybe a voluntary disclosure statement by her might save further embarrassment and reputational ridicule by your constituents.
will have to answer to the above either in court or otherwise, but it may be better to disclose the above and why it was not disclosed in the first place. Also, re the FOI documents, there is in excess of 120 pages of blacked-out redacted items. One would have to question with that volume what else has been hidden and not disclosed here.
After various inspection visits by council employees [names included], whose respective titles are Building and Planning Compliance Technical Officer and Coordinator of Building and Planning
Compliance, that the only issue these persons could come up with was the lack of a smoke alarm, which was immediately fixed and confirmed with council.
The building eviction order issued by [another] council officer [named] has been signed with the title of Municipal Building Surveyor, who has never even visited or sighted the premises.
One would have thought that three such well-credentialed persons would be capable of issuing a report outlining any building issues that exist. After all, if they can’t, why are they employed at ratepayers’ expense in those positions?
No such report has ever been issued or given to Aileen or any notification of any issue whatsoever (other than the smoke alarm). It is beyond pathetic and amounts to inordinate bullying and harassment. It is having a huge effect on her mental state. She has trouble sleeping with high anxiety, as one would understand from a pensioner aged 75, who is facing eviction from her own home where she has lived for nearly 30 years. All this with her pushed out in the street in the middle of winter.
We note that in the council’s response for comment to the Sentinel-Times they refer to issues with people living in sheds in that “councils have observed serious risks including poor living conditions, fire hazards, water damage and mould”. As no such situation exists here, and this is not a person living in a shed, this is an attempt, I suggest by the council, to distract people from the real facts in this case. This dwelling was properly constructed within a shed shell and is an entirely different situation.
So, in summary then, I would put forward that my suggestion of mediation is the most sensible way forward for the parties. The reputational damage for the council is huge here if this proceeds to court.
Hopefully somebody in the SGSC demonstrates a modicum of basic humanity and understanding of the issues and immediately ceases legal proceedings. Please be aware that her financial situation does not enable her to obtain legal representation or obtain a loan to pay for such.
She survives on a pension of $26K per annum. She has paid in excess of $40K in council rates over 31 years, so should there be a cost of a mediation we suggest they be met by council, as they are the people who initiated this mess.
Please revert within 48 hours to Aileen at her email address: [address deleted] as to how SGSC wishes to proceed. Please also copy me in on that correspondence.
Bart Harrold, Tarwin Lower
