THE South Gippsland Shire Council is still on track to take Meeniyan pensioner Aileen Hughes to court.
That’s despite stating this week that “it remains open to avoiding court action if that can be achieved”.
The case is listed to be heard at the Korumburra Magistrate’s Court on Thursday, November 6.
And as the days count down, Ms Hughes is getting progressively more anxious about her future and where she might live if it all goes horribly wrong.
The shire has charged her with failing to comply with a Building Order, dated September 17, 2024, “to cease occupation” of a home she has lived in for more than 25 years.
That’s despite a report by an authorised council officer, dated October 3, 2023, obtained under Freedom of Information, detailing that “in my opinion the shed used for habitation poses no immediate risk (excluding absence of smoke alarms)”.
A smoke alarm has since been added, to council’s satisfaction.
After inspecting Ms Hughes’ home in September 2023, following a report from “an anonymous person… complaining that a person has been living in a shed on the property for the past 10 years”, the officer told his superiors that “the only immediate risks identified by the shed being used for occupation is the absence of smoke alarms”.
He directed that an alarm be installed above the entrance to the bedroom “to mitigate fire safety risks”.
The work was carried out by an authorised person and inspected by a council officer who also inspected a septic system on the property and found it to have an up-to-date service history, which is more than you could say for plenty of other properties in the shire.
Despite that, they’re continuing to prosecute the 75-year-old lifetime local, in the face of an avalanche of community support, urging Council to stand down.
If the court upholds council’s “cease occupation” order in the middle of a housing crisis across Australia, where there are an estimated 400 households in need of affordable housing in the South Gippsland Shire alone, Ms Hughes and her beloved horse Darcy will likely have nowhere to go.
She doesn’t want to go anywhere else. Why should she!
“It’s pretty stressful. I’ve had my moments over the past two years, I can tell you,” said Ms Hughes this week.
“Being hit with a criminal charge is something I just can’t get over. It’s unbelievable really, thinking about what might happen on November 6.
“There’s nothing wrong with the house. It’s probably a lot better living here than some of the other houses you hear about.
“How can they pull this out now when they know I’ve been living here for more than 25 years,” she said.
Ms Hughes said the property was inspected in 2016 with the council officer at the time saying she’d do a report and if there was any problem, they’d get back to me. They never did.
“They came back in 2023 and asked me to put in a smoke alarm, which I did.”
Ms Hughes said the shire wanted her to pay for a further assessment of the property, which she was unable to afford on a low, fixed income.
The ball’s in the shire’s court.
But, as Ms Hughes says, why are they wasting ratepayers’ money on an issue that’s 25 years old.
“I’m happy here. It’s my home and there’s nothing wrong with it. Why don’t they just leave me alone.”
The shire’s new CEO Allison Jones has reached out, offering to discuss the options for avoiding going to court, but Ms Hughes is fearful it might mean having to undertake further assessment and building works she can’t afford.
The shire’s actions have set up an impasse where taking the matter to court and letting someone else decide what to do seems the only option in an overly bureaucratic setting.
Shire response
The Sentinel-Times asked council for a response.
“As this matter is now subject to legal proceedings, Council is unable to comment on specific case details. However, Council can provide the following general information:
• Council’s preference is to resolve this matter cooperatively by ensuring Ms Hughes’ building meets all compliance requirements, and it remains open to avoiding court action if that can be achieved.
• Victorian building legislation establishes minimum safety and construction standards to ensure dwellings are safe and suitable for habitation. It is unlawful to reside in any building that has not been designed, approved, and constructed for residential use.
• Council officers are required to operate in accordance with the Victorian Building
Act 1993 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
• Once Council becomes aware of an instance of unlawful habitation, it has a duty of care to act in accordance with these legislative requirements. Failure to act may result in legal consequences, and there have been cases where councils have been found liable for not responding appropriately to such situations.
• Issues relating to habitation can be resolved if certification is obtained confirming that the building meets the necessary standards for residential use, including compliance with the standards applicable at the time of construction and relevant bushfire requirements.
Online feedback unanimous
The online feedback has been swift, unanimous and at times brutal in its criticism of the shire and the “anonymous person”. Here are a few examples:
• Kate Danby: Absolutely disgusting on the council’s behalf. I certainly don’t want my rates paying to harass and bully an innocent person living her life without harm to anyone. Shameful!!
• Diane Napper: What’s happened to our homes being our Castles?
• Keith Mitchelson: Shire should stick to what they’re supposed to do – rates, roads and rubbish not to harassing poor old pensioners.
• Jarrod Metselaar: You just hope the “anonymous person” stubs their toe every day for the rest of their life.
• Bonnie Cook: This shire is exceptionally good at throwing elderly people out into the street. Korumburra elderly citizens for example!
