Council rules no screen is needed between neighbours

An ongoing feud between two neighbours has been settled with Bunbury City Council backing officers’ advice that privacy screening was not needed.

Picton Crescent homeowners John and Rhonda Bridgham were forced to defend their decision not to have screening on an alfresco area when neighbour Stephen Scott-Higgins objected to plans.

Mr Scott-Higgins claimed the new alfresco area looked directly into a child’s bedroom at the front of his house, but the Bridgham’s disputed the claim.

Both families made emotional deputations to the council on Tuesday night.

Mrs Bridgham said the matter had taken its toll on the couple and she “resented” the process given the plans were completely legal and within the R-Codes.

“We have been through hell on this build which has taken its toll on both of our health, both mental and physical,” Mrs Bridgham said.

“The whole process has been deeply upsetting.”

Mr Scott-Higgins told the council he wanted to reiterate his objection because the matter was an invasion of privacy and the only option should be screening.

“By approving this removal of visual privacy means that you are saying to your electorate that you approve a 13th hour submission that blatantly had disregard to the process and a total disregard of any moral or ethical rights,” he said.

Tecon Australia director Gary Fitzgerald also provided a presentation including photos and diagrams to the council saying the development complied with statutory requirements.

“There is no doubt that Mr and Mrs Bridgham have appreciation for the comments that are raised, but they’re emotive comments that have – in their opinion and in my interpretation from a planning framework perspective – no validity in regards to the issue,” Mr Fitzgerald said.

The council was told Mr Scott-Higgins was considering work on his property to minimise concerns.