Neighbours, everybody needs good neigbours....

[Gob]

An elderly Canberra couple would rather see their Waramanga home sold out from under them than comply with court orders issued nine years ago to end a building saga that dates back to before the dismissal of the Whitlam government.



A neglected and unfinished home in Yambina Crescent, Warramanga, much to the ire of immediate neighbour, Wayne Mitchell, pictured in front of the house. Photo: Graham Tidy



Paul and Monica Gerondal received approval to extend their brown brick and tile home at 14 Yambina Crescent in 1975, about the time Indonesia was planning to invade East Timor.

Thirty-eight years on, East Timor has been free for more than a decade and the Gerondals are still living in the midst of their overgrown, unkempt and unfinished project.

By now the veterans of innumerable planning and administrative committee and tribunal hearings, they have even represented themselves at the Supreme Court.

Advertisement That didn't go well and a few years ago they had to rustle up a quick $70,000 for legal costs awarded against them at the hearing in 2004. The alternative would have been to lose their home.

Mrs Gerondal said that still rankled. ''The Supreme Court was wrong, absolutely wrong,'' she said. ''It is ridiculous we have had to spend $70,000 on a total abuse of the legislation.''

She believes the failure of the build, begun when her now 72-year-old husband Paul was 34, to proceed was everybody's fault but their own.

Asked who was responsible for the work not being finished, she said: ''The bank manager and the planning legislation.''

The couple, who had to borrow to raise the court costs, do not have the funds to finish the work. Mrs Gerondal says the ACT government, which says it is exploring every legal option to bring the saga to an end, is actually at fault by refusing them permission to do the work.

She and her husband will launch further appeals if and when the ACT government takes further action to enforce previous Supreme Court and Administrative Appeals Tribunal rulings to have the build finished and the site cleaned up.

Mrs Gerondal accepts such a challenge would likely end up in the Supreme Court, a cost jurisdiction, and if the court ruled against them she and her husband could be on the wrong side of a costs order they cannot afford to pay.

If that was to happen the property would be sold and they would be without a home.

''[If that happens] then that's it,'' she said. ''It doesn't look very good putting two pensioners out of their home, does it?''

Watching from the sidelines, next-door neighbours Wayne and Sue Mitchell cannot believe what has been happening (or, rather, not happening) over their back fence since they moved in 17 years ago in 1996. Their eldest child, Matt, was 12. As of earlier this month the now 29-year-old has a child of his own.

''When we looked at the house [in 1996] we were told it [the work next door] was an extension,'' Mr Mitchell said. ''Nobody said it had already been going on for 20 years.''

Mrs Gerondal said the Mitchells were serial complainers running a campaign of harassment against her and her husband. ''They go to the media every six months; it was The Chronicle last time. If we have any further harassment from the neighbours we will be seeking legal and lawful redress,'' she said.

Mr Mitchell said he was neither busybody nor crank. He doesn't dislike the Gerondals per se and could even live with the mess next door for the sake of peace and quiet.

What does bother him is seeing the law being made an ass by people he suspects are serial litigants who lodge a fresh action every time an umpire rules against them.



The History
1975: Paul and Monica Gerondal are granted building approval to extend house at 14 Yambina Crescent, Waramanga.
Late 1970s: Work begins. Building permit expires in 1983.
1996: Wayne and Sue Mitchell buy 16 Yambina Crescent.
1997: Gerondals told to complete the extension in 60 days.
1998: New three-year building permit issued.
July 2001: Permit expires. November 2001: Private certifier issues a new three-year permit.
December 2002: Gerondals told to cut back excess vegetation by August 2003 and to complete the building work by November 2004. They appeal.
August 2004: ACT Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. Gerondals ordered to pay $36,762 in costs. Gerondals eventually pay $70,000 (costs plus interest) several years later in order to save their house.
December 2005: Search warrant issued and authorities inspect the property. Gerondals ordered to remove all bamboo by January 31, 2006.
July 2006: Gerondals ordered by the Conservator of Flora and Fauna to remove the bamboo. They appeal.
March 2007: Appeals tribunal upholds the conservator's decision.
May 2013: Chief Minister Katy Gallagher advises the Mitchells that officers of the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate visited the site on April 23. ''I have asked that this matter be progressed promptly,'' she said.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So they got the permits (multiple times) but never finished the extension.

[Guinevere]

And left the place neglected and unfinished, if the press is to believe. Here in MA, permits aren't good forever, if you don't even start the work they expire and you have to re-apply. You're also, as a homeowner, responsible for keeping your home in good and safe repair, and in compliance with a variety of laws and regulations. I've got multiple cases I'm prosecuting, on behalf of municipalities, against people who are doing unpermitted work, or against people whose homes are in an unsafe condition.

[rubato]

Building codes are important.

Just see what an earthquake can do to below-code construction.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

[Scooter]

Mrs Gerondal accepts such a challenge would likely end up in the Supreme Court, a cost jurisdiction, and if the court ruled against them she and her husband could be on the wrong side of a costs order they cannot afford to pay.

If that was to happen the property would be sold and they would be without a home.

''[If that happens] then that's it,'' she said. ''It doesn't look very good putting two pensioners out of their home, does it?''

Tells you everything you need to know about these people, doesn't it?

Put them out on the street, force them to watch as their home is torn down brick by brick by brick, and then hand them a bill for the demolition.

[Big RR]

Mr Mitchell said he was neither busybody nor crank. He doesn't dislike the Gerondals per se and could even live with the mess next door for the sake of peace and quiet.

What does bother him is seeing the law being made an ass by people he suspects are serial litigants who lodge a fresh action every time an umpire rules against them.

This says a lot about their neighbors as well. They don't care about the mess on the neighboring property, but are offended that the law is "being made an ass"? If that's true, I don't understand it. It's like saying, I don't care that cars are speeding on a residential street, but it bother me the law is being flouted.

[Scooter]

What I hear is someone who is sick and tired of having this drama played out day after day for the 17 years they have lived in the house and would like to see it finished, one way or another, once and for all. Having the property next door remain a mess because the owners clearly have no intention of finishing it would be preferable to the farce in which they currently live, where work continues in fits and starts as the Gerondals apply for building permits whose terms they have no intention of fulfilling, put on a show of doing some work for a while, allow the building permit to lapse, have a court judgment issued against them which they may or may not obey in part, get another building permit, and begin the cycle over and over again. In those circumstances I would tend to see the fact that the law is being made an ass as the reason why my life is being made a living hell.

[Big RR]

Well, if it's the repeated starting and stopping of theconstruction that is the problem, you might be right; but somehow I think it's the mess that's the real problem (and FWIW, I wouldn't blame them if it was). If they could live with the mess (presumably by ignoring it), I would think they could also ignore, and live with, the legal drama.

[rubato]

"Roberts" Was Roberts leathers. They sold leather jackets &c. A friend who worked there ran out the door before the brick cornice fell (which you can see in the picture). Several good friends survived by just such a small margin. miraculously good luck for a lot of people I care about.


Yrs.
Rubato

[dales]

That's why bldg. codes should be kept up-to-date so your friend wouldn't have been almost killed.

[dgs49]

I'm sure we could fill quite a few pages with "bad neighbor" stories - people leaving junk cars and such in their driveways, not cutting the grass, and so on.

When somebody is determined to flout the law (or restrictive covenants), there is not much you can do.

[Big RR]

Unless you're a condo association.

[rubato]

That's why bldg. codes should be kept up-to-date so your friend wouldn't have been almost killed.

"Up to date" building codes effect new construction. In the Northridge quake, for an illustrative example, relatively new buildings were not built to then-current codes leading to unnecessary failures.

You are confusing that with retrofitting old buildings. Not the same.



Yrs,
Rubato