“No one had any idea about this historical encroachment. That’s where the fence was built before, that’s where it’s always been,” she said.
“The council were unaware, we were unaware. The surveyor had incorrectly measured it, and it just sat on the previous existing boundary line.”
Rather than order the Tamis family to knock down the fence and rebuild it, the council proposed to sell the land to them as it was no longer required for public use.
Disposing of the sliver of land on the south-eastern corner of the property would not restrict public access or impact the movement of pedestrians or cars, the council said.
Loading
Three submissions were made to the council in favour of the proposal and 17 against, with many of those opposing the sale saying it would reward illegal occupation.
Tamis believes an anonymous letter sent to suburbs outside the area led to the opposition.
The letter claims the fence was illegally built, overbearing and out of character with the neighbourhood, according to a copy provided to The Age by Tamis.
“We’ve had multiple people come over to ask about the letter; it’s caused us lots of stress,” she said.
“We haven’t done anything illegal – there is this negative connotation and perception still out there. Because there’s so much fixation and hyper-focus on the wall.”
One neighbour, who asked not to be named for fear of backlash, said the fence was unsafe for drivers trying to turn the corner as it created a blind spot.
“It’s a solid brick wall. It’s the ‘great wall of Heidelberg’,” they said.
The resident said it was not a dispute between neighbours but a matter of improving public safety and avoiding setting a bad precedent.
“It’s going to have a snowball effect,” they said. “Not just for Banyule, but every single council – the councils out there that actually do the right thing and deal with encroachments and actually take back the land.”
Banyule councillors voted unanimously last week to approve the sale of the land, with a price tag of $21,000 plus purchase costs.
The fence that led to the controversy.Credit: Chris Hopkins
“Council had to provide a practical solution to formalise the land occupation … as it does not restrict pedestrian movement,” said councillor Elizabeth Nealy.
However, that didn’t stop councillors from commenting on the fence’s visual impact.
“[It] is a glaring eyesore in my opinion, in what is otherwise a neighbourhood of relatively consistent low or no fences and landscaped front gardens,” said Cr Alida McKern.
Loading
“I’m genuinely intrigued and would ask the site owner, ‘What were you thinking?’”
Tamis said the debate was focused on the wrong issue.
“Some people don’t like the wall. OK, that’s nice. But do I come and critique your property? No,” she said. “It should not have been about that. However, a deflection occurred, and now it’s about the fence.”