A disabled Afghanistan war veteran, with diagnosed PTSD, faces the loss of his off-grid, tiny home in Wilsons Creek because it is deemed an ‘unauthorised development’.
Council have ordered the professionally-built dwelling to be demolished.
Mayor Michael Lyon replied to The Echo on the matter, with contested claims regarding the surrounding vegetation and the amount of clearing, (see below).
War vet Matt Bruce says he approached The Echo because he felt there were no options left to him, and wanted the issue of mental health to be more widely known.
Mr Bruce told The Echo, ‘I would hate to see another member of the community, or a homeless person, go through the level of neglect that I went through’, adding, ‘If I am forced to demolish my home, I would lose my small life savings’.
After being evicted from his last rental, Mr Bruce says he found land to rent, and craned in the tiny home onto blocks. Mr Bruce says he rents the rural land from landlord, Nick Scali.
According to realestate.com.au, the property is 140 acres with one other dwelling.
Both Mr Bruce and Mr Scali told The Echo they are wanting to navigate a way forward to be compliant, yet throughout the process, they say Council staff were unhelpful in establishing a pathway to gain approval.
$9,000 fine
A $9,000 fine was also recently issued by Council to Mr Scali, for ‘unauthorised development’. Mr Bruce says that a personal agreement between him and Mr Scali makes him responsible for the fine. The arrangement also incudes paying the hefty fees demanded by Council every time compliance officers attend onsite.
Mr Scali told The Echo he suspects that the neighbour who complained to Council is also a Council employee.
The issue puts into question Council’s often repeated claims that it is doing whatever it can to ease the housing crisis, and how compliance staff exercise their extensive powers, under delegation from general manager (GM), Mark Arnold.
Mental health
Two letters from his psychologist, asking Council staff to consider his mental state, were ignored, Mr Bruce says.
The letters from psychologist, Dr Debra Roberts, ask Council to be lenient on Mr Bruce: ‘The pressure being placed on Mr Bruce by this demolition order has triggered his PTSD, anxiety, and depression’, she wrote.
‘Matthew has found a place he feels safe in. I believe Matthew needs continuity, consistency, and stability in the foreseeable future to assist with his mental health and PTSD’.
One of the questions put to Council staff, which was not replied to, was: if there is a mental health policy in place when dealing with those with mental health issues.
Mr Bruce says he was very careful about his footprint when placing the dwelling, and only cleared a small number of camphor trees around the pad, which is a former banana farm, mostly populated by weeds.
It is also close to the property boundary and an established road. ‘No natives were touched’, he says. ‘My composting toilet, grey water system, gas and solar array are all up to building code’, he says.
Extremely professional staff: Shannon Burt
Council’s Director Sustainable Environment and Economy, Shannon Burt, refused to reply to questions around her department’s demands.
She instead said, ‘Council generally does not comment on individual cases. This matter was first raised as a complaint to Council regarding unauthorised land clearing and an unapproved dwelling on the land. This matter is ongoing. Our staff, especially those in the Enforcement team, are extremely professional, dealing with a number of issues with compassion and with a strong desire to find reasonable solutions and resolutions to often complex problems. This situation is no different’.
Procedural fairness?
Mr Bruce says procedural fairness was not followed in relation to 4.15, 4.16 and 4.29 of Council’s Enforcement Policy 2020.
Those policies have regard to the impact an unauthorised activity has on amenity, or harm to the environment.
It reads, ‘If action is required, Council will consider what is reasonable in the circumstances and ensure the action is not disproportionate to the level of harm or damage arising from the unauthorised activity’.
‘Making me homeless would seem to be disproportionate to the level of harm or damage this dwelling has on the surrounding environment’, says Mr Bruce.
While Mr Bruce says he was told by Council his tiny home is not a ‘moveable dwelling’, Council’s head of compliance, Sarah Nagel, told Mr Bruce in email correspondence on May 11, 2023 that, ‘Council offered up solutions, such as relocating the structure closer to the main dwelling which would permit its continued existence on the property’.
Relocating is not possible, says Mr Bruce, as there is no suitable land near the main dwelling.
‘And besides, the road that delivered the tiny home was severely damaged by the 2020 floods. I can’t remove it unless the road is repaired’, he said. Mr Bruce added, ‘This has dragged on for years in part because of the 2020 floods decimating the region, and because Council staff have not provided a clear approval pathway’.
Mayor replies
The following is in part what Mayor Michael Lyon told The Echo on the matter:
‘A healthy situation exists where staff and councillors work together on behalf of the community’.
‘This issue has been going on for over two years. The dwelling is not moveable for the purposes of the regulations, and has been built in littoral rainforest, after substantial clearing, in a zone that does not permit it. The landowner is responsible and needs to deal with this, including paying the fines.
‘The landowner has been given ample opportunity and options on his own land where the dwelling could be sited, but has refused to do so. There is no Council employee involved as complainant.
‘We have provided the landowner with multiple options to resolve this, provided a long break in action due to the floods period, and he has not availed himself of those options.
‘I am aware of how much latitude has already been given to Matt in order for this to be resolved over an extended period of time’.
No assistance from mayor
Mr Bruce told The Echo he contacted the mayor for assistance, yet according to Mr Bruce, the mayor did not reply.
The mayor did not reply to why he did not assist, when asked by The Echo, and instead launched a personal attack on the author of this story.
This heavy handed bureaucracy is not what is needed in these times of housing crisis.
For the love of God Mr. Mayor show some compassion for those less fortunate than your comfortably off middle class self.
It is now crystal clear that not all Australians can expect to find conventional style accomodation, or any accomodation.
This problem arises when people want to do something they know is probably ‘against the rules’, so they don’t enquire from a Council about their options, but instead go ahead with what they want. This puts Councils in the position of being asked to make exceptions for some people: maybe a homeless family with 3 kids under the age of 10, maybe an elderly couple, …etc
If the Mayor’s statement is correct that other sites on the property were suitable, perhaps the landowner is unwilling to assist the poor fellow. Any chance some vets with heavy machinery or other resources could move the structures?
Any chance it can be deemed a worker’s cottage. Maybe he could do some weeding or regeneration work.
The Mayor did not reply to why he did not assist, when asked by The Echo, and instead launched a personal attack on the author of this story.
A personal attack on the Author , WOW!
Fancy doing that to meek and mild Clark Kent, who has never attacked the Mayor.
Ever..
I ask – doesn’t Council have more important things to do!? Why on earth focus on a situation that is multi-repeated around the Shire – that hurts no one, provides security & safety, and is – in many cases – ignored – being the best outcome. Is bullying and unkindness really the best solution? I have absolutely no issues with the dwelling existing in that spot and I would estimate that 95% of the Shire are equally unaffected by it. That neighbouring council member is NOT doing his/her job. They are on a power trip or plotting vengeance. They are the one who should go …
It takes courage to be truthful instead of just self righteously bad mouthing those u don’t agree with. Fact is, it is unfair to those who obey rules to make exceptions for some people. It is a form of corruption where decision makers like elected representatives can make favorable decisions for mates or for people who contribute to their political campaigns or bank accounts.
If a valid complaint is made, Council is obliged to take some action. Clearly someone complained and your claim about “95% of the Shire” is made up nonsense and irrelevant. Some percentage of the population thinks that it is OK to be violent towards others, but we are all adversely affected by it either directly or indirectly.
The basis of our common law system is whether harm is done to other people. The dobber is in the wrong. Such behaviour is dealt with in remote communities.
Littoral rainforest at Wilsons Creek? Really Mr Mayor?
Maybe Lowland Subtropical Rainforest, same result but a judge would find against council if they argued that’s the Endangered Ecological Community the dwelling impacted
Humans are more important than nature. This one doubly so. Is your Mayor one of those anti-human globalists types?
Are you sure that’s a house he is building? To me, it looks more like a boat! Once he straps the 44 gal drums under it, I’m sure it will become apparent to the rest of you 😉
Happy sailing Captain Mat
This is very interesting.
What I note is a cultural gap between a very much more free regulatory environment of the past and the new heavy handed approach by the compliance division of the Byron Shire council.
Is this what we want?
I’ve been living in the north coast (rainbow regions) most of my life and I bemoan the trajectory being taken by the Byron Shire Council. This new found policing of those that seek shelter and homes is especially inappropriate in these times of high homelessness. It is an affront to life and liberty and one that all sensible and compassionate people should be opposed.
If interested in this issue an you feel you have been victimized by the Byron Shire new era constabulary policy please contact:
Nicqui Yazdi
Right to Shelter – Byron Shire
So it seems it’s ok for people to turn their garage into accommodation and leave out the bit about providing parking, putting extra people into those houses, putting extra pressure on services and all in a suburban setting… but, put a hut in the hills miles away from anyone and BOOM!
Nailed it……
Apparently I hear from a trusted source, there are ‘hundreds’ of compliance issues in dealing with unapproved dwellings. It begs the question, is Byron Shire Council actually contributing to the homeless situation.
I read of another case whereby a person was forced to move out of his affordable dwelling right in the middle of the biggest flood in living memory.
Something not right here.
Again this new found trajectory of the compliance constabulary to actually making people homeless is totally inappropriate.
We certainly need a more heartfelt and compassionate response to these situations.