A man is battling a local council who ordered him to rip up a patch of grass in his front yard that cost him around $5,000.
Fadh Yusof, 36, who lives in the Melbourne suburb of West Footscray, is taking on Maribyrnong City Council over the synthetic grass he installed in a new townhouse he purchased in 2022.
The Age reports Mr Yusof had the patch of synthetic grass laid soon after he purchased the townhouse.
He said the original natural turf laid by the developers wasn’t in good condition and he wanted something that was low maintenance, but still looked good.
‘I live a busy lifestyle – the grass was dying,’ Mr Yusof said.
‘I feel it’s going to be a bit more stylish-looking for the house with the low maintenance.’
Mr Yusof works at a children’s hospital in Melbourne and added, ‘I can do medical procedures but I’m not much of a handyman.’
He was shocked to receive a letter from Maribyrnong City Council in February ordering him to remove the patch of synthetic grass.
He was told he had breached the property’s planning permit issued in 2020.
A landscape plan included with the permit specified the area was required to be covered with ‘lawn areas’.
The council stipulated the works be carried out in one month, but Mr Yusof took his case to the the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Mr Yusof claims he wasn’t given the planning permit and landscape plan.
‘How can I maintain a plan that I didn’t know the details of?’ he said.
He argued the word ‘lawn’ in the plan included synthetic grass as there was no requirement it had to be natural turf.
The council rejected Mr Yusof’s argument in its submission to VCAT, using a definition of lawn as ‘a stretch of grass-covered land, especially one closely mowed, as near a house, etc.’
In a letter to Mr Yusof’s lawyer, the council said synthetic grass has a ‘big environmental price tag’ and it is committed to sustainable design.
Mr Yusof argued that being synthetic, the lawn doesn’t require pesticides or fertilisers and doesn’t need to be watered, so it is better for the environment.
After a resident complained about a lack of landscaping on the property, the council said it had been monitoring the site for a year.
Due to staffing problems the enforcement letter was only issued eight months after the council identified the issue with the grass.
The VCAT cut down Mr Yusof’s appeal as they said it was filed too late after the remedial letter was sent.
They did not rule on his argument about the synthetic grass.
Mr Yusof said although he respects the VCAT’s decision, he won’t give up and is planning to file another application for review.
Maribyrnong CEO Celia Haddock said council regulation stipulates synthetic grass is not permitted in publicly visible areas of a development.