A man is in a fight with the local government, which has ordered him to remove a patch of grass in his front yard, costing him about $5,000.
Fadh Yusof, 36, who lives in the Melbourne suburb of West Footscray, is in dispute with Maribyrnong City Council over the artificial grass he installed at a new home he bought in 2022.
The age reports that Mr. Yusof had the artificial grass installed shortly after he purchased the property.
He said the original natural grass the developers had laid was not in good condition and he wanted something that required little maintenance but still looked good.
“I have a busy life – the grass died,” Mr Yusof said.
‘I think the house will look more stylish because it will require less maintenance.’
Mr Yusof, who works in a children’s hospital in Melbourne, adds: ‘I can do medical procedures, but I’m not a handyman.’
He was shocked when he received a letter from Maribyrnong City Council in February ordering him to remove the piece of artificial turf.
Mr Yusof said the original natural grass (pictured) laid by the developers was not in good condition and he wanted something that required little maintenance but still looked good.
The artificial grass (pictured) that Mr Yusof had professionally installed and that he is required to remove by his local council
He was told he was in violation of the building permit issued for the property in 2020.
A landscape plan attached to the permit stated that the area had to be covered with ‘lawn areas’.
The council had ordered the works to be completed within a month, but Mr Yusof went to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Mr Yusof claims that he has not received a building permit or a landscaping plan.
“How can I stick to a plan when I don’t know the details?” he said.
He argued that the word ‘lawn’ in the plan included artificial grass, as there was no requirement that it had to be natural grass.
The council rejected Mr Yusof’s argument in his application to the VCAT, using a definition of lawn as ‘an area of land covered with grass, especially an area of land mown close, as near a house, etc.’
In a letter to Mr Yusof’s lawyer, the council wrote that artificial grass has a “high environmental price” and that the organisation is committed to sustainable design.
Mr Yusof argued that the lawn is synthetic, meaning no pesticides or fertilisers are needed and it does not need to be watered, making it better for the environment.
After a resident complained about the lack of vegetation on the site, the council indicated that they had been monitoring the site for a year.
Due to staffing issues, the enforcement letter was not sent until eight months after the council identified the grass problem.
VCAT dismissed Mr Yusof’s appeal because it was said to have been filed too late, after the correction letter had been sent.
No ruling was made on his argument about the artificial turf.
Mr Yusof said he respects VCAT’s decision but will not give up and plans to submit a new application for review.
Maribyrnong CEO Celia Haddock said the council’s bylaw states that artificial turf is not permitted in publicly visible parts of a development.