Pedestrian Crossing Built outside My Property without Proper Legal Consultation with Council - Potential Loss of Property Value?

Good day to all the community,

I have a bit of an unusual situation involving the construction of a refuge pedestrian crossing outside my house where the process by the Council was not followed through correctly, and I have been engaging with their legal department with relation to the below issue, who are now requesting for me to go through a compensation claim with them and their insurer.

My property is on a 50km/h street overlooking a park. I understand the works are on a public road.

Summary of events:

November 2020
A Public Notice was sent to me in November 2020 regarding a proposed pedestrian refugee crossing in a different location as a resident who will be affected by it,

10 November 2020
I had sent an an objection to this Public Notice whereby I outlined my concerns.

21 December 2020
I received a response from the Council on 21 December 2021 with "A final design and location for the crossing is still in development, this can be expected to occur early next year, so there is opportunity to provide further objections or feedback via reply to this email."

21 May 2021
Construction of the refuge pedestrian crossing commenced. The issues with this are as follows:
1) I was not provided a further opportunity to provide further objections as promised to me via email on 21 December 2020
2) The location of the crossing had changed and now is located right in front of my house instead of outside my neighbour's house, which impacts me now more than what it did previously. I would have expected to have received a new Public Notice again with changes so I could have the opportunity for any further objections if I felt they required and this is what they had advised me would occur. The correct process had not been followed under the Local Government Act and I was not consulted properly.

21 May 2021,
I spoke to the key individual within the Council and he advised me that the location of the crossing had changed due to surveyors changing it at the "eleventh hour". The new diagram provided to me was dated January 2021 and not at the eleventh hour as indicated during my phone call. The timelines contradict one another.

Please find attached the original diagram in the Public Notice and then the new diagram after construction had commenced which was not provided to me.


As the Council is now requesting for me to go through the compensation process and the Legal person agreed the consultation process was not followed correctly, and I have to list the impact this has had on my property value, and one way I would like to do this is through this poll.

Some disadvantages from this crossing being built outside my house:

1) the negative impact on property value from having this structure installed. Would a potential buyer in the future see this as something that would detract from the value of my property? My property is located opposite a park and I had paid a premium price for the land purchase to be positioned opposite it
2) permanent removal of on-street parking in front of my property
3) difficulty reversing my vehicle onto the road to turn right as I now need to make an awkward, sharp turn after reversing
4) the nature strip has permanently been altered. I had artificial turf, they have attempted to fix this, but they had to add additional artificial turf to fill the void as the nature strip had to be extended out towards the road, but the colour and texture does not match the rest of the existing turf. I understand that the Council owns the nature strip, but they they have left it looking visually less appealing to how it was done prior to the works being undertaken
5) collection of rubbish around my property with garbage being trapped around the crossing and around my property

I appreciate your time in reading this and your feedback and response to the poll in advance

OLD Diagram of the crossing, directly in front of my neighbour's house
NEW Diagram of the crossing, location had changed from old diagram, to being in front of my house without being consulted):

Poll Options expired

  • 28
    Yes, there is a loss in property value, I would try to avoid the purchase of such a property
  • 60
    No, there is no loss in property value, I would not avoid purchase of such a property

Comments

  • +34

    NIMFY?
    .

  • +53

    Council was always going to build it wherever they wanted, regardless of what you said. Also, fake turf, yuk.

      • +33

        The council doesn't care about your design tips, sorry to say. They will do whatever they want, and don't care about anyone else.

        • +7

          Then make you pay for it by increasing rates :)

      • +8

        The only thing of use I can offer you is learn to reverse into your driveway. Pullup in front of the driveway to the left of yours and reverse in, that way you can get in and out safely without stopping on the roadway and inconveniencing other road users.

        Also learn the road rules, you can not legally drive over a painted traffic island to get into your property. You can now only enter the driveway from the lane closest to your property.

        I'm confused as to why you complained about the old location? Maybe they moved it closer to your house because you objected lol

        At least now you can walk over to the park safely, so that's a plus +

        • +17

          Also learn the road rules, you can not legally drive over a painted traffic island to get into your property.

          Actually, getting into your property is one of the exceptions which allows you to drive on painted islands. In NSW at least.

          Road Rules 138/2/a:

          (2) A driver may drive on or over a single continuous line along the side of or surrounding a painted island for up to 50 metres—
          (a) to enter or leave the road, or

          • @D3HUN: Dammit… road rules for me again lol

            • @stringbean402: while you are there…

              I always thought reversing into the opposite lane was never allowed.

              perhaps I was confused and that is only out of 45 or 60 degree parking.
              or perhaps I was completely wrong. any info you can add?

              If i'm wrong I can stop being mildly annoyed when I see people doing it.

        • Also learn the road rules, you can not legally drive over a painted traffic island to get into your property.

          Might want to look at the line markings in the diagram too. The lines are drawn broken, just for OP's driving pleasure

      • let me guess, your "design tips" are to move the crossing somewhere else? hahahahaha

    • +30

      I am thinking the OPs trash fake astro turf will hurt his value than some pedestrian crossing.

      • +2

        ^this. If house value was a real issue then he wouldn't have artificial turf. That would detract from value to me far more than a crossing.

    • +1

      Your Neighbours gifts were better than yours.

  • +11

    In my experience with interactions with councils, I would email the CEO of the council & all of the councillors so they know what has happened. You then need to figure out the action that you want, compensation or getting them to rip up what they have and move it to the original location. Councillors can certainly put it on the agenda for the next council meeting to assess. If you want money then well that's easier but getting them to move it (or convincing them) will be a longer process which may not be successful.

    For compensation, I would get them to agree to pay for your legal advice & a cost of a valuer who maybe can estimate a loss.

    • Thanks neil, that is some very sound advice.

    • It would be the Mayor, the counsellors (particularly your Ward representatives) and the General Manager and probably the Director of >whatever they choose to call their Public Works Dept< .

      • +1

        the counsellors

        I guess op may need counseling after this ordeal 😃

        • +2

          One day I shall learn to spell the tricky words…

          • +1

            @brad1-8tsi: It's Councillors, FYI

            • @Chandler:

              It's Councillors, FYI

              Yep, I stuff it up every time. That's why I said:

              One day I shall learn to spell the tricky words…

              • +1

                @brad1-8tsi: I know - that's why I replied to that comment, rather than the upper level one: just thought I'd save you looking for the correct spelling :)

    • I'm sorry but they're definitely not going to pay that.

    • +11

      Valuer here what you are referring to is called the before and after approach, this is used for cases where a road might've been extended or a driveway completely blocked off. Compensation payable is usually the difference between the before & after value.

      For such a small change to the streetscape I don't think this would be warranted. If you checked the sale price of other houses with a pedestrian crossing our front compared to other comparable properties on the same street without a crossing there's unlikely to be any difference.

      Some potential buyers, particularly those with elderly parents or children may even see the position of the pedestrian crossing as a positive.

  • +6

    Yeah, you are in an awkward situation.

    As the Council is now requesting for me to go through the compensation process and the Legal person agreed the consultation process was not followed correctly

    Continue with your legal path. Let us know how you go.

    • +2

      No, they never give updates to things like this on OzBargain. We're always left to ponder.

      Keeps me awake at night sometimes….

  • +17

    via reply to this email.

    Did you reply?

    I had sent an an objection to this Public Notice whereby I outlined my concerns.

    Just because you put a objection in, doesn't mean they have to change plans.

  • +46

    Nice now you can cross the street safely and easily, I'd say that's a win.

    P.S - Obviously your neighbour, did follow the correct process and outlined his/her concerns and suggested they move the crossing to a better location.

  • +1

    bikies will fix it for you

    • give them a monte carlo

  • This looks like Crown land under the management and care of the local council. There should be state legislation saying that they can do want they with as long as they follow the state road construction regulations.

  • +56

    Looking at the new design it looks like they've considered the turning paths for your neighbour to the right so they can access the property from both sides of the road, similar to your house (fake turf).

    If you were the neighbour who was getting a median out the front of your house would you like it if your access was cut off and you had to make a u-turn to approach your house?

    The solution looks like it appeases both parties and frankly i don't see what your objection would be?

    1) your property value would be unaffected, in this climate no one cares that there's a crossing out the front of your house.

    2) You're not getting permanent removal of on street parking (yes you lose 1/2 bays but you don't actually own these anyway and i wouldn't expect these to be in high demand in residential areas) in fact their embaying the bays which would be an improvement/safer

    3) you're reversing anyway, i don't see how this is any different to not having the median. The turning path quite easily demonstrates copious amounts of space.

    4) You're lucky they allow you to install artificial turf on the verge. Many councils in my area have banned this due to degradation, heat and decreased permeability. Not to mention when it tears after a year because someone drove over it it starts to look terrible and weeds get in.

    5) Non issue.

    Background: I was a transport engineer that designed and consulted on these for multiple years and i'm sorry but pedestrian safety and removal of a possible u-turn movement is paramount. This is Nimbyism at its best.

  • +16

    For this structure to be built I'm guessing you live on a pretty busy road.

    That traffic would impact your property value more than a pedestrian refuge.

  • +28

    Artificial turf? Think this would
    Negatively impact the house price more than any crossing

  • +13

    I really can't see how having a pedestrian crossing outside would have a negative impact on your property's value.

    • +9

      I agree.

      Ohhhh. The road is pretty busy. Let's offer them $40k less but then again that pedestrian refuge will make it easier for little Bobby to go to the park*

      *Potential buyer (probably)

      • +4

        Depends if you live on Abbey Road

    • If you want to be compensated for everything that happens then even a fly landing 3 doors down is adverse impact to your property values.

  • +21

    So, you "paid a premium" for the property as it was located opposite the park and now that the council has built a direct access crossing outside the property you want compensation?
    My suggestion is to cut your perceived losses as you have a lost cause.

    • +7

      maybe hoping for a tunnel?
      .

  • Who exactly told you it would affect the value of your property?

  • +1
  • +9

    You live opposite a park & now how an easier way to get to the park. I don’t see the issue.

  • +8

    They probably read your complaint about it going in front of your neighbours place and figured they could address it by building it in front of your place instead.

    They proposed a design, gave you a chance to comment on it and since you didn't like it they put it somewhere else.

  • +15

    I understand the works are on a public road.

    If you understood that, this thread would not exist.

    A Public Notice was sent to me in November 2020 regarding a proposed pedestrian refugee crossing in a different location as a resident who will be affected by it,

    So there was consultation.

    I received a response from the Council on 21 December 2021 with "A final design and location for the crossing is still in development, this can be expected to occur early next year, so there is opportunity to provide further objections or feedback via reply to this email."

    This actually does say that they will tell you about the bext draft.

    1) I was not provided a further opportunity to provide further objections as promised to me via email on 21 December 2020

    No such promise was made.

    I would have expected to have received a new Public Notice again with changes

    Your expectations and reality can differ.

    I spoke to the key individual within the Council and he advised me that the location of the crossing had changed due to surveyors changing it at the "eleventh hour". The new diagram provided to me was dated January 2021 and not at the eleventh hour as indicated during my phone call. The timelines contradict one another.

    Now you are just picking on small random things like the semantics around 11th Hour.

    1) the negative impact on property value from having this structure installed. Would a potential buyer in the future see this as something that would detract from the value of my property?

    No one knows what future non-existent buyers mindsets are. You are making shit up.

    My property is located opposite a park and I had paid a premium price for the land purchase to be positioned opposite it

    You bought the property for many many reasons, a park is just one of them and likely a small factor. The Park is still there it hasn't moved. Your house is still there, it hasn't moved. Stop making shit up.

    2) permanent removal of on-street parking in front of my property

    If someone not you parked there permanently, you'd be the first to complain.

    3) difficulty reversing my vehicle onto the road to turn right as I now need to make an awkward, sharp turn after reversing

    Reverse in, learn to reverse better.

    4) the nature strip has permanently been altered. I had artificial turf, they have attempted to fix this, but they had to add additional artificial turf to fill the void as the nature strip had to be extended out towards the road, but the colour and texture does not match the rest of the existing turf

    Potential buyers typically do not consider the differing textures of artificial turf within the scope of consideration, just like they don't with being opposite a park.

    5) collection of rubbish around my property with garbage being trapped around the crossing and around my property

    You paid extra to live near a park where rubbish is generally move present, now you are complaining about rubbish. Stop making shit up.

  • +10

    another case of NIMBY, why everything in this country moves at a blisteringly slow pace with huge admin and bureaucracy costs

  • +3

    I do like the fact that a council legal person accepts an OzBargain poll as a legitimate way of measuring the impact on property value.

    The respect for, and expertise of, the OzBargain community knows no bounds!

    Scotty should be very proud.

  • Can cars park there? look like that'll be a no stopping area

  • +3

    Could I make an offer to purchase your property?

    I've always wanted a pedestrian crossing in front of my house. The potential feeling of prestige makes me tingle!

    • Should paint the crossing red as well :D

  • +2

    I think the loss of a parking space is a potential problem occasionally. Otherwise everything else seems a non issue. You can adapt to everything else. Maybe ask them to plant new real grass there on the nature strip if it’s ugly. I’m other words finish the job properly. Take some photos.

  • +1

    Yea I can see them accepting your claim of not having a public safety item because you might lose property value.

  • Quite simple really, consultations like this are done through surveys. While the exact process hasn't been followed in your instance, nothing would have changed anyway as they're only looking for overall support and the complaints are rather small and unjustified

  • Thats what you get for objecting, you were targeted by the council and now look at ya….Happy Days

  • you should be thankful that didn't build speed bumps as well

  • +2

    Bruh what are you reversing a b double? That's your driveway with the red reversing path in the traffic management plan right?
    And why should the public be responsible for the storage of your private property on their asset?

  • I get the sense Council is calling your bluff by asking you to make a liability claim, I can't see how your home's value is negatively impacted by better infrastructure.

    1) your house is still opposite a park. Now the park is easier to get to.

    2) no cars to block your view of parkland

    3) instead of having to gauge a gap in traffic, traffic has to slow down approaching the crossing, making it easier for you to leave your driveway

    4) fair enough the nature strip fake turf is ugly. You could push this point with council. What would you like instead?

    5) collection of rubbish - again take it up with council. you could ask council to put a bin near the park entry if there isn't one.

    Your main complaint is you were not consulted /made to feel heard. That is not right, but you don't get to sue council for pain and suffering. From third-party perspective, you haven't lost any money and are seeing the situation too emotionally because you feel like you were treated unfairly

  • my only comment is that the (new) location of the crossing has made it more awkward to reverse out of your driveway. If they had (could) move it "left" (in the second diagram) say 2 or 3 meters, it would make access to / from your property easier, without impacting the neighbour's driveway. If there is a longer car squeezed into the space in front of your place, it could make egress even harder.

    however, you said they had started construction? you're out of luck then

  • I understand speed bumps cause noise issues, but crossings? I'd rather a crossing than a chicane even.

  • +4

    To be honest, I think that the crossing actually looks quite nice from what you've drawn.

    Straightaway right outside a park isn't a great idea and with these sorts of residential streets, I generally support chicanes as a way of not just reducing speed, but much more importantly, making drivers more attentive and actually pay attention to the road and look for potential hazards.

    This sort of crossing will probably make drivers pay more attention and slow down which would make your area safer.

    FWIW, with regards to your point about having to reverse out sharper due to the crossing, this is also a good thing. I assume from you complaining about this that you're one of those morons who reverses all the way out into oncoming traffic going in the opposite direction because you don't turn sharply out of your driveway? So many times I've seen accidents on the verge of happening because of idiots who reverse out like this without looking in the other direction. It's a good thing you no longer can reverse into oncoming traffic with the crossing blocking your path.

    To be honest, I think the real farce here is that your neighbours are paying some dude at the council through their rates to deal with nonsense complaints like this.

  • +1

    I actually think this may increase your property value. I believe they still accept cheque?

  • +2

    They did address your concerns. They changed the design and placed it right in front of your property.

    You're ignoring the reality that it has to go somewhere, and it's a long bow to claim that this reduces the value of your property - some people will appreciate the safer perceived direct access to the park. I doubt there's a convention for compensating adjacent owners for this - it's very likely wasting time to even think about compensation.

  • +3

    You put artificial turf on the nature strip?!? Your council should be sending you a bill to fix the destruction of their property!

  • you got what you deserved

  • '3) difficulty reversing my vehicle onto the road to turn right as I now need to make an awkward, sharp turn after reversing'

    here's my tip - having seen drivers reversing into and across blocking two lanes of busy main roads and wondering why they get beeped by other drivers

    when you come home, reverse INTO your driveway, when you can best see there are no kids playing in the driveway, and you park your car with the driver's door opening to the bigger yard, and when you drive out you have a full forward view of all traffic left and right for maximum safety.

    the alternative has led to too many horror stories - reversing a car out, your baby toddler wants to say goodbye to daddy, who's busy starting the car and doesn't notice toddler is now standing behind the car willing Daddy to not leave, so Daddy reverses the car … and (bump) 'hmm - what's that …?' - gets out and finds a dead child under the wheel - accompanying screams of 'how could this have happened !??!?!'

    OK - so I've just told you how that happens - what you do with it is your choice - choose wisely …

  • +1

    What wad the issue with the original location? Turns out it wasn't so bad after all.

  • +1

    A. Yes, there is a loss in property value
    B. No, there is no loss in property value

    Where is C. No, there is a gain in property value? There is a good chance that the pedestrian crossing had made it safer for kids and elderlies in this area to cross the road.

  • A safe road crossing right outside the house seems like an appealing thing to me if I lived on a busy road. Especially if its directly across to a park. So I don't really get how it could negatively impact your house value and thus worthy of compensation. Having artificial turf would turn me off a house though. I bet it's fun to get approvals to re-turf a nature strip.

  • I didn't know you could astroturf the nature strip. Council should send you a demand to put real grass in.

    Anyway, you've got a refuge crossing right in front of your house now. Sounds really convenient and a plus for potential buyers with kids.

  • +5

    I feel that living next to OP would reduce my property value.

  • oh please, any loss in property value caused by this is meaningless and will be absorbed in the weekly price pump that is the Aussie housing market.

    if you live in the house, nothing has changed and you have lost no money. maybe your nature strip is changed (it was never yours anyway)

    the only reason you would be mad is if this is an investment property, and even then you're just mad because you're selfish with no concern of the improvement of community spaces.

    either way, by the time you sell it the value will have increased more than any lost value from the council works.

    get over it.

  • +1

    Well one third of people say there is a loss of property value and they would avoid buying your house.

    So looks like the minority is actually correct here.

  • erm, they improved your house, you've now got a pred crossing to the park right at your doorstep, your neighbors? they legally have to walk down the street to your house just to cross the road(you are supposed to cross at the ped crossing) this is a positive, instead of crying spin it in your favour.

  • Only browsed quickly, but loss of property value is not a concern for council decisions, and nor should they be.

    If council had legitimate reason to block your view of the park with a giant wall, and abided by all rules and regulations they do not need to take into account at all regarding loss in value of your property. They can take your considerations and concerns into account but do not necessarily need to address them.

    Certainly if #1 issue is loss of value, you are out of luck.

  • +1

    Pedestrian safety trumps your potential loss of property value.

    Classic NIMBY.

  • Is this a school crossing? A few years back our local council pulled out two corner crossings, and stuck one in the middle of the block with all sorts of safety measures, but the saved the cost of a lollypop.
    Once the kids were past parental supervision they crossed where ever whenever they could get away with it, especially on bikes, where they totally ignore it, and barrell accross at the corner where there is no crossing.
    If it's a school crossing demand proof it's a safety measure not cost.,
    Council and state governments aim to turn pedestrians and cyclist into traffic bollards.
    Putting pedestrian crossings at roundabouts so vehicle A pillars completely block out the view. When one dies the bureaucrats will find the driver guilty instead of themselves.
    Forcing drivers into opposing traffic lanes to meet 1.5 metre distancing in Victoria.
    Just putting bike lanes into main roads is homicidal, when perfectly suitable adjacent streets would do a better, safer job.

Login or Join to leave a comment