A man is fighting a local council that 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 synthetic turf installed at a new semi-detached home he bought in 2022.
Age Mr Yusof reportedly installed the synthetic turf shortly after purchasing the property.
He said the original natural grass laid by the developers was not in good condition and he wanted something that required little maintenance but still looked good.
“I lead a very busy life and the grass was dying,” Yusof said.
‘I feel like the house will look a little more elegant because of the low maintenance.’
Mr Yusof works at a children’s hospital in Melbourne and added: “I can do medical procedures but I’m not very good at manual tasks.”
He was shocked to receive a letter from Maribyrnong City Council in February ordering him to remove the patch of synthetic 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.
He was told he had breached the property’s planning permission issued in 2020.
A landscape plan included with the permit specified that the area was to be covered with “grass areas.”
The council stipulated that the works would be completed within a month, but Mr Yusof took his case to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Mr Yusof claims he was not provided with planning permission or a landscape plan.
“How can I maintain a plan whose details I don’t know?” he asked.
He argued that the word “turf” in the plan included synthetic turf, as there was no requirement that it had to be natural grass.
The synthetic turf (pictured) that Mr Yusof had professionally installed and has been ordered to remove by his local council.
The council rejected Mr Yusof’s argument in its submission to VCAT, using a definition of turf as “an area of land covered with grass, especially one cut close to the ground, such as near a house etc.”
In a letter to Mr Yusof’s lawyer, the council said synthetic turf comes at a “high environmental price” and that the organisation is committed to sustainable design.
Mr Yusof argued that because it is synthetic, the grass does not require pesticides or fertilisers and does not need to be watered, making it better for the environment.
After a resident complained about the lack of landscaping on the property, the council said it had been monitoring the site for a year.
Due to staffing issues, the compliance letter was only issued eight months after the council identified the problem with the turf.
VCAT rejected Mr Yusof’s appeal because it claimed it was submitted too late after the corrective letter was sent.
They did not comment on his argument about synthetic turf.
Mr Yusof said that while he respects VCAT’s decision, he will not give up and is planning to lodge another application for review.
Maribyrnong chief executive Celia Haddock said council regulations stipulate that synthetic turf is not permitted in publicly visible areas of a development.
