Point Vernon’s Mant St residents vent anger over council fence

A view-blocking fence in Point Vernon has been there since 2019 in response to poisoned trees and will remain in place for another year. But how do the residents in the street feel about the fence?

In one of the Fraser Coast’s most popular and affluent suburbs, on a street facing the glorious views of Gatakers Bay, there is an undeniable sense of discontent.

Mant Street in Point Vernon is a local piece of paradise, where mostly retirees enjoy their sunset years with a good view, peace and quiet.

But a large fence, erected by the Fraser Coast council in July 2019 in response to tree poisoning, has led to a sense of discord and anger in the neighbourhood, with many feeling they are being punished for something they did not do.

The council spent a whopping $30,000 to erect the ‘educational’ barrier while a further $40,000 of ratepayer money went to planting new vegetation along the foreshore.

Speaking to the Chronicle, but asking that their identity remain private, a couple who lives on Mant Street, where the fence has partially blocked their million-dollar views, told of how they felt their property had been devalued by a council to which they paid in excess of $6000 in rates each year.

They say they felt like everyone who visited the area looked at them with suspicion, due to their proximity to the fence, despite the fact they had never been involved in the tree poisoning.

In another part of the street, there was, until recently, a highly visible sign of the unrest.

An angry neighbour erected a sign outside their home after the fence was installed, expressing anger and disappointment in the council.

“Shame on you,” declared the sign, directed at the mayor and Councillor David Lewis, adding that ratepayers’ money had “been wasted” on an “educational prison precinct”.

The home has since been sold and the sign removed.

Its new owner, who also asked not to be named, said he “doesn’t like the fence either.’

He’s found that since moving in, he feels subjected to that same sense of suspicion others in the street have spoken of.

“It didn’t deter us from buying, obviously we don’t like it being there,” he said.

“One of the things we don’t like, people will walk past and stop and look at the sign and then turn around and look at us.

“We’ve only been here two months.”

The people who owned the house before him had lived in the home for 20 years, he said.

They too had felt that sense of being blamed for the poisoned trees, the man said, and that was why they sold the house.

Still, the new owner is trying to look on the bright side.

He said eventually the fence would be gone and those stunning views restored.

That could take some time.

At its September meeting, the council voted to keep the fence in place for another year to allow vegetation to continue to regenerate without people walking on it.

A total of 2000 native plants have been planted at the site, with a watering regime that will be reduced as they get established.

Along with dividing locals, it has caused some division within the council.

In December last year, a motion was brought by Councillor David Lee asked for the fence to be removed immediately after he said it was “punitive” and residents were being unfairly targeted just because they lived across from the site.

But the motion was withdrawn at the last minute.

In other areas of the region, including along the Esplanade, signs have been erected by the council regarding other instances of tree poisoning.

But in those cases, no large view-blocking fence was installed, with residents in Mant Street left to question why they had been singled out.

A sign indicating trees have been vandalised – but without the large, view-blocking fence.

Robin and Ian McLaren moved into Mant Street a year ago.

They aren’t bothered by the fence, but sympathise with their neighbours, who they know are frustrated.

“I know a lot of people don’t like it and get very upset about it,” Robin said.

The couple love living in the street, aside from the strong winds.

They hope restored vegetation will provide some protection when the shrubbery grows back again.

But despite their philosophical outlook on the fence, they too share in their neighbours’ sense of being subjected to suspicion.

“We had a joke that we were going to put a little sign up when we moved in saying ‘we didn’t do this’,” Robin said.

“It was like this when we bought,” Ian added.

According to the report provided to the council in September, the fence was necessary to allow for the continued rehabilitation of site.

No culprit has ever been caught.

The report claimed this meant the council was forced to fund the rehabilitation works from its Natural Environment budget, using up dollars which would have supported other projects in the region.

The report also states the site was not replanted until June this year to allow the herbicide time to degrade and avoid killing new plants.

“It is vital that the temporary fencing remains on site to protect the vegetation to prevent people using the area as a walking track and to assist with minimising potential for further illegal damage to the newly planted vegetation,” the report read.

“The vast majority of the original trees on site have died or were adversely impacted.”

The report suggested that when the temporary fencing was removed, post and rail could be installed as a delineation marker to keep people off the vegetation.

“Interpretative signing about the importance of the site is also planned,” the report read.

Previously, Councillor David Lewis said the death of the trees was consistent with the use of a herbicide.

“The fence will stay in place until the new vegetation reaches the same height as the fence or the site is declared safe and council officers are confident the vegetation will withstand occasional incidental public access,” Cr Lewis said.

“We estimate rehabilitation costs will exceed $40,000 over a four-year period.

“The costs includes all soil testing, installation of temporary fencing and printed fence mesh, replanting and maintaining the site for three years to monitor and manage revegetation.

“Trees are significant and valuable assets and belong to the whole community.

“Every incident of tree vandalism is a direct cost to ratepayers.”

The council has been contacted for further comment.