Reservoir neighbour wars over restrictive land laws stopping granny flats

A Melbourne community is fighting over a unique historic law that dictates what they can and can’t do with their own land.

A group of neighbours in Melbourne’s north are going head-to-head over a century-old law that prevents building anything more than a single dwelling on each block of land.

And the strict covenant only applies to a 6sq km patch in Reservoir, stretching from Broadhurst Ave up to Mahoney’s Rd to the west of High St.

The Merrilands Estate covenant, which is a private agreement between landowners that started 100 years ago when the land was originally subdivided, has divided the neighbourhood as many residents have applied to VCAT to get the law lifted.

The covenant has about 3000 beneficiaries, who have signed their land title that states they cannot build more than one dwelling on their property.

Some residents argue that the law is too restrictive as they want to build second dwellings for elderly relatives, but those who support the covenant believe it should be upheld in absolutes to protect the unique, spacious neighbourhood.

Mario Mizzi, a resident who has lived in the area for 40 years, said there were plenty of other properties outside the confines of the covenant where building multiple dwellings was possible.

“Either accept the rules, or just move to a different area,” Mr Mizzi said.

“It’s not a big area, this is only 6sq km, if you’re so against a covenant don’t buy here.”

Reservoir residents are fighting to protect their neighbourhood by upholding the restrictive covenant law that only permits one dwelling per property. Mario Mizzi (centre) along with Joe and Tina Stero, Mary Sakovski and Tamara Clarke say they are part of a much bigger group who support the covenant. (Picture: Olivia Condous)

Residents who support the covenant argue that the law should be protected to preserve the green space in the neighbourhood.

“By maintaining that law we are providing something nobody else in the inner suburbs of Melbourne can provide, and it’s being done on a private basis,” Mr Mizzi said.

“I have virtually every form of natural species of wildlife that was here 10,000 years ago still exist in my backyard … No other place this close to Melbourne can say that.”

But many other residents believe that the restrictive covenant is too strict as it enforces an outdated law that is no longer viable.

Helen Sparrow is one of many residents who have tried to have the covenant removed from their properties, but were turned down.

Ms Sparrow wanted to construct a dual occupancy for her and her single-parent son, to keep her family together and plan for her future.

“As I age, it would keep me out of a nursing home and we just wanted either a dual occupancy or just two single dwellings on my property, but we're not allowed to do it,” she said.

Helen Sparrow is one of many residents who have applied to have the covenant removed, as she wanted to live in a dual occupancy dwelling with her son, but can't due to the restrictive land covenant.

“What is really frustrating is that it‘s like there’s this blanket rule and no one no one is willing to accept anything different. So it’s quite frustrating.”

Ms Sparrow said she didn’t want to leave the area and move to an outer suburb, like those in favour of the covenant suggested.

“Why should I uproot my entire life … I live two streets away from my mother, who is elderly, I live two streets away from my sister who’s got a disabled son.

“I would then be sitting in a car for two hours a day trying to get in and out of work, because the infrastructure further out there is just not supporting the number of people that are out there as it is.”

A Darebin council spokesman said the purpose of the covenant was to “safeguard certain outcomes”, such as ensuring development in that area would have a certain appearance or other characteristics or to prevent it from being used for an “undesirable purpose”, and that state legislation enforces the council to uphold the covenant when granting planning permits.

“If a planning permit application is made to remove a restrictive covenant, there are strict statewide requirements that dictate whether council can grant a planning permit to allow the removal.

“This includes a requirement that all the owners of the land that benefit from the covenant be notified about the application, and if any of them object to the removal, the application will generally be refused.”