A controversial 200m Colorbond steel fence that divided the Cockburn council two weeks ago, exposing the city to a potential $30,000 legal bill, will have its fate decided by the State Administrative Tribunal.

City of Cockburn councillors voted to refuse owner Sean Naidoo’s request for retrospective approval for the 200m metal fence, stating it failed to meet rural fencing expectations.

Mr Naidoo is now taking further action to keep his $100,000 fence by applying for a full SAT hearing to address the issue. A hearing is predicted to cost the council about $30,000 in legal fees.

Mr Naidoo told PerthNow he had been working alongside city planning officers and attended mediation to reach a fair outcome, and was disappointed by the result so far.

“While the fence was being erected, I was advised by a planning officer of the city to make specific changes to the fence, including truncating its height. I understood from that advice that, if those changes were made, the fence would be acceptable,” he said.

“I followed their advice. At no point during that process was I informed that the fence was in the city’s view non-compliant. It was only after the fence had been finished, and I had spent in excess of $100,000, that I was advised by the city that retrospective approval was required.”

The property in question is zoned rural and infrastructure must maintain an “open and informal character” to allow native wildlife to pass through it.

Mr Naidoo did not receive the necessary approvals under local fencing laws before commencing construction in 2023, and initially applied for retrospective approval last year.

After that was refused, he worked with the city and the SAT to develop four alternative fencing options as a compromise.

“I have engaged extensively and in good faith with the city to explore ways of retaining the front fence while also identifying measures that could enhance, rather than detract from, the amenity of the area,” Mr Naidoo said.

“I have also put forward a number of alternative proposals, including modifications to the fencing design, such as permeable upper fencing along portions of the frontage, and adjustments to the driveway truncation areas.

“The initial refusal of my application cited concerns about wildlife movement. However, the independent evidence contained in the planning report confirms that a State-owned cyclone fence with close mesh spacing already exists about 23m from my boundary,” he said.

“As a result, wildlife cannot traverse from the Thomsons Lake Nature Reserve through my property in any event.”

Mr Naidoo built the fence after encountering snakes on the property and he was worried about his young grandchild’s safety. He also wanted to ensure family pets did not wander onto the road.

He said he had identified more than 70 other properties in the area with similar fencing that has been accepted, and was sending the matter to the SAT for a “proper and considered determination”.

“It is now appropriate for the matter to be determined by an independent tribunal,” he said.