Neighbours of a Falcon resident whose burnt-out shed contaminated six homes with asbestos fibres say the City of Mandurah should have acted sooner to force a cleanup, leaving them with massive bills.
Court case and fines
Peter Gordon Long was fined $13,500 in Mandurah Magistrates Court on April 28 for failing to comply with a notice under the Health Act. The court heard that due to Long's inaction, six neighbours faced clean-up costs of $10,000 to $30,000 each after asbestos fibres settled on their properties.
However, Cheryl McGrandles and Dah Kydd told The Times their actual bills were far higher: $70,000 for McGrandles and $31,000 for Kydd, totalling over $100,000. They believe the city should have intervened earlier.
City's response
A city spokesperson said the matter was treated seriously and actions complied with health regulations. “The city understands that asbestos contamination incidents can cause significant concern within the community, particularly for neighbouring residents,” they said. “Matters involving potential asbestos exposure are taken extremely seriously, with the city’s priority always being to minimise risk to public health, contain contamination, and ensure remediation is undertaken safely and in accordance with specialist advice and regulatory requirements.”
The asbestos shed at Long's home at 10 Casilda Street in Falcon caught fire on September 15 last year. During the fire, large amounts of asbestos fibres rose with the smoke and settled on neighbouring homes. A day later, health officers issued a notice to Long to remove the shed within 45 hours. Long continued to receive notices from the city but ignored them as he lacked insurance. Deadly asbestos fibres remained exposed in the backyard.
Long eventually agreed to pay for removal if the city organised it, but contractors were not employed until March this year, six months after the fire. Ms Kydd said they met the city in December to raise concerns about the lack of action.
Lack of immediate warning
The pair claim they were not immediately told about the asbestos on their properties. “The city came back about five days after the fire and we were told, worst case, you might have to clean up, we were given a false sense of security,” Ms Kydd said. “It was quite a few months before we were told we were potentially living with asbestos fibres. Someone from the city then came out and said it was the worst he’s ever seen in his career. He put glue over it, a couple days later it rained and that dissolved.”
The asbestos removal crews did not complete the job until January.
The city spokesperson said the lack of insurance complicated the situation. “While the city initially expected the property owner to comply with the notice, the remediation process became significantly more complex due to the owner’s failure to undertake the required works, lack of insurance coverage, inability to fund remediation, and the need for the city to pursue legal enforcement and cost recovery processes,” they said. “Throughout the incident, the city’s focus remained on minimising public health risks, containing contamination, and ensuring remediation was undertaken safely and in accordance with specialist advice and regulatory requirements. The city has reviewed its response and is satisfied that appropriate risk management measures were implemented in a timely manner based on the information available at the time. The city does not consider its actions contributed to the spread of contamination.”
Wider implications
Both Ms Kydd and Ms McGrandles work in the mining industry and are aware of asbestos safety precautions. They warn homeowners in older neighbourhoods to ensure their insurance covers asbestos clean-up costs. Ms Kydd said her insurance company initially refused to cover the bill, adding stress. Ms McGrandles was prevented from leasing her investment property as contamination halted renovations. Her lawn was torn up due to soil contamination, costing $3500 to replace. “The insurance has to replace all the reticulation, but we’ve got to replace all the lawn, the (asbestos removal company) have to come back to fix up the paving,” she said. “They broke the driveway, it all adds up, and the time that we’ve lost, yeah, we haven’t been able to finish the property, we haven’t been able to re-rent it, you know, things like that.”
The maximum penalty for failing to remove asbestos is $10,000 plus a daily penalty. During Long's hearing in April, Magistrate Clare Cullen remarked the penalty seemed low, calling it a “huge imposition” on neighbours and a risk to community health. “Finally, the hazardous material in question here being asbestos, and the effects of asbestos are generally well known ... It can be fatal, and can involve death,” she said.
