You know at the Eagle we spend a lot of time writing about those awful neighbours with their barking dogs, dodgy fences and all night parties. However, spare a thought for the folk enduring those cashed ‘up look at me’ celebrities that have moved into their local hoods. Of course, no city in Australia attracts more of these types than our harbour city.

It has recently been reported that a pack of powerful Sydney celebrities are terrorising some of the city’s most exclusive and picturesque neighbourhoods in a way only wealthy people can: with extensive, offensive and expensive renovations.

Turning an entire suburb against you is the new measure of success. Guy Sebastian and Rove McManus are the latest A-listers to drive bulldozers through their respective beachside enclaves and whack up kilometres of scaffolding, causing mass annoyance in the process.

Pictures released this week illustrate the extent of the damage. Timber slats and steel beams lay strewn across the ground at both properties. Rubble and debris cover the land and ugly metal fences barricade the perimeters. To be frank, both properties look like construction sites. And, well, that’s because they are. But locals don’t seem to understand this and they’re fed up.

Sebastian’s reign of terror on Maroubra can be traced back to 2016 when he began overhauling the $3.1 million property he bought at auction three years prior. Three years on, the neighbours insist the nightmare continues.

The incomplete grey concrete mega mansion looms over the once laid-back suburb. It’s the size of a big box Westfield, looks like a prison, and may actually contain both a Kmart and one of those mini Woolworths Metros. These claims are unconfirmed.

It blocks out the sun and dwarfs the humble, heritage abode that cowers quietly to its side. A red “sold” sticker is now slapped across that former neighbour’s facade.

“He’s got a lot of money and we’re only little people. He’s not building a house, he’s building a fortress,” one neighbour told the press last year about the project.

In an attempt to harness the heartache of battling beachside residents and use it to finally create my Erin Brockovich moment, one Sydney reporter took the liberty of driving past Guy’s dust pit to assess the situation. As you can see from the pics, Guy is an aficionado of that cheery colour ‘concrete grey’.

What Guy’s aversion to windows is we don’t know, but apparently natural light is for losers.

The people of Maroubra can only take comfort in the news they aren’t alone. Just a few kilometres up the rugged coastline, a cloud of grey dust pollutes the air and drifts over the Tasman. It’s coming from former likeable guy next door Rove McManus’ joint. His bomb site, oops I mean homesite is probably the reason he ain’t that likeable anymore with the locals.

The five-bedroom 1920s beach house sprawls luxuriously up the hillside of Bronte. It’s perfect. But not perfect enough.

The comedian bought the mansion in 2016 for $6.4 million and renovations began a few months ago. Plans lodged last year detail an extensive overhaul including another level, basement garage and a plunge pool. Residents are so annoyed they’re using Rove’s own trademark catchphrase against him: “What the f@%k?”

To be honest, it’s probably the plunge pool that tipped locals over the edge because plunge pools are obnoxious and their purpose is vague. Do you need to go in one at a time? Or are you supposed to install his-and-hers plunge pools?
God lord what’s wrong with a plunge in the picturesque Bronte waters, they’re less than 70 metres away.

Perplexed neighbours have wailed and described the project as “excessive”, “disruptive” and “inappropriate”.

The only way Rove can come back from this is if he lets everyone in the suburb file into his yard to use his plunge pool one-by-one.

In a bizarre twist to this spate of celebrities-turned-developers, controversial My Kitchen Rules judge Pete Evans is also building a mega mansion in the seaside suburb of Malabar but the plans were paleo-certified so his neighbours aren’t so annoyed.

Still, Guy and Rove are in good company when it comes to making council-approved home improvements that fire up the neighbours so much they consider calling Tracy Grimshaw. MasterChef hothead George Calombaris made headlines in May when he installed a gym in his backyard that blocked out the sun and was labelled a “public toilet” by one disgruntled neighbour. Google the fun phrase “George Calombaris public toilet” to take the tour.

And when former beauty queen Jennifer Hawkins completed her multilayered glass pad in Avalon last year, a neighbour who lives across the water was particularly miffed and took to Facebook to angrily type that the model has “more cash than panache” or as we say more dollars than sense.

Ah to be a celebrity, to constantly feel the need to outdo and show off. Perhaps we need to remind them that you don’t want to reside in a neighbour where your new neighbour from hell status outshines your fleeting fame.

Don’t forget if you need easy to understand info on how to deal with your neighbour from hell, check out all our wonderful free information HERE.

In the US and Australia, the divorce rate has been steadily declining since the 1980s.
That’s quite a surprise to me in this ever increasing self absorbed world we’re living in.

However, the latest research reported in The New York Times suggests about one-third of current marriages will end in divorce — not the 50 per cent statistic that gets thrown around time and time again. Unfortunately, that means there’s still a decent chance you and your partner will split up, even after pledging lifelong devotion to each other. That idea leaves room for a lot of questions:

What makes a divorce more likely? What will happen to our kids if we do split up? What will happen to my health? To help address some of these queries, let’s take a look at the relevant research on the predictors and consequences of marriage failure.

Before we start have you ever wondered about whether the stress and expense of putting on a lavish wedding has on the long term outcome of a marriage? According to the researchers: “As compared with spending between $6000 and $15,000 on the wedding, spending less than $1500 is associated with half the hazard of divorce in the sample of men, and spending $25,000 or more is associated with 1.6 times the hazard of divorce in the sample of women.” 
Remember that full blown wedding of Salim Mehajer?
All the bells and whistles didn’t stop that marriage ending acrimoniously.

Now before we begin keep in mind that all these studies mentioned below offer general takeaways about modern relationships — no one can predict with 100 per cent accuracy what will happen to yours.

1. You are less likely to divorce if you marry in your late 20s

Research led by Nicholas Wolfinger, a professor at the University of Utah, found that contrary to a long-held belief, waiting longer to wed doesn’t necessarily predict a stronger marriage.

Instead, the best time to marry seems to be between the early 20s and early 30s. If you wait until you’re older than 32, your chances of divorce start to creep up (though they’re still not as high as if you get married in your teens).

As Wolfinger writes on the Institute for Family Studies blog, “For almost everyone, the late twenties seems to be the best time to tie the knot.”

2. You are most likely to divorce in after a major holiday period

2016 research presented at the American Sociological Association found that post major holidays  bring spikes in divorce applications.

In the paper, they suggest that holidays represent something like “optimism cycles” — we see them as a chance to start anew in our relationships, only to find that the same problems exist once they’re over. The researchers also suspect that oftentimes our holiday experiences can be stressful and disappointing, laying bare the real issues in our marriage. As soon as they’re over, we’re ready to call it quits.

3. Husbands who work less may be more likely to divorce

Well who would of thought that less work would result is marriage unhappiness.

However, a recent Harvard study couples suggests that it’s not a couple’s finances that affect their chances of divorce, but rather the division of labour.

When the researcher looked at heterosexual marriages that began after 1975, she learnt that couples in which the husband didn’t have a full-time job had a 3.3 per cent chance of divorcing the following year, compared with 2.5 per cent among couples in which the husband did have a full-time job.

Wives’ employment status, however, didn’t much affect the couple’s chances of divorce.

The researcher concludes that the male breadwinner stereotype is still very much alive, and important for marital stability.

4. The myth that women who have had more sexual partners are more likely to divorce

Wolfinger conducted another analysis that found, among heterosexual couples who married in the 2000s, women who had between three and nine sexual partners were in fact less likely to divorce than women who’d had two partners (their husband and one other person).

Women who had at least 10 partners were most likely to divorce.

Meanwhile, among heterosexual couples who married in the 1980s and 1990s, women who had two or three sexual partners were more likely to get divorced than were virgins or women who had at least 10 sexual partners.

In a statement, Wolfinger distilled the lessons from this research: “If you’re going to have comparisons to your [future] husband, it’s best to have more than one.”

5. Couples closer in age are less likely to divorce

One study found that the odds of divorce among heterosexual couples increase with the age gap between the spouses.

As Megan Garber reported at The Atlantic: “A one-year discrepancy in a couple’s ages, the study found, makes them 3 per cent more likely to divorce (when compared to their same-aged counterparts); a 5-year difference, however, makes them 18 per cent more likely to split up. And a 10-year difference makes them 39 per cent more likely.”

6. Lavish weddings may predict less successful marriages

Well as previously mentioned, it ain’t the size of your cake that makes a marriage work.
In fact, spending a lot on your wedding doesn’t necessarily bode well for the marriage itself.

According to the researchers: “As compared with spending between $6500 and $15,000 on the wedding, spending less than $1500 is associated with half the hazard of divorce in the sample of men, and spending $25,000
or more is associated with 1.6 times the hazard of divorce in the sample of women.”

At the same time, the study found that having a lot of guests at your wedding predicts lower odds of divorce. My Thai friends will certainly be relieved to know that, where less than 100 guests is seen as odd. Couples with 200 or more invitees are 92 per cent less likely to divorce than couples who don’t invite anyone, The Atlantic reported.
So a simple wedding with lots of friends seems to be the perfect combo!
A pity dear Salim couldn’t work that out.

7. Divorce may contribute to heart problems in women

Recent research suggests that women who get divorced are more likely to suffer a heart attack than women who stay married.

As Time‘s Alice Park reported: “Women who divorced at least once were 24 per cent more likely to experience a heart attack compared to women who remained married, and those divorcing two or more times saw their risk jump to 77 per cent.”

For men, however, the chances of suffering a heart attack only went up if they divorced two or more times.

8. Divorce itself might not have a negative impact on kids

Instead, as Rebecca Harrington reported at Tech Insider, it seems to be conflict between parents that takes a toll on their children.

In fact, in one recent study, children whose parents fought a lot and then divorced were less likely to get divorced as adults than children whose parents fought a lot and didn’t get divorced. The researchers say that’s possibly because the divorce put a kind of end to the ongoing family conflict.

9. Couples who display contempt are more likely to divorce
Well I guess this is certainly stating the obvious but there are studies to prove it.

Relationship expert John Gottman’s research, which suggests that contempt — a mix of anger and disgust that involves seeing your partner as beneath you — is a key predictor of divorce.

It’s not simply getting into a fight; it’s how you respond to your partner afterwards: Do you try to see things from their perspective or just assume they’re an idiot?

If it’s the latter, try replacing the behaviour with a more positive, patient reaction. It could save your marriage.

Don’t forget to check out all our free legal resources on family law HERE.

[With thanks to Business Insider for some content contribution]

Seen these new shops popping up at your local Westfield?
You know, the ones that sell these baby spaceships called drones. My goodness I’ve already got two in my local mega mall.
What indeed is all this frenzy about having  a drone?
I know there’s an incessant and never ending hunger for new tech gadgetry in today’s society, but what is the benefit, or perhaps thrill, of actual owning one of these drones.

 Well it turns out that that owning one is more a cheap thrill rather than a benefit (if you know what I mean). Complaints to local councils and police are on the increase from neighbours who feel their privacy has been invaded by this new age sticky beak, and the salacious perks it can provide its’ pilot.

It all reminds me of a flat I lived at in the Sydney CBD many moons ago.
There was a guy that everyone in the complex referred to as “Merv the perv”.  Mervin was apparently a master when it came to spying on his neighbours at all hours of the day and of course, the night. He had two telescopes that never seemed to be pointed to the stars and always seem to have a pair of binoculars at hand when out of his balcony during the day. Residents would often comment on the need to “keep the blinds drawn” or you might end up being the latest prize for old Merv’s wandering eyes.

Alas, the simple advice to keep one’s blinds shut doesn’t seem to translate well in the age of the high tech sticky beak (or perv) with their camera eyed drone.

What can you do if you’re being annoyed or spied on by a drone?

Well I hate to say this but we have some of the weakest privacy laws in the first world and because of this your protection against unauthorised surveillance is limited.

The Privacy Act, for instance, only applies to organisations like big companies or individuals with an annual turnover of $3 million or more. It’s fair to say that most recreational drone owners wouldn’t meet that criteria.  The Act also applies to government to limit them in the information they can collect about us.
The drafters of our wishy washy privacy law seem to have forgotten that neighbours and individuals can also be a real pain and that from time to time and we do sometimes need privacy protection from them.
So unless the drone pilot is working for an organisation or is an individual with at least $3 million in annual revenue, it is not possible for a you and I to take action against an individual drone pilot under the Privacy Act as it currently stands.
Only handy I guess if your privacy is being interfered with by a big corporation or the billionaire next door.

You might like to consider your state based ‘surveillance legislation’ but that can be good, bad or indifferent depending on which state you’re in.  For example, some actions by drone operations can be considered criminal offences. In Queensland, it is illegal to record somebody without their consent if they are in a private place or conducting a private act.
A private act can include showering, going to the toilet, making love or getting dressed. It is also illegal to record somebody in a public place where privacy might be reasonably be expected, such as the change rooms of a public swimming pool.

However in Victoria, taking video footage, without recording audio, of what is happening out in the open in your neighbour’s backyard does not contravene the Surveillance Devices Act.
Go figure eh, and this lack of uniformity state by state on surveillance laws doesn’t make these laws helpful when it comes to the dreaded drones. Check your state based surveillance laws HERE to see whether they will be of any help to you.

 You could also look at whether anti-stalking laws can be applied, but if it’s just a creepy perving neighbour, that won’t be stalking.
The only authorities that will look at complaints in this regard are the police or the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner 



Pilots of larger drones must be registered
Pilots of commercial drones weighing 2kg or more need to be registered with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and have an operator’s certificate before their unmanned aerial vehicles go zipping through the public airspace.
But with smaller recreational drones – the ones you can now buy at retailers across Australia, no registration is required.
So if it’s a particularly large spaceship hovering over your house or pool, its pilot must be registered.

Does Trespass Apply?
If you want to pursue a civil claim through the courts, and you’ve got the money and the time, trespass is available without having to demonstrate you suffered any loss or damage as a result of any action by either the drone or its operator.
Trespass involves an interference with your rights to ‘private enjoyment’ to land (which includes your house and the land around it, like a backyard or acreage).
To prove a trespass you have to be able to prove the following:
Exclusive possession – this usually means that you are living or staying on the land and are lawfully able to stop other people from entering. Owners, renters and boarders are generally in exclusive possession. If the area is a public place such as a park next to your house, you may not have exclusive possession over the park.
Land – this includes the space above and below the physical ground. So a drone that repeatedly flies over your house can be a trespass unless it flies so high that it is unnoticeable.
Intentional or negligent – to be a trespass, the interference has to be either deliberate or careless (meaning the person was negligent). This depends on the actions of the drone operator and what you observe the drone doing.
Interference – this means that a trespass has to occur ‘directly’ and cannot be a result of something else happening. You also have to prove that the interference was unreasonable or that it continues to interrupt your normal enjoyment. A drone that flies over your house, hovers around your windows or breaches your privacy would probably be found to be unreasonable.

Under what circumstances can you complain to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority?
Well if the drone…
♦ was flying close to people or 
♦ flew over the top of you or
♦ was flying near an airport or
♦ was flying near a helicopter landing site or
♦ was flying at night or in fog or
♦ you believe the person flying the drone couldn’t see it or
♦ the drone was flying too high (above 120 metres)

Then CASA can handle this through their online complaint service. They are not interested in complaints about a drone’s noise (local council for that one) or sticky beak things. 
Here’s the LINK to file a complaint.



And finally if you think a drone is being piloted with little regard to the safety of your good self (or your fellow citizens), here are the rules for drone pilots:


• You must not fly your drone higher than 120 metres (400 ft) above the ground.
• You must not fly your drone over or near an area affecting public safety or where emergency operations are underway (without prior approval). This could include situations such as a car crash, police operations, a fire and associated firefighting efforts, and search and rescue operations.
• You must not fly your drone within 30 metres of people, unless the other person is part of controlling or navigating the drone.
• You must fly only one drone at a time.

If your drone weighs more than 100 grams:
• You must keep your drone at least 5.5km away from controlled aerodromes (usually those with a control tower)
• You may fly within 5.5km of a non-controlled aerodrome or helicopter landing site (HLS) only if manned aircraft are not operating to or from the aerodrome. 
• You must only fly during the day and keep your drone within visual line-of sight.
This means being able to orientate, navigate and see the aircraft with your own eyes at all times (rather than through a device; for example, through goggles or on a video screen).
• You must not fly over or above people. This could include festivals, sporting ovals, populated beaches, parks, busy roads and footpaths.
• You must not operate your drone in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, person, or property
• You must not operate your drone in prohibited or restricted areas.

So the next time you’re out by the pool and you suddenly find a mini spaceship giving you a wink, you’ve got all the information to work out what is best to do.
Of course you could also have a chat to your neighbour as to why they find your speedos so fascinating.

………………………………………………..

Noisy dogs? Crazy neighbours? Bad smells next door? Tree problems?
Find out more about dealing with difficult neighbours HERE