Latest news with #DividingFencesAct
Perth Now
3 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Melville not sitting on the fence
The City of Melville believes it has found a peace solution for — or at least a way to keep itself out of — one of the most common causes of disputes between neighbours. It had adopted new laws which dictate where fences can be built, what they can be built from and how tall they can be. Its current fence laws have not been reviewed for eight years and were due to be automatically repealed next December. The new laws were tweaked after being advertised for public comment and adopted unanimously by the council at its July 15 meeting. They have increased the height limit for dividing fences that do not need council approval from 1.8 metres to 2.3m. Property owners will still need to agree on the height of a fence, irrespective of the height set in the local law. Disputes will be resolved under the Dividing Fences Act. Cr Tomas Fitzgerald said fencing was a 'perennial' challenge faced by local governments and although he didn't think it would go away, he hoped the new laws would make the issue clearer. 'One of the things I think that is significant and beneficial about this law is that it's much clearer about the lines of demarcation between the city's responsibility and the State's responsibility,' he said. 'We've seen situations where we have gotten dragged into what are essentially private disputes mediated by the State Government. 'That has been I don't think a good use of the resources of the city and it has not necessarily been to the benefit of the residents involved in those disputes.' Development approvals manager Kate Bainbridge said at a briefing on July 8 fencing had been a source of contention at almost every local government she had worked at. 'Those disputes will likely still continue in terms of who pays for what and what material that they use, but the city would no longer be involved in as many disputes,' she said. 'If the neighbours can't agree on a material or the height or anything like that and what they're proposing is complying with our local law, then the city would have no intervention. 'It would be entirely a civil matter between the two landowners which they can resolve through I believe the State Administrative Tribunal or local magistrates court.' Fences taller than 2.3m would be a 'lot more challenging' to support unless there was a really good reason and ideally support from both landowners. 'What we're seeing with a lot of applications is they're usually from a reasonable perspective,' Ms Bainbridge said. 'They're to provide a level of safety to their swimming pool, additional privacy to deal with level difference. '(The current laws) are an administrative burden which owners can often be confused by.' The new law will not affect existing fences. It had been suggested the city audit existing fencing but Ms Bainbridge said it did not have the resources. It also does not require fences to be built on property boundaries. 'It's not necessarily within everyone's means to determine accurately in all circumstances and there may be a physical feature which blocks it,' Ms Bainbridge said. 'There's also provisions within the Dividing Fences Act which allow for it to be considered adjacent to the boundary, and there's also avenues through the local magistrates court if there's a dispute.' Electric fences are still not allowed in residential zones. Barbed wire and broken glass are considered inappropriate materials for fencing. Pre-used materials can be used but they must be painted or treated. Ms Bainbridge said the city wanted to encourage people to use recycled materials but only if they were in good condition, which would be determined by city officers' 'professional judgment'. 'We struggled with this one because we wanted to provide a pathway where people could use recycled materials that were in good condition,' she said. 'Do we just look at recycled brick or do we look at recycled wood pallets? There's so many materials that could be recycled which still could be a really good fence. 'And so we felt that the approvals pathway would would provide a really good middle ground where we could still ensure that people can do these things, but we can make sure that they're in a good condition.' The new law will come into effect 14 days after it is published in the Government Gazette.
West Australian
08-06-2025
- General
- West Australian
NSW Land and Environment Court rules on Battiato v Clifton tree dispute
A long-running tussle between neighbours over a pine tree and a crumbling retaining wall has finally ended, with a court ordering both parties to share costs for the fix-up. The brouhaha between Vince and Natalie Battiato of 20 Kanangra Ave and Faye Clifton of 22 Kanangra Ave in the coastal NSW town of Corlette escalated into a legal stoush because of the dilapidated wall that splits the two properties. The wall needed to be fixed and the neighbours could not agree on who should pay. The Battiatos contended that the roots of an old pine tree, which has since been removed, on Ms Clifton's property was the main contributor to the damage to the wall. But Ms Clifton shot back and argued the age of the wall was the central factor underpinning its dilapidation. In their application to the NSW Land and Environment Court, the Battiatos said Ms Clifton should remove all remaining trees on her property to facilitate the reconstruction of the wall and then pay for the fix-up. They also wanted her to bear all court costs. In her submission, Ms Clifton pushed for a 'just and fair outcome to a lengthy ongoing dispute', court documents show. She asked for costs to be shared between the parties for the reconstruction job. Acting Commissioner Peter Nichols AC, settling the dispute, visited the site and concluded age was the primary cause of the wall's dilapidation. But he added the tree had also likely caused some damage. 'The tree has been shown to have exacerbated damage to the section of the retaining wall, thus engaging the court's jurisdiction, however orders made for any compensation are a matter of discretion,' he said. 'Given the nature of the retaining wall, it appears that, in the main, the dilapidation was a function of the age and inappropriate design and construction materials of the retaining wall.' In his decision, handed down this week, Dr Nichols upheld the application from the Battiatos but only 'in part'. He ordered Ms Clifton to remove seven trees from her property, including tree stumps, trunks and roots 'with a diameter of greater than 100mm located within 200mm of the shared property boundary between 20 and 22 Kanangra Ave'. The trees are camellia, lemon and pine trees. But he ordered for the wall reconstruction costs to be split '50-50'. 'Within 365 days of the date of these orders the applicants (Battiatos) and respondent (Ms Clifton) are to arrange and pay for the design and construction of the replacement retaining wall, including obtaining all necessary approvals from Port Stephens Council … sharing the costs 50-50,' he said. The neighbours were ordered to swap quotes beforehand to find the cheapest option from 'suitably qualified and experienced building contractors'. Further, Dr Nichols ordered the parties to construct a new boundary fence on the top of the new retaining wall on the shared property boundary, splitting the costs 50-50. Legislation within the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours Act) from 2006 and the Dividing Fences Act from 1991 covered the dispute. Port Stephens Council sits north of Newcastle in NSW's Hunter Valley region. Corlette lies next to famous Nelson Bay, a popular tourist destination in the region.
