Neighbours at odds with Developer over the boundary fence.

  After living peacefully on my property since 2002 my tranquillity has been shattered after a neighbouring property was purchased for infill development. The developer took possession in June 2020 and immediately proceeded to clear the 4046 sq.m section. A single dwelling, numerous out-buildings and all the mature trees on the property have been removed with much of the material going to landfill. 

   The excavator had been working for a week before my first meeting with the developers. They  outlined their plans for 12 houses and proposed building a wooden post, rail and paling boundary fence as this was the fence design used for over 20 years. I stated my preference for a colour steel panel fence to match the majority of my existing fencing, this being more durable and almost maintenance free. When I pointed out the loss of privacy when openings appear between palings of a wooden fence as they shrink upon drying, the developer admitted that this was the nature of the pinus radiata timber. However, the fence was not negotiable.

  A week later I received a quote by email. The fence specification was for a 1.8mtr R/S Wooden fence with 100x100 H4 posts set in 300x600 concrete footings, 100x50 H3 rails, 150x25 palings fixed closed gap, 40x70 machined capping, all necessary fixings etc. Palings to face the developer's property. Neither the number of rails nor the specific design of the fence was given.  The quoted price was $4,526.40 including GST for 32.8 metres of fence. To compensate me for having the backside of the fence (posts and rails on my side) he offered to pay 2/3 and my 1/3 share would be $1,508.80.  The developer claimed to be building quality houses yet this was the cheapest fence he could construct. It would use pinus radiata timber with Tanalised ® H4 CCA treated posts and Tanalised ® H3.2 CCA treated rails and palings. CCA is an abbreviation for either chromated copper arsenate or copper chromium arsenate, both meaning the same process.

  My existing fences are a mix of metal panel and wooden post, rail & paling fence as evidenced by the slides on this web page.  All were erected in the mid 1990s when the subdivision was developed. The superior durability and privacy of the metal panel fencing is obvious and this would be my preference for the new boundary fence to replace existing netting which is not adequate for an urban fence as decreed by The Fencing Act 1978.

UPDATE: February 2023  The vacant section has been used by contractors while upgrading water mains along Salisbury Road. The original developer has sold the property to G.J.Gardner. Meanwhile, weeds are taking over with some exceeding the 1.8m height of the boundary fence. Hopefully we'll see some development progress in the not too distant future.