$300,000 wall dispute

Douglas Easton's Herne Bay wall. Photo / Herald on Sunday

Herne Bay is the priciest neighbourhood in the country - and that makes neighbourhood rows all the more expensive.

The owners of a $6 million waterfront property have fought a legal battle that they estimate has wasted more than $300,000 of ratepayers' money - all over the height of a concrete boundary wall.

And the dispute has ended with a bizarre twist.

It started in 2003 when Marine Parade resident Norma Griffiths objected to the height of the block wall being built by her neighbours Douglas and Marlene Easton.

From their side of the wall, it is only 2m high - but from 89-year-old Griffiths' side, slightly downhill, it is almost 4m high at one point. So she complained to the council.

Now, after 15 Auckland City Council site visits, the involvement of lawyers, a police search and two hearings, the Environment Court has finally ended a dispute over a wall that originally cost about $16,000 to build.

The court ordered the Eastons to reduce the height of the wall by more than 1m.

The couple said the case could have been settled without going to such lengths. The most "ridiculous" aspect of the case was the spending of ratepayer money, they said.

"I think it is astonishing what we have been through," said Douglas Easton, who is an architect.

"The amount of time and money that has gone into site visits and reports, I would imagine over $300,000 has been spent by the council on this case."

He said they argued the case themselves in the Environment Court as they didn't want to throw so much money at lawyers over a wall dispute.

Griffiths' $2.26m property had been previously excavated, so her smaller brick house sits lower than the Eastons' 128sq m farmhouse-style home.

She declined to comment but her daughter, lawyer Susan Rhodes, told the court the wall had a "significant adverse effect" on her mother's property, cutting the light and the view.

William Smeed from the council told the court that the wall was between 2.26m and 3.55m high when measured from the Griffiths' property.

But Douglas Easton insisted the ground level was at the boundary on his side, making the wall only 2m high - so no consent should be needed.

The council obtained a search warrant in April 2006, because it suspected illegal earth works. Several staff members searched the Easton's property, accompanied by survey company Babbage Consulting and a police escort.

Marlene Easton said she was home alone when council staff told her to step aside and showed her the warrant. "Nothing came of the warrant because we were just replacing rotten piles under the house," she said.

A council spokesperson said it was not possible at short notice to find out how much had been spent pursuing the case but said it rarely went to such lengths because of the "considerable stress to all parties" in such disputes.

"In some unfortunate instances council intervention is the only practical means to resolve them."

The case went to the Environment Court because the original ground level needed to be identified, the spokesman said.

It was agreed the wall would be reduced in some areas but the Eastons failed to comply so it went back to court.

The Eastons said they didn't get a copy of the decision until the day before the next hearing.

Now, in a final ironic twist, the couple have received a letter from the council's law firm saying they need a new building consent to reduce the height of the wall.

joseph.barratt@hos.co.nz