How the fence at this Māngere Bridge property looked late last decade when neighbours began to complain about it. The appearance has changed but Auckland Council has acted due to it being over-height.
How the fence at this Māngere Bridge property looked late last decade when neighbours began to complain about it. The appearance has changed but Auckland Council has acted due to it being over-height.
Construction of over-height fencing and an illegal carport and storage area has resulted in Auckland Council taking action against the owners of a Māngere Bridge property in a four-year battle that has gone to the Environment Court - twice.
Legal documents show an abatement notice was first issued in 2020to Huilan Wang after a council compliance officer found her front fence was 1.93m to a gigantic looming 3.7m high.
Front yard fencing can be no more than 1.4m to 1.8m high in Auckland unless council consent is granted so her fence at its highest point was just over double what is allowed.
The over-height fence at a Māngere Bridge property as viewed from the street.
A southern boundary fence adjoining neighbours was also a looming 2.6m high yet such structures cannot be any more than 2m high in Auckland.
Social media posts around 2017 referred to an “ugly over-sized fence” and extreme unhappiness in the area about what was happening.
The council demanded matters be rectified.
“Yard infringement and over-height fences is a contravention of sections.....of the Resource Management Act and Auckland Unitary Plan. Such a contravention is an offence,” the 2020 abatement notice said.
Council records showed no consent had been granted for over-height fences or for the carport which also has work and storage areas.
The driveway beside the property where an over-height fence was built.
The compliance officer had noticed that the carport was more than 3m high and built in the front and southern side yard yet no consent had been sought for its construction.
But Wang went to the Environment Court in 2020 protesting against the council’s claim about illegal works at her property.
The 2020 Environment Court decision from Judge David Kirkpatrick summarised the situation.
“An enforcement officer of the Auckland Council issued an abatement notice to Ms Huilan Wang in respect of certain works at Ms Wang’s property, which allegedly do not comply with the relevant development controls under the Auckland Unitary Plan, in particular in terms of the height of two boundary fences which exceed the limit... and require consent as a restricted discretionary activity. The abatement notice stated that compliance was required by November 7, 2020,” it said.
Wang applied for a stay of the abatement notice, explaining why compliance was not practicable. That was issued pending her appeal hearing against the council.
The backyard beside the inlet.
She said the fencing was temporary and around a site where building renovations were occurring which may mean that resource consent is not required because that higher fencing was needed to protect the building site, the Environment Court said.
Wang also cited attempts to address the concerns of neighbours, financial constraints and problems arising in the Covid-19 pandemic which had broken out then, resulting in lockdowns.
“There appear at first impression, but without reaching any conclusions, to be arguable reasons in support of the appeal,” Judge Kirkpatrick said.
“In my view, it would be preferable to allow Ms Wang the opportunity to see if the compliance issues can be resolved before requiring any works to be demolished,” the judge said, encouraging her effectively to apply for compliance with the law.
But nothing changed.
In a bizarre turn of events, matters repeated themselves.
Auckland Council has taken legal action for over-height fencing and an illegal carport and storage unit at a Māngere Bridge property.
In June this year, the compliance officer again visited the property to find the over-height fences, the illegal carport and nothing done to rectify the illegal structures.
So an abatement notice was once again issued on June 6 this year.
Remaining unhappy about that, Wang - along with Peter Pan - retaliated.
Once again, she went to the Environment Court, again seeking a stay of proceedings. But this time she went there with Pan.
A second Environment Court decision was then issued, this time by Judge Melinda Dickey and out last month and it was very like the decision issued in 2020.
Again, the owner applied for a reprieve to the abatement notices requiring her to reduce the height of the fences within the front and southern side boundary by September 11.
And again, the judge backed Wang, this time with Pan.
“In the circumstances, I consider that the likely effect on the environment of granting a stay will be relatively minor and acceptable on a temporary basis,” the judge said.
Despite the matters going on since 2020, the council did not object to that ‘stay’.
That means the owners have more time.
“On this basis, I accept that it would be unreasonable for the appellants to comply with the abatement notices at the present time. The applications for stay are granted until January 31, 2025. The parties are to report back to the court on the status of the appeals by January 24,” the judge said.
One neighbour said it would be difficult to sell a house beside the property with the illegal structures.
“It looks like a gang house. I can’t believe the council has let this go on so long when others have to get consent to build a garage or extend a driveway, yet they let this go on,” the neighbour complained.
Large plastic containers line the edges of the backyard, she said, leaving it unsightly.
Giant fence, carport fight:
September 11, 2020: Council issues abatement notice to Huilan Wang for an over-height fence;
September 29, 2020: Wang seeks a stay of abatement notice;
October 11: Environment Court grants her stay, pending appeal;
June 6, 2024: Auckland Council issues abatement notice to Peter Pan, over fence and shed;
June 18, 2024: Peter Pan and Huilan Wang lodge an appeal against that;
September 24, 2024: Environment Court again grants Peter Pan and Huilan Wang an abatement stay;
January 2025: Matter due to court.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 24 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
