News & Discussion: Planning & Building Regulations

All other development discussion.
Message
Author
User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2927
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Encroachment Laws

#121 Post by rhino » Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:13 am

Dr Bunton's neighbour on the other side should get a survey done, and get his new fence installed through Dr Bunton's living room, and say "Well you started it!". This is a very common occurrence even out where I live. Build a bridge.
cheers,
Rhino

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: Encroachment Laws

#122 Post by Omicron » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:17 pm

I must remember this case for when I submit false testimony to a court of law and am found out, so that I may quickly bulk up on shifts at work and claim to be 'busy', which in turn affects my recall.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2927
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Encroachment Laws

#123 Post by rhino » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:45 pm

You are an elephant. You have perfect recall, who are you trying to fool? :)
cheers,
Rhino

kimsd
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Encroachment Laws

#124 Post by kimsd » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:58 pm

Hi all I am new here, but long time reader.

I came across this issue recently when our neighbours starting building an extension, turns out our driveway is about 39cms into their property according to their survey and the one we subsequently commissioned.
Anyway, while I was researching I read the fences act (see here: http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A ... 01975.aspx)
I'm no lawyer, but from this point in the act it says:
17—Position of fence does not give rise to title by adverse possession
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Real Property Act, where a dividing fence is
erected otherwise than upon the boundary to contiguous land either in pursuance of an
agreement under this Act, or of an order of the court, neither of the adjoining owners
shall, by reason of his occupation of the land enclosed by the fence, be deemed to be
in adverse possession of any land of the other so as to acquire title to that land in
derogation of the title or interest of the other.
Doesn't that mean the fence line does not serve as a boundary to your land title, and cannot be grounds for adjusting it? In other words, I can't claim that 39cms as mine, even though it looks like the fence has been there for at 35+ years - unless this new court ruling proves otherwise. Would be good to hear other's opinions on this, as our neighbour and I have not come to a formal agreement (more like a "doesn't bother me" sort of agreement, but would be good to work out where everyone stands on this, especially the older suburbs.

Cheers, Kim

kimsd
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Encroachment Laws

#125 Post by kimsd » Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:12 pm

Ok, so a further bit of reading/research on my part - info taken from here: http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch30s05.php
A mis-aligned fence does not constitute an encroachment over a boundary (and you therefore cannot claim the land (i.e. adverse possession) however, a building or structure including a concreted driveway does constitute an encroachment. The issue is with the position of the concrete driveway and this is what she is claiming. It has nothing to do with the fence position. The article is a bit unclear as they are talking about the fence quite a lot but the key information is about whether and when the driveway was concreted.

Cheers, Kim

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: Encroachment Laws

#126 Post by Wayno » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:38 pm

Well researched Kimsd!

Will be interesting to see how this court case ends...
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: Encroachment Laws

#127 Post by Omicron » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:14 pm

Hang on, what? A fence is not considered an encroachment but a concrete driveway is? Where's the facepalm icon? And why, when plans for Ms. Ciccarello's fence were submitted to Council (as all responsible citizens do), why was there no survey done?

Would a paved driveway constitute a encroachment? What about a concrete fence? What about a Colorbond shed? What about aluminium room extensions? What about a concrete entertaining area?

For goodness sake, caveat emptor! Pay for a blasted survey and work out what's yours and what isn't! Or do we have no sense of personal responsibility these days?

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: Encroachment Laws

#128 Post by Omicron » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:15 pm

Omicron wrote:I must remember this case for when I submit false testimony to a court of law and am found out, so that I may quickly bulk up on shifts at work and claim to be 'busy', which in turn affects my recall.
And that too, by the way.

User avatar
JamesXander
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Encroachment Laws

#129 Post by JamesXander » Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:00 pm

Burton just wanted money from the sounds of it, but the MP was clearly blantantly lieing about the fence.



Both as bad as each other.

Punk Rooster
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:28 am

Re: Encroachment Laws

#130 Post by Punk Rooster » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:06 am

I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot, Mrs Ciccarello would be victorious...

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: Encroachment Laws

#131 Post by Prince George » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:44 am

Putting the specifics of this case to one side, boundary disputes are a really thorny area and a common cause of trouble between neighbours. There is no easy way to settle these problems if the neighbours themselves aren't interested in an amicable agreement, and the magistrate's decision here is as reasonable as any other. Essentially he's saying is that if the fence has been there long enough, then what you see is what you get; that since nobody had disagreed with the location of the fence in such a long time that it is now the new normal and the official boundary is drawn to match this incorrect one.

When Mr Burton bought the house, he saw where the fence was and was satisfied with it, and he paid an amount for the house that was commensurate with the block that he saw. If he is now awarded either the land or the payout, is he not being rewarded for something that he didn't actually pay for, should he find the original seller and pay them extra too? And Ms Ciccarello then paid too much for her property, should she get money back from the person she bought from?

Kimsd, beyond the details of the law bear in mind that you're going to have to live next to those neighbours for some time, and you should consider what sort of relationship with them. If you're all going to be living there for years yet and you all get on well, you might want to ask yourself how much it's worth to not sour that. 'Cos anyone who's had a bad neighbour will tell you that they make life miserable.

kimsd
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Encroachment Laws

#132 Post by kimsd » Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:47 am

@prince george definitely agree with the points you raised there, it really isn't something that I would like to pursue and in my case it seems to be resolved. It only became an issue when it they thought our car port was over the boundary and they said they were doing us a favour by not asking us to remove it when they built an extension on the boundary. Turns out after getting our own survey done that it was still within our boundary and only the front section of the fence was over. However, if they claimed this back it would affect the whole street as everyone seems to be out the same amount. These boundary disputes are often difficult in older suburbs and fences should be taken into account. I think in most cases as you say, if the fence has been there for 30 odds years leave it, why does it affect you now?

kimsd
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Encroachment Laws

#133 Post by kimsd » Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:09 pm

Interesting development in the courts – could result in a re-survey of the whole street!
From AdelaideNow
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-d ... 5840904193

Vini Ciccarello's fence feud gets serious for Norwood residents
FENCE lines in Norwood could be erased and re-drawn, forever altering dozens of properties, because of the stoush between Labor MP Vini Ciccarello and her next-door neighbour.

In an unexpected twist, the Supreme Court today ruled Ms Ciccarello's fencing dispute with Dr Haydn Bunting should be referred to Surveyor General Peter Kentish.

Justice David Bleby said the disputed land was but one example of numerous fences in the area that had been mis-placed and wrongly erected.

He said Mr Kentish should determine where the boundaries between the two Queen St houses truly lie and whether other properties in the suburb should also be changed.

"This may well be a confused boundary issue not just between these two properties, but along the whole street," he said.

"For example, on the evidence, I doubt Dr Bunting's rear fence accords with reality, and I don't know how far this problem extends.

"Ultimately, a re-surveying of the whole area seems to be a much better way to proceed, in the interests of all people in the area."

The ruling could not have come at a worse time for Ms Ciccarello who will, on Saturday, seek to retain the seat she has held since 1997.

The seat of Norwood is one of the most marginal in the city, and needs only a 3.7 per cent swing to be claimed by the Opposition.

For several years, Ms Ciccarello and Dr Bunting have argued over their 55-year-old fence.

Modern surveying techniques found that fence had been mis-placed and took up 23 sq m of land rightfully belonging to Dr Bunting.

Previously, the Adelaide Magistrates Court ruled the disputed land should be signed over to Ms Ciccarello.

It further ruled Dr Bunting should not be compensated a finding he appealed yesterday.

Justice Bleby, however, said the case was a symptom of a broader issue.

"We're dealing with land that was surveyed many, many years ago when techniques were very different," he said.

"It's not surprising, frankly there are whole areas of Adelaide developed in times when techniques were not as sophisticated as they are now, giving rise to all sorts of boundary problems."

He said Mr Kentish may choose not to intervene in the matter but he would not proceed to hear the appeal until that body had time to determine its position.

The hearing was adjourned after Ms Ciccarello's counsel said it would contact Mr Kentish and pass on relevant documentation.


User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 130 times

6 Stars required from Sept 2010

#134 Post by Wayno » Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:21 am

SA houses to be six-star energy rated

Applies to new homes and extensions. Expected to deliver up to 23% reduction in energy consumption (compared to 5 star).

From ABC Online:
SA houses to be six-star energy rated

All new SA housing must be six-star energy rated from September.

It will be mandatory soon for all new houses in South Australia to have a six-star energy efficiency rating. The SA Government says it will apply for all houses built from September.

SA Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway says developers will need to design homes that make the most of natural light and efficient energy resources.

"The use of efficient light globes and appliances, for example, can also help contribute to reductions in power consumption so we're hopeful that this should be able to be met with minimal disruption and of course it means that the owners of these new homes should benefit thereafter by having reduced energy bills," he said.

Mr Holloway says home owners can expect to save about $340 per year in energy costs.

The six-star push emerged from a decision taken at a Council of Australian Governments meeting last year and SA says it is one of the first states to comply.
Audio from Paul Holloway: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/ ... lloway.mp3
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: 6 Stars required from Sept 2010

#135 Post by Howie » Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:50 am

Builders have been offering 6 star packages for quite a while now, though it's pretty costly when you look at what you need to achieve 6 stars. I'm building at the moment and calculated that double glazing my windows would add another $20-30k on top of the build, a 3000L water tank would be another $1200 or so, then there's solar hot water, wall insulation, roof batts. It's currently mandatory to have roof batts and external wall insulation, along with a water tank... but double glazing will could be really painful in terms of up front costs. I'm not sure if you can get away with 6-stars without double glazing your windows either.. even low-e tint had set us back around $9k (we've got alot of windows).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests