Proposed fence rules slammed

BY KAREN GOODGER

Proposed new rules that will prevent many Nelson homeowners from building fences more than 1.2 metres high have been labelled "draconian", "ridiculous" and "pathetic" by Nelson Mail readers.

Nelson MP and Environment Minister Nick Smith is also urging caution.

The rules are part of a series of plan changes which Nelson City Council last week approved for public feedback. They are designed to make the streetscape safer and more inviting, while also discouraging front yards being dominated by permanent surfacing for vehicle parking and manoeuvring.

Dr Smith said the council needed to be careful it "doesn't get too pedantic with regulations about what people can do on their property". Such changes needed to be well supported and justified, he said. "I've got my doubts."

Only one person who responded to Nelson Mail's story online gave limited support, saying "any initiative that improves the visual appearance of the streetscape should be welcomed". Others were highly critical including an out-of-town reader who said it was "not a good look for Nelson at all".

"Talk about dictatorship," she said. "Who really owns their property up there, the people or the council? Good Lord, people in jail have more rights than you lot."

A Richmond resident who lives in a new subdivision said he got about a 1.2m front fence covenant by planting bushes which formed a hedge. "I note that many other people have simply ignored this covenant."

Like others, he questioned how having a low fence or no fence made properties safer. "Our front hedge/bushes is to keep our small children in and stop them running into the road, protect our privacy so youths doing their weekend drunken vandal run choose other houses to urinate in or smash up, and also protect our privacy."

Nelson Bays area commander Inspector Brian McGurk told the Mail high fences were a "crime facilitator" rather than crime prevention tool. Properties were much safer when they could be viewed from the street and neighbouring properties, he said. Mr McGurk believes there was some research done in Christchurch which backed this view.

Nelson landscape architect Tom Carter said the ideas behind the council's plan changes were part of national trends in urban design.

He applauded the council in addressing the issue but questioned whether regulatory controls with a "one-size-fits-all approach" were the answer.

"It could create a whole lot of consent and compliance issues."

Working with streets or neighbourhoods where there were issues of concern might be preferable, he said.

Certified Builders branch president Bob Monopoli said it was a shame the council was dictating what people could do with properties they paid hundreds of thousands for. The organisation would discuss the plan changes during one of its regular meetings with the council, he said.

Jennian Homes sales manager Hugh Askin said the rule requiring garages to be set back four metres from the road would prevent many people choosing their garage side-on.

"That would be a real shame."

Several Nelson city councillors are concerned about the new rules. Councillor Ian Barker described it as a "nanny-state" encroaching into everyday life.

"People's personal choices are being taken away from them." Homeowners should be able to feel secure, erecting a fence to the height that they like, he said. Mr Barker also doesn't like restrictions on garaging in front yards. "It's more hassle and there's no need for it."

Councillor Mike Cotton said the fencing restrictions were "too prescriptive". Councillor Aldo Miccio believed it would cause "a lot of angst" in the community.

Mayor Kerry Marshall has refused to give his views on the controls but was keen to see the plan changes put out for consultation. "I'm relaxed about what's come through," he said.

  Editorial p11

- © Fairfax NZ News