Council hedge’s hedge debate

Nelson City Council’s definition of a hedge has been labelled a ‘ridiculous’ precedent according to one local contractor.

Duane Whiting is currently developing seven properties as part of a development that will lead onto Suffolk Rd.

A row of neighbouring trees along 389 Suffolk Rd has caused grief for Duane Whiting Constructors Limited and Duane say’s seven to eight-metre trees should constitute as a hedge.

Under the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) hedges are considered fences and a residential fence along the side or back of a residential property is permitted at two-metres high.

He says the 100 or so trees standing at around seven metres tall and planted one metre apart acts as a hedge along the property boundary and will shade the northeast facing homes from morning sun.

“The Lawsoniana trees have extensive roots into our property and some trees are already showing signs of stress and damage,” Duane says.

The NRMP only refers to solid structures while vegetation is not controlled under the plan, aside from a hedge which is defined in the plan as being a fence.

“The neighbours have created a hedge, but council don’t see it as hedge,” Duane says.

Shrubs and trees don’t have definitions under the NRMP and council’s environmental team leader Corey Parsons referred to Oxford Dictionary in correspondence with Duane’s lawyer Luke Acland.

A shrub is defined as a woody plant smaller than a tree and has several main stems arising at or near the ground.

A tree is defined as a woody perennial plant typically with a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches.

“Their argument is pretty weak, they use the interpretation of the Oxford Dictionary and by that logic every hedge that’s first planted begins as a tree,” Duane says.

After some back and forth between Duane’s lawyer Luke and council staff, they described the line of trees as a shelter belt which is not covered under the NRMP.

Luke argues that council has taken a “very narrow interpretation” of the plan.

“It’s really disappointing that council is essentially permitting Nelson residents to grow shelterbelts on residential land,” Luke says.

Duane labels the council’s responses as “ridiculous”.

“With that logic, somebody could go plant a whole headline of trees on every property,” he says.

Council’s acting group manager of environmental management Jo Martin told the Nelson Weekly on Monday that “most boundary disputes can be resolved through negotiation between property owners”.

Negotiations with the property owners along 389 Suffolk Rd came to a halt in August.

Duane offered to remove the trees at his cost and plant native trees along the boundary instead.

The response from the neighbouring landowners was they could remove the existing trees and plant native trees there under the condition those moving into the new subdivision would not bring any animals that would “harm or may harm any stock or native wildlife”.

Duane responded that they would not be putting restrictions on what pets the potential purchasers can or cannot have and communications fizzled out without compromise.

Duane and Luke say the next option is to take their case to court.

“If the council isn’t a referee, then you do end up having poor neighbourly relations,” Luke says.