It is a neighbourhood dispute that has spilled into the public arena with one of the parties declaring there's "no chance" of the neighbours ever being able to work together.
The dispute played out at a Newcastle council public voice session on October 17, where the applicant and a neighbour on each side spoke about a modification application for 61 Grinsell Street, Kotara.
The neighbours aired their grievances with the proposal, which would modify a development consent for a house, secondary dwelling, pool, retaining walls and demolition of existing structures.
The modification seeks changes to the pool design and retaining walls, the addition of an eave, amended floor level and end wall/screening to the alfresco area, amendments to windows/doors, increased floor level and overall height of the secondary dwelling and amendments to landscaping and stormwater drainage.
A stop-work order is in place in relation to non-compliant components of the development, some of which would be retroactively addressed in the modification.
'Numerous submissions'
Resident Katrina Tonniges said the modification application wasn't "substantially the same development and didn't meet the requirements as such".
Both Ms Tonniges and the neighbour on the other side, Carly Karantoni, raised concerns about privacy relating to the floor height of the second dwelling, which has increased.
"We've made numerous submissions about the need for privacy barriers which are set back onto the Watson's property to reduce the disproportionate and overbearing nature of the development," Ms Tonniges said.
The unauthorised raising of the secondary dwelling floor level by 490mm had "effectively created a two-storey, 120 square metre dwelling", she said.
The neighbours also spoke about retaining wall footings which they said encroached on their properties.
"We've constantly been told that this is a civil matter from council officers and that we need to take legal action against our neighbours if we want these fixed, which is really distressing to us," Ms Karantoni said.
Ms Tonniges said there were stormwater issues, while Ms Karantoni had concerns over the proposed location of a rainwater tank near an established tree on her property.
"Our home has been bombarded with stormwater, causing mould, rising damp, movement of our piers and water and clay ingress into our downstairs laundry," Ms Tonniges said.
"Unauthorised pier holes for unapproved retaining walls were excavated partially into our property.
"They were not correctly remediated and were filled with core spoil from the site."
Both neighbours claimed there had been a lack of detail in the documents, such as shadow diagrams.
"Neighbours deserve full transparency when there's proposed development on the boundary and it shouldn't be up to us to do the certifier's or council's job and question repeatedly what's being supplied on plans," Ms Karantoni said.
"Council's unwillingness to enforce compliance is problematic," Ms Tonniges said.
Within planning controls
But Joe Murphy from Perception Planning, who spoke on behalf of the applicant, said council's assessment of issues raised in submissions "do not concur with or substantiate any of the reasons for objecting to the proposal".
"Further to this assessment it is evident that the development does not contravene any relevant planning controls or legislation," he said.
Applicant Warren Watson said he did not have "any information that says that the footings of the retaining wall are encroaching on their property".
He said he would like to understand if the water tank will affect the neighbour's tree.
"We love their tree," Mr Watson said.
"If the tank needs to be relocated because it will affect the tree, we will relocate the tank."
Pier holes will be rectified, Mr Watson said, but this had not happened yet because of the stop work order.
"We haven't been allowed to do anything in that space and that's only exacerbated the problems that 59 and 63 experienced because this modification's taken 12 months."
Mr Watson said he had engaged an engineer to design the flow of the stormwater and disputed privacy concerns from the increased height.
"Our deck on our secondary dwelling is quite small," he said.
"We live on 880 square meter blocks. Your private open space isn't your whole backyard entire area."
He admitted making mistakes, including the pier holes and cabling work being done on the secondary dwelling when it should not have been.
"We approached the neighbours when we had made mistakes because we're here open and honest people," he said.
"That in turn has been thrown against us."
'Not going to work things out'
Independent councillor John Church asked the parties if they could reach a compromise.
Ms Tonniges put forward an alternative proposal that she said would manage stormwater and provide privacy by moving things back off the boundary.
However Mr Watson responded saying "no. There is no chance of us working with 63. Ever."
"Because what she's just proposed to you isn't a compromise," he said. "It's her getting everything that she wants and us making massive changes to our property and giving parts of our land just satisfy her and that's why we will never be able to work this out.
"I'm happy to sort this stuff out with 59 and give them everything that they want and need because it's about give and take.
"With 63, there is none.
"400 pages of submissions by Katrina would suggest that we're not going to work things out together."
Acting CEO David Clarke said he would seek further advice on concerns raised about compliance.
Lord mayor Nuatali Nelmes said it had not been a "perfect build" and that council would go away and assess the application.
"I know it's difficult and often these situations can be worked out, but there is an LEP and a DCP for these processes and I do hope that everyone gets some win out of this, so you can all live in harmony together," she said.
