Seems a lot of Auckland properties would devalue over night if people were to build to the 8m+1m for roof from the natural level of ground (ie not a dug out foundation). I believe (just from asking ages ago) that is the allowable height, which seems a lot for 2 story, but regardless even 1.5m would block out view.
We have an old bach/2bed home in front of us, which we can currently see over due to the natural slope of land. We can see to one side too which is the main sea view for the tenants (of our home).
If the little house in front (on a shared easement) was to build up most of our view would be gone. I dont think it can go sideways as would be within the other house on their crosslease boundary, but not sure. Potentially our house could lose both sets of view.
Obviously this would dramatically decrease the market value of our property (circa $1.2m).
One property lawyer told a friend who had a house to the side, which had a view of water and was blocked out, it is line of sight to a certain degrees (ie maybe 100deg for argument sake) of view. A council person supposedly told the friend there is no protection of any "views". Now I dont know if this is just a law perspective vs the council has no role in protecting a non tangible asset etc, or if both are wrong due to being 2nd hand info.
Thought I would ask you guys your thoughts while waiting to find out the official stance on it? (not holding anybody to anything obviously, just very hard to get straight answers at this time of year).
We have an old bach/2bed home in front of us, which we can currently see over due to the natural slope of land. We can see to one side too which is the main sea view for the tenants (of our home).
If the little house in front (on a shared easement) was to build up most of our view would be gone. I dont think it can go sideways as would be within the other house on their crosslease boundary, but not sure. Potentially our house could lose both sets of view.
Obviously this would dramatically decrease the market value of our property (circa $1.2m).
One property lawyer told a friend who had a house to the side, which had a view of water and was blocked out, it is line of sight to a certain degrees (ie maybe 100deg for argument sake) of view. A council person supposedly told the friend there is no protection of any "views". Now I dont know if this is just a law perspective vs the council has no role in protecting a non tangible asset etc, or if both are wrong due to being 2nd hand info.
Thought I would ask you guys your thoughts while waiting to find out the official stance on it? (not holding anybody to anything obviously, just very hard to get straight answers at this time of year).
Comment