NSW Retaining Wall on a boundary line for new house builds. Who has ownership?

[Newbie]

Both my neighbour and I are building in a new estate. The estate had already provided a boundary retaining wall halfway up the boundary line, however it looks like we will now need to extend the retaining wall to the front of the property on the boundary line due to the different levels of our properties. I am on the higher side, they are on the lower side. It sounds as though the retaining wall is NECESSARY for the fence and therefore falls under the Dividing Fences Act. The questions I have are:

1. Who actually has responsibility/ownership of the retaining wall?

Noting the lower side does need to excavate on their side to finalise their building plans so would have an obligation to make sure they do not damage our land; and we would have an obligation to prevent movement of land from our side to theirs.​

Would this then been seen as equal responsibility? Or am I missing something?​

If they claim they do NOT need to excavate then could they say that the responsibility is all on us?​

​

2. Who is responsible for costs.

The Dividing Fence Act is vague in that 'generally' the costs would be split equally if it was NECESSARY. Generally is not black and white and I would need to have question 1 answered in order to understand who would bare the most cost.​

​

Whilst we both are in agreement to the retaining wall at this stage, there are questions on length (what is deemed necessary to what would be a like to have) and who would be responsible for the majority of the costs (with the neighbouring party suggesting a contribution but not equal amounts).

 

[karissatbeltran]

That sounds like a complex situation. Have you resolved it? I'm curious what you did with that. Understanding who owns and is responsible for a shared retaining wall can get tricky, especially in new neighborhoods.

 

[LostEcho]

Well, while it seems logical for both parties to share the responsibility, determining the extent of each party's obligation can be challenging. Considering factors like excavation needs and potential costs, it's crucial to seek advice from specialists who deal with such matters regularly. I recently came across starkbuilders.com.au, and their expertise in house extensions and construction might provide valuable insights into resolving this issue. It's essential to clarify these matters early on to avoid any misunderstandings or disputes down the line.

 

[Newbie]

That sounds like a complex situation. Have you resolved it? I'm curious what you did with that. Understanding who owns and is responsible for a shared retaining wall can get tricky, especially in new neighborhoods.

No resolution but there has been change. The fencers said the could install at ground level so the need to retain wasn’t a necessity. And whilst we said we were happy for that to happen, the neighbours went ahead and excavated the area to a depth of 300-400mm on the boundary line and approx 200mm onto our land without our knowledge or consent and are saying that we now have a responsibility to retain on our side of the boundary line. This will now be a civil matter.

 

[Newbie]

Well, while it seems logical for both parties to share the responsibility, determining the extent of each party's obligation can be challenging. Considering factors like excavation needs and potential costs, it's crucial to seek advice from specialists who deal with such matters regularly. I recently came across starkbuilders.com.au, and their expertise in house extensions and construction might provide valuable insights into resolving this issue. It's essential to clarify these matters early on to avoid any misunderstandings or disputes down the line.

Unfortunately we are now at dispute stage as the neighbours went ahead and excavated on the boundary and into our land without consent. We just came home to find what they had done. And it is their belief that we are now responsible for retaining on our side and they are not liable. It is hard to find anything in black and white, it looks like it will have to go down the civil action path.