A 6.8-metre stretch of wall on Sydney’s lower north shore has become the unlikely centrepiece of a legal saga that has spanned six years, generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs, and shows no sign of ending any time soon.

What began as a dispute between neighbours in the harbourside suburb of Northwood has evolved into a protracted planning battle involving Lane Cove Council, multiple Land and Environment Court proceedings and competing arguments about home owners’ privacy rights and the integrity of the state’s planning system.

At the centre of the dispute is a masonry wall, planter boxes and timber privacy screening built by home owner Robert Wechsler along the northern boundary of the waterfront property he and his wife, Katie, have occupied for the past 25 years.

Wechsler says he built the barrier after a neighbouring property was approved in 2020 to construct an elevated boardwalk and stairway along the shared boundary, providing access to the Lane Cove River.

According to him, the approved works created sight lines into previously secluded parts of his home, including bedroom areas, a balcony and sections of his backyard.

“From the stairs you can see directly over our balcony and into areas of the house, which is a huge intrusion on what should be a space of sanctuary,” Wechsler said.

“We have an entitlement to privacy – and it’s also about the potential for overlooking, which we had very serious concerns about.”

A former builder and developer who acted as owner-builder on the property, Wechsler responded by constructing a masonry wall topped with planter boxes and timber screening.

The council, however, has consistently maintained that the works required planning approval and should be removed because they were built unlawfully.

What followed was years of litigation.

The dispute first reached the Land and Environment Court in late 2022. In February 2023, Commissioner Elizabeth Espinosa dismissed three appeals brought by Wechsler against the council relating to a stop-work order, a refused development application and the refusal of a Building Information Certificate.

The commissioner found the wall was inconsistent with the visual character of the foreshore, adversely affected public views and was not an appropriate planning response to privacy concerns.

Following that decision, Wechsler reduced the wall to the approved height. However, he later rebuilt the disputed section, adding planter boxes and a timber privacy screen, stating he believed the works could proceed based on advice from a private certifier.

The council subsequently commenced further Land and Environment Court proceedings seeking declarations that the reconstructed works had been carried out without the approval and orders requiring their removal.

Representing himself through much of the proceedings, Wechsler argued the structure formed part of a dividing fence and therefore did not require development consent under the Dividing Fences Act.

In a decision handed down in June, Justice Sandra Duggan rejected that argument, finding the wall, planter boxes and screening could not properly be characterised as a dividing fence and required planning approval.

In her judgment, Duggan emphasised the public interest in maintaining confidence in the planning system and ordered the unauthorised structures to be removed within 90 days.

“The issues relating to this wall have been ongoing for years and the issue must now come to a final conclusion,” Duggan said.

Neighbour Tim Harrington, whose riverside access stairs prompted the dispute, welcomed the ruling, saying the court had confirmed his long-held view that the structure was unreasonable.

“If you allow one person to ignore the system, it’s a dangerous precedent. It’s about the integrity of the planning system,” he said.

Harrington disputed Wechsler’s claims about the extent of overlooking and said the wall had significantly altered the character of the boundary between the properties.

“It’s visually intrusive and he’s built all the metal supports and irrigation tubing on my side of the fence. It’s been a very frustrating process,” he said.

Wechsler, however, remains determined to continue the fight. He has lodged an appeal against Justice Duggan’s decision, with the matter due to return to court later this year.

He estimates his legal and expert costs have reached $200,000 – far exceeding the approximately $30,000 he says it cost to build the wall – but insists the legal process had been worth it to protect the privacy and value of his home.

“We haven’t given up,” he said. “This is our home. Having a sense of privacy should be expected, and in this case we don’t have that.”

Wechsler also questioned the scale of the council’s legal response.

“During the proceedings they had a barrister, two solicitors and produced a document of about 300 pages,” he said.

“It’s almost Monty Python-esque for what is essentially a case about a fence.”

In a statement, a Lane Cove Council spokeswoman said the council had attempted to resolve the matter without litigation but had been unable to reach an agreement.

“Council has been aware (that Wechsler) has carried out illegal works dating back several years. These works have had a detrimental effect on the neighbour’s amenity,” she said.

Council records show legal expenditure associated with the dispute totalled $107,636 during the 2025-26 financial year alone, with legal costs arising from the June judgment yet to be determined.

Six years after the conflict emerged, the wall remains standing and, with an appeal now lodged, a dispute that began over backyard privacy is heading back to court once again.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

David Barwell is an urban affairs reporter for The Sydney Morning HeraldConnect via email.