In January 2016 Peter and Sylvia Aitchison said they spent as little time as possible at home while a fence enclosed their terrace, blocking sun and views. (File video)

A Wellington couple feels "justice has been done" after a judge ordered the removal of an "objectionable" view-blocking fence.

The fence wiped out a panoramic harbour vista from an apartment in the suburb of Roseneath.

Environment Court judge Brian Dwyer said on Friday that Peter and Sylvia Aitchison had established their case against neighbour David Walmsley by an overwhelming margin.

CAMERON BURNELL/stuff.co.nz Peter Aitchison, speaking in October 2015, about the fence, built by a neighbour, which blocked sweeping views of Wellington Harbour and the city from his and wife Sylvia's Roseneath apartment.

After the court's ruling, Peter Aitchison said the structure had now been up so long - almost a year - that he could hardly remember what the view was like.

READ MORE:

* View-blocking fence called overbearing and aggressive

* Wellington's view-slashing fence to go

* Playground prisoners seek $100k from city council

* View-blocking fence heading back to court

He said the couple were pleased with the decision and that "justice had been done".

MAARTEN HOLL/ FAIRFAX NZ Peter Aitchison and the bare wooden fence that completely blocks the view of the Maida Vale Rd property's lower level.

"We've avoided our house, it's been so unpleasant living with that wall, we've spent a lot of time out of town."

Walmsley declined to comment after decision saying it was too early to discuss what he would do next. He said it was "difficult to think" about his reaction so soon after Friday's decision.

Aitchison would not say how much the case had cost but it was well into six figures, which was "totally unnecessary".

MAARTEN HOLL/FAIRFAX NZ The fence was constructed as a children's fort, which was found to have been a contrivance to get around the rules.

The suggestion in court during the case, given by Walmsley's side, that the couple could simply put up curtains, was "facetious", he said.

"Who would want people standing on the ramp up there, looking in? Every time they got on the walkway we'd have to pull our curtains."

He said the couple were "absolutely exhausted" by the case and the stress had affected their health.

MAARTEN HOLL/FAIRFAX NZ Another view of the 'fort', alongside the Aitchisons' home.

The former Commonwealth Games rower, from 1958, had an extra reason to want the view of the harbour back.

"We came to Wellington to retire and have a quiet life, enjoy our grandchildren. We've got two grandchildren that are rowers. I liked to look down at the harbour, when they were training."

During the past week, the Aitchisons presented evidence from experts about the effects of the fence that they said had knocked $900,000 off the value of their $1.6 million property.

Maarten Holl The view before the fence was erected.

FORT OR FENCE?

Aitchison, along with the Wellington City Council, had asked the court to at least reduce the height of a child's play fort built by Walmsley which blocked the Wellington harbour view from their Maida Vale Rd property.

Over the past week, the judge and Environmental Commissioner Ian Buchanan heard the unusual rarely-used application under the Resource Management Act and visited the site.

MAARTEN HOLL/FAIRFAX NZ The dispute between the Aitchisons and David Walmsley, owner of the neighbouring property was heard at the Environment Court.

The judge said on Friday the effect was objectionable and he agreed with a former Wellington town planner that it was highly offensive.

He said the construction was a contrivance to get around rules that prevented the building of a fence.

"The current structure is just a means to the same end."

The judge had strong words for Walmsley, saying he was wrong in thinking that because he was allowed to build the structure that he did not have to have any regard for his neighbours.

"There was a deliberate refusal to consider any remedy of the effects. He said in so many words, that he was not obliged to have regard and did not do so."

COUNCIL RESPONSE

Wellington City Council planning manager Warren Ulusele said despite allowing the playground to be built, the council always opposed its affects on the Aitchisons' home.

The decision to approve the structure was a technical matter relating to how the District Plan was interpreted - its impacts were a separate issue.

The council first discussed the problem with the Aitchisons in 2014 and it had consistently held the position the effects were unacceptable, he said.

"That's why we took this action."

Ulusele would not say how much the council had spent on the case.

TOWN PLANNER SHOCKED

A former Wellington town planner had told the court he had been shocked when he saw the fence and had never seen such a severe effect on a property before.

A academic psychologist had been asked about the social effect of the structure and told the court putting it up was about dominance and control.

Walmsley opposed the application.

The structure was permitted under the district plan and he said he wanted privacy for his property, which sits below the Aitchisons.

The Aitchisons now have a month to file an enforcement order that the court will sign requiring Walmsley to remove the structure.

The court has previously ruled the Wellington City Council made a mistake in its interpretation of the district plan when giving the playground the green light.

The council has appealed that decision, with a hearing set for next month, which means any further decision on the fence may be put on hold until that is heard.

The judge said even with other permitted structures able to be built there, it was hard to see how they could be as bad as the fence was now.

Buchanan, who delivered part of the decision, said the fence was dominant and overbearing and that the walkway affected the Aitchisons' privacy.

Buchanan said the view had made a significant contribution to the residential amenity and there was an almost complete loss of the primary view.

He said any residual view - out over Petone and only seen while standing at the eastern end of the Aitchisons' patio, did not make up for it.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

* After the fence was erected last year, the Aitchisons asked the council if it could be taken down.

* The council insisted its hands were tied, and that the fence was allowed under the District Plan.

* The Aitchisons took the matter to the Environment Court, which ruled the council had made a mistake in interpreting the plan when they gave the playground the go-ahead. However, it did not rule the fence should be dismantled.

* The council accepted the ruling, and said the fence would have to come down.

* It is still there, and the Aitchisons have returned to the Environment Court to apply for an order to reduce its height. This time they are being supported by the council.

* An order can be made by the court requiring something be done about the structure, including removing it or lowering it.

* Meanwhile, Wellington City Council has launched an appeal in the High Court against the Environment Court's original decision.