Clarke v Goff

The applicant made reasonable effort

1. Historic correspondence accompanying the application shows the applicant made reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondents, further borne out by the parties proposing consent orders.

The tree has caused damage to the applicant's property

1. In his application, Mr Clarke claimed that the tree has: damaged the common wall along the common boundary between the parties' front gardens; caused movement of his front fence and side fence; lifted tiles at the entry to his dwelling; caused cracking and lifting around his front door; and caused cracking of internal walls and ceilings in his dwelling.
2. Mr Jan undertook visual assessment of these elements of damage to Mr Clarke's property. Mr Jan concluded that rotational movement of the garden wall and pier, uplifted pavers, and cracking of the dwelling's internal walls, were all due to tree root growth.
3. Ms Mackenzie undertook visual assessment of the tree and elements of external damage. She lifted pavers to observe soil and roots below. She did not enter the applicant's dwelling but reviewed photographs and Mr Jan's report. Ms Mackenzie found that damage to the boundary garden wall was likely to be caused by tree root growth but, in her opinion, there was no evidence demonstrating that tree roots had caused any internal damage to Mr Clarke's dwelling.
4. Council made a written submission to the Court, written 18 August 2021 (Exhibit D). When Council refused the application for tree removal in January 2021, Council's tree management officer gave the following reasons for refusal: "1. The tree appeared to be in a healthy condition with no obvious structural defects at the time of inspection. 2. The tree contributes to the amenity and canopy cover of the immediate area. 3. The information in the Tree Report prepared by Dr. Tree Good dated September 2020 is inadequate and has not demonstrated why the tree should be removed. 4. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the tree is posing a risk to people and the built form of the property. 5. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate why the lifting pavers and damaged wall cannot be repaired without requiring removal of the tree. 6. The proposal does not satisfy the Objective 3.5.3(c) of the Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 which relate to tree management. 7. The removal of the tree is not consistent with the Greening Sydney Plan 2012 which has articulated a percentage canopy cover target to be achieved across the Local Government Area by 2030. 8. The removal of the tree is not consistent with other policies implemented by Council aimed at maintaining and increasing canopy cover across the Local Government Area including Sustainable Sydney 2030 Community Strategic Plan 2014, City of Sydney Urban Forest Strategy 2013, the City of Sydney Tree Management Policy 2013 and the City of Sydney Landscape Code 2016."
5. Council also suggested: "Alternatively, if you believe the tree is causing structural damage to your property, you are advised to engage a Structural Engineer to determine if the tree is the cause of damage and to provide recommendations on resolving the issue."
6. There is no evidence that the respondents appealed Council's decision.
7. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the tree has caused damage to external elements of Mr Clarke's property, being the boundary garden wall and pavers. I cannot be satisfied that tree roots have caused damage to his dwelling. Mr Jan undertook no investigations, such as those set out at [59] in Fang v Li [2017] NSWLEC 1503, that would demonstrate causation. A building level survey has not been done; soil moisture levels have not been tested; roots have not been located and identified. Mr Jan referred to other possible causes, including the site's poor drainage and possibly leaking pipes. He recommended a CCTV survey of stormwater and sewer pipes to confirm their integrity or otherwise. I am not aware that this has been done. Ms Mackenzie observed and noted a leaking downpipe. Mr Jan has not ruled out these other possible causes of damage to the dwelling. Nevertheless, because roots have damaged parts of Mr Clarke's property, I can make orders.

Consideration of s 12 matters

1. I have considered the matters at s 12 of the Trees Act. Most relevant here are the tree's benefits, Council's consent requirements, and consideration of the potential solutions that might retain the tree.
2. The tree contributes to the overall canopy cover of the City of Sydney's urban forest. It contributes ecosystem services including cooling, reducing water run-off, removing air pollutants, carbon sequestration and more. It has intrinsic value to public amenity, standing at the very front of the respondents' property. These values are recognised in the City of Sydney Urban Forest Strategy (2013) and other policy documents, and were rightly considered by Council when determining the application for tree removal.
3. The evidence before the Court now includes the impacts of root pruning should a root barrier be installed within the respondents' front garden to prevent further damage: the tree would be adversely impacted, and severely so. Consideration of alternative solutions within the reports is still limited, but in my mind, this reflects the reality of the situation: this tree has outgrown the limited space in which it was planted. It has reached a size that requires a large root system, in turn requiring significant soil volume that is not available within the respondents' front garden. As Ms Mackenzie said at par 56 of her report: "The prognosis for the tree as a long-term, viable amenity tree in this limited growing space is poor." Alternative solutions to repairing the garden wall, for instance, might be found without removing the tree, but the tree's roots are likely to cause damage to other structural elements within the near future. I accept the findings of both Ms Mackenzie and Mr Jan, and the submissions of Mr Sher and Ms Sims, that it is now time to remove the tree.
4. Were Council consenting to tree removal, a condition for replanting would likely be included. Therefore, in addition to the proposed consent orders, I will include an order for planting a replacement tree.

Orders

1. The Court orders that: 1. Within 60 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to engage and pay for a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (minimum AQF Level 3) with all appropriate insurances to remove the jacaranda tree in the front yard of their property. 2. The works in (1) must be carried out in accordance with the 2016 Safe Work Australia Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work. 3. The respondents are to give the applicant at least one week's notice of the works in (1). 4. Within 90 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to plant in their front courtyard a replacement tree of a species that will reach a height of at least 6 metres and a crown spread of at least 4 metres at maturity. 5. The exhibits are returned other than A and B.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 03 November 2021