Muccino & anor v Ring & anor

Paving 7The tree partly overhangs an extensive paved section of the applicants' back garden. The paved area has a pergola and pizza oven and is used for outdoor entertaining. The paved area consists of two sections and styles of paving. 8The older paving, installed about 12 years ago, comprises large concrete pavers interplanted with Mondo Grass. Some of the pavers are lifted along one or more edge/s and the applicants are concerned that these could be a trip hazard. It is the applicants' view that roots from the Eucalypt have lifted the pavers. I noted a number of lifted pavers some distance from the immediate vicinity of the tree. The applicants were unable to show me any roots beneath any of the lifted pavers. 9The other more recent paving, installed about 5 years ago, comprises terra cotta tiles on an elevated terrace close to the boundary fence including immediately adjacent to the base of the tree. Some individual pavers are displaced along an edge. The section of paving laid at the base of the tree, and knowingly over the root buttresses, is uniformly tilted towards the applicants' dwelling. 10During the hearing the applicants removed two of the partly lifted pavers and excavated some of the thick layer of sand and road base beneath them; however, no roots were uncovered during the hearing.

Findings - paving 11While some individual pavers are lifted and could be considered a trip hazard, the applicants have not provided any evidence of this being caused by the roots of the tree the subject of the application. 12In regards to the pavers closest to the tree, I am prepared to accept that these have been tilted by expansion of the base of the tree. However, as a matter of discretion no orders will be made for any rectification as the effect is essentially cosmetic, the area affected is quite small and there is an extensive area of paving available for seating elsewhere. The applicants were fully aware of the base of the tree when the paving was installed.

The fence 13One panel of the metal dividing fence immediately adjacent to the tree is severely buckled and displaced. The applicants contend that the tree has caused this damage. In 2009, a large branch fell from the tree; photographs included in the application indicate that this event may have caused the buckling of the fence. 14I observed the adjoining panels to be in reasonable condition although some of the panels to the northwest were slightly out of alignment. The fence is thought to be about 20 years old.

Findings - fence 15I am satisfied to the extent required by s 10(2) that the tree has caused both the displacement of and damage to the fence. Therefore orders will be made for the replacement of that one panel of fence at the respondents' expense.

Branch/ tree failure 16As stated above, in 2009, in apparently calm conditions, a large branch fell from the tree. This caused damage to various items of the applicants' property. A wound remains on the trunk; when viewed with binoculars from the ground, there are no obvious signs of degradation of the wound surface. 17The applicants provided many undated photographs of green and dead branches that had fallen from the tree - they say in the last 12 months or so. Apart from the large branch that fell in 2009, the applicants have not brought these branch failures to the attention of the respondents. 18In 2009, the applicants applied to the local council for permission to remove the tree; council approved the application and notified the respondents. The respondents, as is their right, elected not to remove the tree. 19On a number of occasions, the respondents have sought permission from the council to prune the tree; permission has been granted for selective branch removal and thinning. The tree was most recently pruned in October 2012. The applicants have also had overhanging branches pruned away from their property. 20An arborist's report obtained by the respondents notes the successful occlusion of the pruning wounds as evidence of the tree's health and vitality. I concur with this finding.

Findings - tree and branch failure 21I am satisfied that a large branch fell from the tree in 2009 and caused damage to the applicants' property; thus as s 10(2) is satisfied, the Court's jurisdiction to make orders is engaged. 22There were no signs at the wound site to indicate the reason for the failure and it appears to have been a single, unpredictable event. However, I am satisfied that dead wood and other branches have also fallen into the applicants' garden. 23While it is clear that a number of branches have been pruned away from the applicant's property, a number still remain. Some dead wood remains in parts of the tree that overhang the applicants' property. 24I saw no signs that would lead me to conclude that there is any real risk of whole tree failure. 25On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the tree should be removed at this stage but I consider that some additional pruning is justified. 26I have determined that two large limbs that overhang the applicants' property should be removed. These are indicated as 'A' and 'B' on the scanned photograph attached to this judgment. The general positions of the final cuts are indicated on the photograph. [Note: the photograph is taken from the applicants' property and the relative position of the branches to the wound should be noted.] The architecture of these branches, some of which is related to previous pruning, is such that the loading and arrangement of the secondary branches could pose an increased risk of failure. With the expertise I bring to the Court, I consider that the removal of these branches will not significantly affect either the health or structural integrity of the tree. 27In addition, every two years, the respondents will be required to have all dead wood down to 30mm in diameter removed from those parts of the tree that overhang the applicants' property to a distance of two metres inside their own property.

Orders 28On the basis of the foregoing, the Orders of the Court are: (1)The application to remove the tree is dismissed. (2)The application for rectification of paving is dismissed. (3)Within 120 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to engage and pay for a fencing contractor to replace the panel of fence at the base of the tree. The panel is to be replaced to accommodate the tree without causing damage to it and to allow a gap of 100 mm between the fence and the tree as an allowance for growth. (4)Within 60 days of the date of these orders, the respondents are to engage and pay for an AQF level 3 arborist to remove the two branches indicated on the photograph in Annexure A of this judgment. All dead wood in excess of 30mm in diameter at its base is to be removed from all parts of the canopy which overhang the applicants' property to a distance of two metres inside the respondents' property. (5)All work is to be carried out in accordance with AS4373:2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry. (6)Should it be required, the applicants are to provide all reasonable access for the purpose of quoting and for the carrying out of orders 4 and 5. (7)Every two years within two weeks either side of the anniversary of the pruning in order 4, the respondents are to engage and pay for an AQF level 3 arborist to remove all dead wood in excess of 30mm in diameter at its base from all parts of the canopy which overhang the applicants' property to a distance of two metres inside the respondents' property. (8)Should it be required, the applicants are to provide all reasonable access for the purpose of quoting and for the carrying out of order 7.

J Fakes Commissioner of the Court ANNEXURE A 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: 04 February 2013