Muir v Owners Corporation SP 35683

The tree and the site 5The subject tree is a 10-metre tall Evergreen Magnolia, or Bull Bay ( Magnolia grandiflora ) growing in the northwest corner of the respondent's property, approximately 200 mm east of the common boundary with the applicant's property. It is in good health and is structurally sound. 6One of the respondents has lived at the property since 1997 and states that the tree was already established and of a fair height at that time. 7The tree is on the common property of the Owners' Corporation. The dwelling has two residences. One of the respondents owns the upstairs residence and the other two own the downstairs residence.

The damage and relevant background 8The applicant's claim concerns damage from the tree's roots to both the paving and the sewer. The hearing took place on the applicant's property and included a view of the paved area. 9The rear courtyard of her property is covered with brick pavers. The paved area is approximately 34m 2 , as shown in a quotation for relaying the paving, provided on 15 June 2011. That quotation is for $3,524. 10An area of the paved courtyard is uneven. The pattern of disruption to the surface, relative to the location of the tree, is consistent with damage caused by tree roots. Photographs included in the arborist's report submitted with the application confirm that roots radiating outward from the Magnolia are directly beneath the uneven paving. 11The area affected by tree roots appears to be approximately one third of the paved area, or approximately 12m 2 . 12The applicant states that the sewer system in her property, in the vicinity of the tree, has failed three times. Each time, sewage came to the surface of the paved courtyard. 13The first failure of the sewer occurred in January 2010. Highlander Plumbing attended the site and used a water jet to clear the sewer line. The plumber stated on the invoice that roots were growing into the PVC pipe at the boundary trap. He also stated that the roots were from the tree next door, although he did not describe how this was determined. The cost of the works was $426. 14At the same time Highlander Plumbing also provided a quotation for replacement of the boundary trap. The quotation of $3,133 included removal and relaying of the pavers around the boundary trap. The quotation stated that the plumber would "...dig down 1.3m to the bottom of the boundary trap." 15The sewer failed again in March 2010. Highlander Plumbing again attended the site and used a water jet to clear the sewer line. 16The plumber stated on the invoice that "With the use of a camera we found a crack in the pipe where it joins onto the 4" boundary trap. Tree roots are growing through the crack." 17The cost of the plumber's second visit was $490. 18In June 2010 the applicant obtained a second quotation, from Davidson Plumbing, for replacement of the sewer boundary trap. The quotation of $3,966 included removal and relaying of the pavers around the boundary trap. 19The sewer failed again in July 2011. Highlander Plumbing used a water jet and CCTV camera to clear the sewer line. 20The plumber stated on the invoice that "Tree roots were removed from the inlet junction into the boundary trap inside the property of 35 Womerah Lane." 21The cost of the plumber's third visit was $683. 22At the time of the hearing, the paved courtyard area remains in an uneven state and the boundary trap has not been replaced. 23In June 2010 Mark Kokot, of Rain Tree Consulting, provided an "Infrastructure Damage and Tree Root Invasion Assessment Report". Pavers were removed, roots were exposed using an air knife and two root samples were collected and sent to John Ford for identification. The root samples were collected next to an inspection riser that can be seen in a photograph shown on page 5 of Mr Kokot's report. 24Mr Ford identified one of the samples as a Ficus species (Fig) and the other as a Magnolia species. There is no Fig in the vicinity, although one respondent recalled there being a Fig on the applicant's land some years ago. 25Tree roots can be seen in the photograph on page 7 of Mr Kokot's report radiating outward from the direction of the Magnolia. The evidence suggests that the Magnolia's roots have caused some disruption to the paved surface. 26The only visible evidence of tree roots growing near the sewer pipe is shown in photographs on pages 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Mr Kokot's report. These photographs only show that tree roots are adjacent to the inspection riser. 27No evidence was presented that the inspection riser, or the section of sewer pipe to which it is connected, was damaged. 28The plumber had only identified that the pipe was cracked where it joins the boundary trap. The boundary trap, and the sewer pipe's junction with it, have not been shown in any evidence. There is no evidence to show that tree roots damaged the pipe at that point, only that tree roots had entered the pipe through a crack at that point. The cause of the crack has not been identified. 29Mr Kokot provided a further letter dated 20 April 2011 in which he states that "...the tree and the larger species of Magnolia trees in general have the capability and capacity to cause undergroung (sic) sewer and plumbing pipe displacement." 30Mr Kokot's letter does not provide any evidence that this Magnolia tree has caused damage to this pipe.

The respondents' position 31The respondents do not wish to remove the Magnolia as it provides amenity to their property. They accept that the tree's roots have disrupted the brick paved surface but do not accept that roots have damaged the pipe.

Jurisdiction 32Under s 10(2) the Court must not make an order unless it is satisfied that the tree concerned has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause, damage to the applicant's property or is likely to cause injury to any person. 33On the evidence before me, I find that roots of the Magnolia have damaged brick paving on the applicant's property, so the jurisdiction is enlivened and the Court may make an order under s 9 of the Act.

Section 12 considerations 34Before determining an application, the Court is to consider matters relevant to the tree and the landscape under s 12 of the Act. (a) The tree is situated entirely within the respondent's property in close proximity to the common boundary with the applicant's property. (b) Under normal circumstances consent would be required from the City of Sydney Council to interfere with the tree. (b1) Approval would not be required to interfere with the tree under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 . (b2) Due to its proximity to the boundary, cutting roots from the tree at the boundary may cause the tree's health to decline, may shorten its life expectancy and may cause it to become unstable. (b3) The tree contributes to the landscaping of the respondent's land and provides some shade and privacy. (c) The tree has no historical, cultural, social or scientific value. (d) The tree makes no significant contribution to the local ecosystem. (e) The tree contributes to the scenic value of the land on which it is situated. (f) The tree can be seen from the street, so makes some contribution to public amenity. (g) The tree has no impact on soil stability, the water table or other natural features. (h)(i) Although tree roots were found in, and removed from, the sewer pipe, no evidence has been provided that tree roots caused the crack at the pipe's junction with the boundary trap. The boundary trap is described as being at some depth. Tree roots typically grow in the upper layer of soil and only grow more deeply if conditions at a greater level favour their growth. Such might be the case if there was already a crack in the pipe, resulting in higher soil moisture levels in the vicinity of the crack, and so encouraging root growth there. Furthermore, the second and third occasions of clearing roots from the pipe were only required because the applicant had not carried out the repairs to the sewer pipe that had been recommended and quoted by the plumber. The applicant contends that there was no point in repairing the pipe if tree roots were allowed to grow back into the vicinity. However, it is common for tree roots to be growing in the vicinity of properly installed PVC pipes without causing damage. (h)(ii) The tree owner has not taken any steps to prevent the damage. The applicant has not taken the steps recommended by two plumbers to have the boundary trap and adjoining pipe replaced. This has allowed tree roots to twice regrow into the sewer pipe through a known existing crack. (i) There is no evidence that the tree is likely to cause injury to any person.

Findings and conclusions 35Based on the evidence, including the onsite view and the photographs in Mr Kokot's report, I find that tree roots have caused disruption to approximately one third of the paved area in the applicant's property. The damage is substantial enough to require rectification. 36The quotation for relaying of the entire paved area was $3,524. A third of this amount is $1,175. 37I accept that roots that have grown into the applicant's sewer pipe are likely to be from the Magnolia. However there is no evidence to suggest that tree roots caused the crack in the PVC pipe where it joins the boundary trap. It would therefore be an unfair burden on the tree's owners to pay for repair to the sewer system or for repeated clearing of the sewer pipe. 38In Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29 at 62 Craig J referred to "something more than a theoretical possibility" being required in order to engage the power under the Act. Mr Kokot's evidence only states that the tree has the capability and capacity to cause damage to the pipe. There is nothing before me that convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the tree caused the initial crack in the sewer pipe. 39There is no evidence to suggest that roots of the Magnolia will cause damage to a properly repaired sewer pipe and boundary trap. Therefore there is no requirement to prevent roots growing into the applicant's property. 40It may be necessary to remove tree roots directly beneath the paving so that the pavers can be replaced evenly. Roots can be cut adjacent to the inspection riser without compromising the tree's stability.

Orders 41As a result of the foregoing, the Orders of the Court are: (1)The application to remove the tree is dismissed. (2)If the applicant has relaid the paved area between her dwelling and Womerah Lane within six months of the date of these orders, the applicant is to serve the respondent with a receipted account for this work within 28 days of receipt of such account but no later than seven months from today's date. (3)If order (2) is complied with, the respondent is to pay the applicants $1,175 within 30 days of service of the receipted account in order (2). (4)If order (2) is not complied with, order (3) lapses at the expiry of seven months from today's date. (5)The applicant is to cut tree roots within 100mm of the sewer inspection riser, shown in Figure 2 on page 5 of Mr Kokot's report, within 30 days of the date of these orders. The roots are to be cut cleanly with a saw. The roots, beyond where they are cut, are to be removed from the ground.

D Galwey Acting Commissioner of the Court

Amendments 26 September 2011 - Re-number orders in (1)-(5) in place of (a)-(e) Amended paragraphs: [41] Orders 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: 26 September 2011