Reed & anor v Mason & anor

Has the bamboo damaged the dividing fence? 20The applicants contend that one panel of the metal dividing fence has been displaced and damaged by the respondents' bamboo. The first applicant stated that when he purchased his property in June 2012 (some 14 months ago), he did not notice any damage to the fence. While one panel is most affected, the applicants contend that other panels are slightly displaced off vertical. 21The applicants' position is that the rapid growth rate of the bamboo has damaged the fence over the period they have owned their property. They are also concerned that given its growth rate, height and propensity to sway in the wind, the bamboo will cause future damage. 22The respondents had the fence built in 2000 at their expense. They stated that a fencing contractor advised them that it is not uncommon for metal fences to fall out of vertical alignment, especially after 13 years. The respondents contend that had they been made aware of it earlier, they would have remedied the situation without it escalating to court orders. 23I am satisfied on the evidence that the bamboo on the respondents' property has caused damage to the dividing fence and therefore the Courts' jurisdiction under s 13A of the Fences Act to determine the matter is engaged. 24The applicants engaged Ross Jackson of Jacksons [sic] Nature Works to prepare an arborist's report. Mr Jackson identifies the bamboo as Bambusa vulgaris (Yellow-stemmed Bamboo), a vigorous clumping species. He notes that there are five clumps planted along the western side boundary of the respondents' property. In his report, Mr Jackson states that clumps A, B and D have pushed the metal fence out of vertical alignment but he makes no reference to the buckled panel near clump A. 25At the hearing, the buckling of one panel of the fence near clump A was apparent and most likely caused by shoots growing beneath the fence. Given the extent of buckling, I am surprised the applicants did not notice it when they purchased their property. While it is clear that some of the posts elsewhere along the fence are slightly off vertical, the degree is minor, the fence panels are in good order, and the fence is fully functional. Apart from the buckled panel, I do not consider the remaining parts of the fence to be "damaged" as yet. The effect is essentially cosmetic. 26In regards to the orders that should be made, I consider that the single panel that is clearly buckled should be replaced and its supporting posts re-set in a vertical position. To enable this and to prevent similar damage to the same and nearby panels, I consider it appropriate for any bamboo shoots touching the fence, or within 100 mm of the base of the fence at ground level, to be removed to ground level. As this is a dividing fence, I consider it appropriate that the parties share the cost of this work. Orders will be made for the respondents to undertake routine maintenance to minimise any future damage to the fence.

The Part 2A application 27The applicants contend that a row of 43 trees growing along the respondents' eastern boundary severely obstruct views of Burraneer Bay from three parts of the balcony at the rear of the applicants' property. 28In essence, the applicants seek the following orders:

• Trees 1-7 to be pruned to 6m and maintained at 6.3m
• Trees 8-43 to be pruned to 4m and maintained at 4.3m
• All branches overhanging the applicants' property to be removed. 29According to Mr Jackson, trees 1-33 are mostly x Cupressocyparis leylandii (Leyland Cypress), Trees 34-43 are mostly Pittosporum tenuifolium with some Metrosideros excelsa. Trees 26-43 are growing along the boundary between the respondents' property and the property to the south of the applicants' property.

Are the trees planted so as to form a hedge? 30In applications under Part 2A there are a number of jurisdictional tests that must be sequentially satisfied before the Court's powers to make orders under s 14D are engaged. 31The first of these jurisdictional tests is s 14A(1) in regards to whether Part 2A applies to the trees about which the application is made. 32There is common ground between the parties that the trees are planted so as to form a hedge and rise to a height of more than 2.5m. 33Landscape plans for the respondents' property indicate that at least 12 Leyland Cypress (most likely T1-T12) were planted in 1998 before additional trees were planted in 2000 as part of the landscaping that accompanied the construction of a new pool. 34Therefore, given the two distinct planting events, there are technically two hedges; hedge 1 the original Leylands, Hedge 2 the later plantings. This is simply to establish that Part 2A of the Trees Act applies to the trees the subject of the application. However, the trees in the two adjoining hedges effectively form a generally continuous screen of vegetation along the respondents' eastern boundary. The trees, which comprise the hedges, have been pruned to a range of heights.

Is there a severe obstruction of a view from the applicants' dwelling as a consequence of the trees to which this Part applies? 35The next relevant jurisdictional test is s 14E(2). This states: (2) The Court must not make an order under this Part unless it is satisfied: (a) the trees concerned: (i) are severely obstructing sunlight to a window of a dwelling situated on the applicant's land, or (ii) are severely obstructing a view from a dwelling situated on the applicant's land, and (b) the severity and nature of the obstruction is such that the applicant's interest in having the obstruction removed, remedied or restrained outweighs any other matters that suggest the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees by making an order under this Part.

Background to the application 36The applicants purchased their property in June 2012. In June 2013 they lodged this application for orders requiring the pruning of the respondents' trees in order to restore the views they maintain they had the benefit of when they purchased their property. The viewing points and the views said to be obscured are detailed in the application claim form and summarised below. 37Viewing point A (VA) is the western corner of the applicants' balcony closest to the respondents' property and the dwelling. The view is described as being a view of Burraneer Bay to the west and down the length of the Bay included scattered boats in the foreground and the land/water interface on the opposite shore. 38The obstruction from VA as a consequence of the trees is said to be of foreground views across the width and length of the Bay. The applicants state they are deprived of views of the water and scattered boats from both standing and sitting positions. They contend that at the time of lodging the application the only view was of the western side of the Bay with most of the land/water interface obscured. 39Viewing point B (VB) is midway along the same balcony. The views are primarily of the bay to the southwest down the length of the Bay towards a marina and the mouth of the Bay. There are some foreground and peripheral views of boats across the width of the Bay in it northerly part. The predominant view is of boats down the length of the Bay and the western/south western shore. 40The applicants contend that trees 1-7 and 8-13 ensure that western views across the Bay are predominantly if not entirely obscured from VB. Some water views towards the southwest are maintained as trees 17-26 are lower however the foreground views of the Bay are obscured from a sitting position. Due to the heights of trees 25-43, views down the length of the Bay are largely concealed. 41Viewing point C (VC) is from the recessed eastern part of the balcony. The view is predominantly to the west/ southwest across the width of the Bay. Foreground views include boats scattered across the Bay and background views are of the western shore. 42According to the claim form, the trees mask much of the westerly view across the Bay from VC. Background views of houses and vegetation on the western side remain, with almost no views of the foreshore and land/water.

The views at the time of the hearing 43It appears that some time between the filing of the application and the on-site hearing, the respondents undertook some pruning of the trees. The Cypress closest to the respondents' dwelling were measured at the hearing to be about 6m tall stepping down to approximately 4 - 4.5m either side of one taller Cypress about midway along the row. The trees at the southern end and opposite the adjoining dwelling were about 6-7m tall 44From the various viewing points, from both sitting (VA) and standing positions, I saw views to the west and southwest to Burraneer Bay including boats on the water and the land/water interface of the western shoreline. The northern tidal mudflats/ high tide was not visible. The trees on the respondents' property punctuated the view of the Bay. There was a narrow view to the south between the two-storey dwelling to the south of the applicants' property and the trees at the southern end of the row.

The respondents' position 45The respondents contend that the applicants purchased their property with filtered views to the Bay across a side boundary. They tendered real estate agent descriptions and photographs taken from the applicants' property when it was on the market. An advertisement from Highland Property Agents describes the property as having "filtered water views up Burraneer Bay". Photographs in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit F (exhibit F being material pertaining to the applicants' property from Greg Gilbert Real Estate - the agent from whom they purchased the property) include the same shots taken towards the Bay from well within the applicants' open plan living/dining room and from a position closer to VB. 46The wide angled photograph from within the room show the trees towards the south (probably trees 25-43) obscuring a portion of the view to the southwest but with a view of the Bay, boats and western shoreline visible across parts of the respondents' hedge 2. Hedge 1 appears to completely screen the respondents dwelling and obstruct whatever district or shoreline views may be beyond. 47The wide angled photograph from the balcony (presumably taken from a standing position) shows generally westerly views across Burraneer Bay with boats as well as the land/water interface of the western shoreline. The view of the water is somewhat punctuated and separated by at least one Leyland Cypress that has been kept at a higher level than the adjoining trees. Low tide mudflats are visible at the near northern end of the Bay. The trees in the two adjoining hedges range in height and the overall effect is uneven. 48The respondents value the trees for the privacy they afford their property. They stated that since the time the trees were planted, there have been developments on adjoining properties that have threatened that privacy. These include the construction of the applicants' balcony in 2009 and the addition of a second storey to the property to the south. 49These developments have led to the different heights to which the trees have been pruned. The Leyland Cypress immediately between the parties dwellings are kept relatively high as is another Cypress about midway along the row. The mid-row tree screens the respondents' balcony from the balcony at the rear of the property to the south. The planting of mostly Pittosporums towards the southern end of the property is kept higher to maintain privacy between that two-storey dwelling on the adjoining property. 50The respondents contend that they have pruned the trees in a way that maintains the views the applicants had when they purchased the property but retains the privacy benefits the trees provide. They argue that there is no severe obstruction; at best the obstruction of views across a side boundary is minor. 51The respondents claim that the circumstances of this application have changed little from the application made by their former neighbours and owners of the applicants' property, the Owens. They contend that the findings made in Owen & anor v Mason & anor [2011] NSWLEC 1301 should be the same in that the application be dismissed as there is no severe obstruction of views from the applicants' dwelling as a consequence of the respondents' trees.

The applicants' submissions 52Mr Cottom for the applicants contends that when the entire hedge is considered, the cumulative impact of the taller trees adds to a severe obstruction of views from the applicants' dwelling. He submits that trees T1-T7 severely obstruct the view of the land water interface and that the taller elements interrupt significant and desirable water views. 53He maintains that it is unreasonable for the hedge to be uneven in height and that the reasonable approach is to have an even height that achieves a balance between the applicants' desire to maintain their views and the respondents' need for privacy. Mr Cottom also considers that the heights sought in this application are not as onerous as the heights sought in the previous application by the former owners of his clients' property. With respect to the orders sought for the removal of any branches overhanging the applicants' property, Mr Cottom submitted that these branches contribute to the overall density of the obstruction. 54In regards to the qualitative aspects of the view and the Planning Principle in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 140, Mr Cottom contends that the views towards the Bay from the western side of the balcony, being that part of the balcony used for outdoor dining, are significant and aesthetically pleasing views of the water and the land/water interface.

Findings 55It was not the intent of the 2010 review of the Trees Act (and its extension to include Part 2A) to provide an applicant with more sunlight or views than were available to them when a property was purchased (see discussion in McDougall v Philip [2011] NSWLEC 1280 at [20] - [25]). 56The best evidence of the views that were available to the applicants when they purchased their property are the images used by the two real estate agencies. Perhaps with the exception of slightly more obstruction at the near northern shoreline, the views observed on the day of the hearing appear to be very similar to the views shown in the photographs. 57In regards to the 'view', the applicants have selected three specific locations along the same balcony. In regards to what constitutes 'a view' for the purpose of Part 2A, I have consistently applied the interpretation discussed at length in Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145 and essentially summarised in paragraph [26]: 26 However, we are of the opinion that the words a view used in s 14 relate to the totality of what can be seen from the viewing location and does not permit some slicing up of that outlook - thus requiring separate assessment of the severity of the obstruction of the view from a particular viewing location on some incremental, slice by slice basis. 58It is the applicants' choice as to where on the wide balcony they choose to locate an outdoor dining table or where to sit/stand to observe the Bay. 59I do not accept Mr Cottom's proposition that the obstruction should be considered on a cumulative basis. The evidence suggests that the views available to the applicants when they purchased their property were always punctuated by various trees within the row. It appears that Highland Property Agents were not exaggerating their description of those views as being "filtered". 60On the scale of impact outlined in Tenacity I consider that the obstruction caused by the change in heights of the trees from the time the applicants' purchased their property to now is negligible to minor and certainly not severe. It is a matter of taste, practicality or any number of reasons as to why trees in a row may be kept at different heights; there is no obligation for trees that may form a hedge to be maintained at the same height. 61Therefore I find that s 14E(2)(a)(ii) is not satisfied and there is no requirement to consider s 14E(2)(b) and the discretionary balancing of interests inherent in that clause. As the Court's jurisdiction to make orders is not engaged, this element of the application is dismissed.

Orders 62As a consequence of the foregoing, the Orders of the Court are: (1)The application pursuant to s 13A of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 is upheld. (2)Within 30 days of the date of these orders the respondents are to obtain at least 3 quotes for the removal and replacement of the single damaged panel of metal fence and the re-setting to vertical of the support posts for that panel. The work is to include the removal to ground level of any bamboo shoots within 100 mm of the fence when measured at ground level and any shoots touching the fence panel. Should they wish to, the applicants may obtain up to 2 quotes for the same work. (3)The parties are to provide all reasonable access on reasonable notice for the purpose of quoting. (4)Within 35 days of the date of these orders, the parties are to have exchanged quotes and agreed on the nominated contractor. (5)The respondents are to engage and pay for the nominated contractor to carry out the works in (2). The works are to be completed within 60 days of the date of these orders. (6)The applicants are to provide all reasonable access for the works in (2) to be undertaken in a safe and efficient manner on at least 2 working days notice. (7)The applicants are to reimburse the respondents 50% of the cost of the works in (2) within 21 days of the receipt of a tax invoice for the completed works. (8)The respondents are to maintain the bamboo along the length of the dividing fence so as to avoid future damage to the fence. (9)The application pursuant to s14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 is dismissed.

Judy Fakes Commissioner of the Court 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: 23 August 2013