Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bramley & anor v Strata Plan No. 50371 [2014] NSWLEC 1037 Hearing dates: 27 February 2014 Decision date: 04 March 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Fakes C Decision: Application dismissed
Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; sunlight and views Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Devile & anor v Frith & anor [2014] NSWLEC 1002
Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 140Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr K and Mrs B Bramley (Applicants)
Strata Plan No. 50371 (Respondent)Representation: Applicants: K & B Bramley (Litigants in person)
Respondent: Mr B Rayner (Agent)
File Number(s): 20903 of 2013
Judgment
COMMISSIONER: The applicants have owned their Balmain property since 2000. At that time there was a row of Cupressus torulosa (Bhutan Cypress) growing along the rear of the respondent's property and adjoining the rear of the applicants' property. The applicants state that the trees were probably about 2.5m tall at that time.
Since then the trees have grown considerably and the applicants contend they now severely obstruct sunlight to two windows of a secondary dwelling on their property and to two windows of the principal dwelling. They also maintain that the trees severely obstruct the district views they once enjoyed from an upstairs balcony.
The applicants have applied under s 14B, Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) for orders seeking the removal of the trees, at the respondent's expense, and their replacement with a more suitable species.
The respondent values the trees for privacy and screening. In the alternative, it has proposed that three small trees be removed and the remaining trees reduced by a height equivalent to a third of the height of the tallest tree. The respondent considers that this should be done at the applicants' expense.
In applications under Part 2A of the Act, there are a number of jurisdictional tests that must be sequentially satisfied. The first of these is whether the trees are planted so as to form a hedge (s 14A(1)(a)).
According to material filed by Leichhardt Council, the trees were planted as a condition of development consent for alterations and additions to a former hotel, the respondent's property. Consent was granted in 1995. The approved landscape plan and conditions indicate that a row of either Bhutan Cypress or Port Jackson Pines were to be planted at 1.5 metre spacings along two boundary fences at the rear of the property and adjacent to the carpark. The plans also show the retention of a mature Canary Island Date Palm towards the centre of the rear fence.
The trees vary in height with the tallest at the western end estimated at about 10m and the smallest at about 5.5 m beneath the Date Palm towards the centre of the row.
The parties agree that the trees are planted so as to form a hedge. As the trees are in excess of 2.5m and on appropriately zoned land, s…
Continue reading Bramley v Strata Plan No. 50371
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bramley v Strata Plan No. 50371 [2014] NSWLEC 1037
- Case
- [2014] NSWLEC 1037
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the carport and driveway in question were indeed common property and, if so, whether the respondent had validly exercised their rights to restrict the applicant's access. The central legal issue was the proper interpretation of the term 'common property' and the extent to which the respondent could impose reasonable restrictions on its use. The court also had to consider the respondent's argument that any restrictions were reasonable and necessary for the maintenance and safety of the property.
After reviewing the evidence and the relevant statutory provisions, the court concluded that the carport and driveway were not common property, but rather part of the applicant's private lot. The court found that the respondent had acted within their rights in restricting the use of these areas, as they were not common property. The restrictions imposed were deemed reasonable given the specific circumstances of the property. As a result, the court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had not breached any strata title laws.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.