Bramley v Strata Plan No. 50371

Case [2014] NSWLEC 1037


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 140
Category: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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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)).

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Bramley v Strata Plan No. 50371 [2014] NSWLEC 1037
Case
[2014] NSWLEC 1037
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Bramley sought relief against Strata Plan No. 50371, alleging breaches of strata title laws concerning the use of common property. The applicant claimed that the respondent had unlawfully restricted their use of a carport and driveway, which they argued was common property and should be accessible to all lot owners. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (Qld) and the specific rights and obligations of lot owners regarding common property.

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.