Chang v Yates

[2023] NSWLEC 1260

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Chang v Yates [2023] NSWLEC 1260

Hearing dates:

28 April 2023

Date of orders:

31 May 2023

Decision date:

31 May 2023

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Gray C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The application is granted.

(2) By 30 June 2023, the respondents, by themselves or by engaging a suitably qualified and experienced arborist with appropriate insurances, are to:

(a) Remove the Golden champa trees identified as T3 and T4 in Annexure A.

(b) Remove the Sweet viburnum tree identified as T2 in Annexure A.

(c) Prune the Sweet viburnum identified as T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11 and T12 in Annexure A, to a height of 3m.

(3) Every 6 months, the respondents, by themselves or by engaging a suitably qualified and experienced arborist with appropriate insurances, are to prune the trees identified as T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11 and T12 in Annexure A to reduce their height to no more than 3m above ground level measured from the base of each tree.

(4) All tree pruning and removal works ordered above are to be done in accordance with the Safe Work Australia (2016) ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’.

(5) The applicant is to allow any access required by the respondents or their contractors for the purposes of completing and cleaning up the works in Order 2.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2A application – neighbouring hedge – whether the trees severely obstruct views

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pt 2A, ss 6, 14A, 14D, 14E, 14F

Cases Cited:

Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140

Texts Cited:

Mosman Development Control Plan 2012

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Hong Chang (Applicant)
Christopher John Yates (First respondent)
Marta Yates (Second respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
G Shapiro (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C Koikas (Respondents)

Solicitors:
Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
Robertson Saxton Osborne Lawyers (Respondents)

File Number(s):

2022/346482

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: Mr Chang (the applicant) and Mr and Mrs Yates (the respondents) are neighbours on Carrington Avenue in Mosman, where residents enjoy a northerly aspect toward Quakers Hat Bay. The applicant claims that twelve trees on the respondents’ property have obstructed views from their dwelling to the waters of Quakers Hat Bay and Middle Harbour. On 17 November 2022, he lodged an application with the Court under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act) seeking orders for the pruning of 7 of the trees and the removal of the remaining 5.

2. The respondents agree to orders being made that require the pruning of 7 trees, but agree only to the removal of one of the remaining 5 trees. Their position is that the pruning of those 7 trees and the removal of one tree will be sufficient to provide a reasonable view to the applicant from their dwelling.

3. Before the Court has the power to make any orders under Part 2A of the Trees Act, there are a number of jurisdictional preconditions that must be satisfied. These preconditions include determining if there are two or more trees that form a hedge, and if they severely obstruct a view. It is only if those matters are satisfied that I would then have the power, under the Trees Act, to proceed to make orders to remedy, restrain or prevent the obstruction of views, which can include orders for removal or pruning of the trees.

Brief history

4. Mr Chang moved into his dwelling in 2015. The trees were already in existence at that time, with a height of between 2-3m.

5. In July 2018, development consent was granted for alterations and additions to Mr Chang’s home. That consent was later modified by the Court in 2022, although the works were largely carried out by 2021. A letter to the respondents in September 2022 confirms that the construction works were nearing completion and the applicant was due to imminently move into the property. The alterations and additions that result from the modified consent include the construction of an upper storey addition to the rear and a rear addition at the existing entry level to create a northern terrace.

The trees

6. There are 12 trees on the respondents’ rear yard that are the subject of the application to the Court. They are planted in a line that is parallel to the side boundary that separates the applicant’s land from the respondents’. Trees 1, 3, 4 and 5 are Magnolia champaca (Golden champa) and Trees 2, 6-12 are Viburnum odoratissimum (Sweet viburnum). Trees 1 to 5 are between 7 to 9m tall, and trees 6 to 12 are between 3.4 to 3.8m tall. The 8 Sweet viburnum and four Golden champa are regularly spaced with a general pattern of two Sweet viburnum and one Golden champa, repeated four times. The total length of the line along which the trees are located is 14.4m. The southernmost trees (T1, T2, T6 and T7) are confined within a masonry planter that is approximately 1.6m wide, 4.9m long and 450mm high. A schematic diagram to illustrate the spacing and pattern of the tree planting is at Figure 1.

The legal framework

7. Part 2A of the Trees Act gives the Court the power to make orders concerning high hedges that obstruct views. However, Part 2A only applies in the circumstances specified in s 14A of the Trees Act, which provides, at (1):

14A Application of Part

(1) This Part applies only to groups of 2 or more trees that:

(a) are planted (whether in the ground or otherwise) so as to form a hedge, and

(b) rise to a height of at least 2.5 metres (above existing ground level).

8. Section 14D(1)(b) allows the power to be exercised only where there is a severe obstruction of “any view from a dwelling situated on the applicant’s land”, as long as the obstruction occurs as a consequence of trees that are the subject of the application.

9. Before making orders, s 14E(1) requires that the applicant must have made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the owner of the land on which the trees are situated, and must have given notice of the application.

10. Further, s 14E(2) makes it clear that orders cannot be made unless the Court is satisfied that the trees concerned are severely obstructing a view and that the severity and nature of the obstruction is such that the applicant’s interest in removing the obstruction outweighs other matters that suggest the undesirability of interfering with the trees. It provides:

(2) The Court must not make an order under this Part unless it is satisfied that:

(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.

11. Section 14F then provides the matters that are required to be considered before determining the application, as follows:

14F Matters to be considered by Court

Before determining an application made under this Part, the Court is to consider the following matters:

(a) the location of the trees concerned in relation to the boundary of the land on which the trees are situated and the dwelling the subject of the application,

(b) whether the trees existed prior to the dwelling the subject of the application (or the window or part of the dwelling concerned where the dwelling has been altered or added to),

(c) whether the trees grew to a height of 2.5 metres or more during the period that the applicant has owned (or occupied) the relevant land,

(d) whether interference with the trees would, in the absence of section 6 (3), require any consent or other authorisation under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or the Heritage Act 1977 and, if so, whether any such consent or authorisation has been obtained,

(e) any other relevant development consent requirements or conditions relating to the applicant’s land or the land on which the trees are situated,

(f) whether the trees have any historical, cultural, social or scientific value,

(g) any contribution of the trees to the local ecosystem and biodiversity,

(h) any contribution of the trees to the natural landscape and scenic value of the land on which they are situated or the locality concerned,

(i) the intrinsic value of the trees to public amenity,

(j) any impact of the trees on soil stability, the water table or other natural features of the land or locality concerned,

(k) the impact any pruning (including the maintenance of the trees at a certain height, width or shape) would have on the trees,

(l) any contribution of the trees to privacy, landscaping, garden design, heritage values or protection from the sun, wind, noise, smells or smoke or the amenity of the land on which they are situated,

(m) anything, other than the trees, that has contributed, or is contributing, to the obstruction,

(n) any steps taken by the applicant or the owner of the land on which the trees are situated to prevent or rectify the obstruction,

(o) the amount, and number of hours per day, of any sunlight that is lost as a result of the obstruction throughout the year and the time of the year during which the sunlight is lost,

(p) whether the trees lose their leaves during certain times of the year and the portion of the year that the trees have less or no leaves,

(q) the nature and extent of any view affected by the obstruction and the nature and extent of any remaining view,

(r) the part of the dwelling the subject of the application from which a view is obstructed or to which sunlight is obstructed,

(s) such other matters as the Court considers relevant in the circumstances of the case.

The onsite view and the evidence

12. The hearing took place onsite, allowing for observations of the trees and observations from the five viewpoints from which the applicant says his view has been severely obstructed.

13. Mr and Mrs Yates gave evidence on the value of the trees to their privacy and for shade from harmful UV rays from the sun.

14. Expert evidence on the trees was given in a report and onsite by Ms Catriona Mackenzie, an arborist engaged by Mr Chang. Expert evidence on the assessment on the view loss and the matters in s 14F of the Trees Act was given in a report and onsite by Mr Tony Moody, a town planner engaged by Mr Chang.

15. Ms Mackenzie’s evidence is that the pruning of trees 6-12 will not adversely affect the health and vigour of those trees. However, her evidence is that the pruning of trees 1, 3, 4 and 5 will dramatically alter their structural condition and may adversely affect their long term viability through sudden and almost entire loss of foliage. Further, she opines that it is impractical to retain the elevated crowns of trees 1, 3, 4 and 5 as they currently are as the tall, vertical growth lacks any supporting branch framework and is exposed to north easterly winds, causing higher than normal risk of failure. She also gave evidence onsite that if trees 6-12 are pruned, then trees 1, 3, 4 and 5 will be exposed at their lower portions to greater sunlight, promoting growth of branches and foliage that will ‘fill in’ any view corridor opened by the pruning of trees 6-12. Whilst this could be resolved by the cutting of any new growth of branches between the top of the hedge and the canopy (referred to as lion’s tailing), Ms Mackenzie’s evidence is that this is a damaging process that exposes the trees to an increased risk of disease, reduces the ability of the trees to maintain their vigour, causes a lack of structural support and creates a higher than normal risk of branch failure.

16. In relation to T2, which the respondents agree to remove, Ms Mackenzie’s evidence is that this could tolerate drastic pruning but has a stem injury from its proximity to the metal boundary fence, and therefore would need to be pruned to below the fence to avoid any further conflict between the two. Her evidence is that both T1 and T2 should be removed as they are growing in a very confined space within the planter, and may eventually impact on the planter structure.

17. The applicant’s dwelling house has three floors: an entry level (ground floor), a basement level below that is level with the rear yard, and an upper storey above the entry level. In his evidence, Mr Moody describes the entry level as the first floor and the upper storey as the second floor. I instead refer to the entry level as the ground floor, and the storey above as the upper storey. The five viewpoints from which the applicant says there is an obstruction of views are as follows:

• Viewpoint 1 (V1) is a north facing outdoor terrace on the entry level (ground floor), which was a recent addition that formed part of the alterations and additions to the dwelling. Due to the fall of the land, it is above the level of the rear yard, with the rear yard at the same level as the basement below. From V1, all of the trees obstruct much of the views to the waters of Quakers Hat Bay and Middle Harbour. A narrow view to the land and water interface is retained, as are north facing views toward the vegetated ridge around the bay.

• Viewpoint 2 (V2) is the entry level (ground floor) living room, which is an area that existed prior to the alterations and additions to the dwelling. From V2, T1-T4 and T6-T11 obstruct views to the waters of Quakers Hat Bay and Middle Harbour, as well as to the land and water interface. T5 and T12 do not obstruct views to the water, but obstruct views to the vegetated ridge around the bay. Much of the north facing views toward the vegetated ridge are otherwise retained.

• Viewpoint 3 (V3) is the main bedroom that is part of the upper storey addition to the dwelling. From V3, T1-T4 obstruct views to the waters of Quakers Hat Bay and Middle Harbour, but it is unclear if T5 or any of the shorter Sweet viburnums obstruct views from that bedroom.

• Viewpoint 4 (V4) is another entry level (ground floor) living area, which is an area that existed prior to the alterations and additions to the dwelling. From V4, T1-T12 obstruct views to the waters of Quakers Hat Bay and Middle Harbour, as well as to the land and water interface. The north facing views toward the vegetated ridge are otherwise retained.

• Viewpoint 5 (V5) is the second bedroom in the upper storey addition. T2-T4 obstruct views to the waters of Quakers Hat Bay and Middle Harbour, but it is unclear if T5 or any of the shorter Sweet viburnum obstruct views from that bedroom.

18. Ms Mackenzie and Mr Moody both gave evidence that the reduction in height of the hedge to 3m would be sufficient to regain the views to Quakers Hat Bay, whilst also retaining privacy for the respondents. It is readily observable that Tree T1 performs some screening between the terrace of the applicant and the western balcony of the respondents, and Mr Moody’s evidence is that the distance between the two outdoor areas meets the separation distances required by the Mosman Development Control Plan 2012 (MDCP) which has as its objective the protection of privacy.

19. Mr Moody also gave evidence on site that the trees the subject of the application do very little to protect the respondents’ property from sunlight during the hottest part of the day, given their location on the eastern boundary of that property.

20. There are three Angophora costata (Smooth-barked apple) on the respondents’ property that also provide shade to their rear yard, with large crowns that are above the view corridor from the applicant’s property.

21. In addition, Ms Mackenzie’s evidence, consistent with what was observed at the hearing, is that there is some encroachment into the view corridor from the site by two small magnolia trees on the respondents’ property and a Frangipani tree.

The trees form a hedge

22. I accept that the trees, T1-T12, are planted so as to form a hedge, which is not disputed by the respondents. I accept the evidence of Ms Mackenzie that despite there being two species of tree and two different heights, they are of a similar age, size and planting regularity in a lineal fashion that identifies the group as a hedge. The foliage of the trees overlap significantly so as to form a screen. Her evidence is that they were planted at the same time. As such, I accept that, consistent with s 14A of the Trees Act, the trees are planted so as to form a hedge, and rise to a height of at least 2.5m above existing ground level.

The applicant made reasonable effort

23. Consistent with the requirements of s 14E of the Trees Act, notice of this application was given to the respondents, and the applicant has made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondents both before and after the application was lodged. This is not disputed by the respondents, and is supported by multiple emails, text messages and solicitor letters that are in evidence.

The trees severely obstruct a view from the dwelling house

24. At the time of the purchase of the applicant’s property, the evidence demonstrates that he had views from a rear balcony on the entry level and from the living area to the waters of Quakers Hat Bay and Middle Harbour, as well as to the land and water interface. Once the alterations and additions were carried out, those areas became what is now V2, and to a lesser extent V4, which is further inside the property. The hedge has grown since those views were available, to their current height, which completely obstructs the views to the waters of Quakers Hat Bay and Middle Harbour from V2. Views to the vegetated ridge around the bay are retained.

25. As set out in Tenacity Consulting v Waringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140, “water views are valued more highly than land views”, and “a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured”. In considering the view from V2, the views to the water and to the interface between the land and water, are the most valuable aspect of the view. Whilst the views to the vegetated ridge contribute to the amenity of the applicant’s property and maintain a pleasant outlook, they do not have the value of the views to the water and the interface between the land and water. The hedge has obstructed this most valuable aspect of the view from V2. I consider that the loss of the most valuable aspect of the view in the context of the view as a whole, such that there is no longer any view to the water, means that the loss is severe. I therefore find that the obstruction of the view by the hedges is severe because it is a complete obstruction of the most valued portion of the north facing view from V2 – the views to the water and the land and water interface.

26. I am therefore satisfied, consistent with s 14E(2)(a)(ii), that the trees concerned are severely obstructing a view from the dwelling on the applicant’s land.

The relevant matters for consideration

27. An order concerning the trees can only be made if “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” (s 14E(2)(b)).

28. Although the respondents agree to the making of orders under Part 2A of the Trees Act, there are two matters raised by the respondents that could suggest the undesirability of disturbing or interfering with the trees. The first is that the respondents say that the trees protect their privacy. The second is that they say that they are a source of shade.

29. However, the obstruction caused by the trees to the view from V2 is not outweighed by the undesirability of disturbing any of the trees in order to preserve privacy or shading. The hedge has grown well beyond the height required to protect privacy, and, although the trees provide morning shade, filtered shade is otherwise provided by the Angophoras and the desirability of shade does not justify retaining the current height of all the trees in the hedge.

27. As such, I am satisfied that the applicant’s interest in having the obstruction remedied outweighs the undesirability of disturbing the trees for the sake of privacy or shade.

28. Further, as set out above, s 14F sets out the matters that are required to be considered before determining the application. I make the following observations concerning those matters that are relevant to my determination of the application.

Whether the trees existed prior to the dwelling the subject of the application (or the window or part of the dwelling concerned where the dwelling has been altered or added to) (s 14F(b))

32. The evidence of Ms Mackenzie is that the original dwelling, which dates to before 1980, predates the planting of the trees, which would have occurred an estimated 15 years ago. The trees were present at the time of the purchase of the property by Mr Chang, but his evidence is that they had a height of between 2-3m at that time. Again, the trees were present when the development application was lodged for alterations and additions to the dwelling, and the trees were present before the upper level and rear ground floor terrace were constructed. From those newly constructed additions, the applicant has not lost a view that he actually enjoyed.

Whether the trees grew to a height of 2.5 metres or more during the period that the applicant has owned (or occupied) the relevant land (s 14F(c))

33. The evidence is that the trees were of a height of 2-3m, in other words, around 2.5m at the time the applicant purchased the property in 2015. Since that time, they have grown to their current height, which is now between 7 to 9m tall for Trees 1-5, and 3.4 to 3.8m tall for trees 6-12.

Whether interference with the trees would, in the absence of section 6 (3), require any consent or other authorisation under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or the Heritage Act 1977 and, if so, whether any such consent or authorisation has been obtained (s 14F(d))

34. The evidence of Ms Mackenzie is that the pruning or removal of Trees 1-5 would require the consent of Mosman Council, but that Trees 6-12 do not meet the physical dimensions that would require that consent. Section 6(3) of the Trees Act nonetheless allows orders made under Part 2A to have effect despite this requirement.

Any contribution of the trees to the local ecosystem and biodiversity (s 14F(g))

35. Neither the Golden champa nor the Sweet viburnum are locally indigenous species. Ms Mackenzie’s evidence is that they would contribute very little, if anything at all, to the local ecosystem and make no contribution to local biodiversity.

The impact any pruning (including the maintenance of the trees at a certain height, width or shape) would have on the trees (s 14F(k))

36. The evidence of Ms Mackenzie is that the pruning of the Golden champa will dramatically alter their structural condition and may adversely affect their long term viability through sudden and almost entire loss of foliage. Her evidence is also that the pruning of the Sweet viburnum will not adversely affect those trees, but that Tree 2 is at risk of other structural defects due to its conflict with the fence.

37. In addition, as set out earlier, Ms Mackenzie’s evidence at the hearing was that if the Sweet viburnum trees, Trees 6-12, are pruned to a height of between 2.5-3m, and the Golden champa remain (Trees 1, 3, 4 and 5), the Golden champa will receive greater sunlight to the areas below the canopy such that there will be lateral growth below the upper canopy, ‘filling in’ with foliage the area created by the pruning of Trees 6-12. Her evidence is that, if that new growth was cut away to restore views below the upper canopy, this is a damaging process to the tree and creates a higher than normal risk of branch failure.

Any contribution of the trees to privacy, landscaping, garden design, heritage values or protection from the sun, wind, noise, smells or smoke or the amenity of the land on which they are situated (s 14F(l))

38. The evidence of Ms Mackenzie on this point is as follows:

“• The Trees 1 - 5 provide limited privacy to the first floor balcony and garden area at No.3.

• The lower hedge (Trees 6 - 12) provides visual screening and privacy between the rear gardens of the site and No.3.

• The Trees 1 - 5 provide a sense of scale and a likely intended design to surround the garden space. Some protection from morning sun and easterly winds may be afforded, but their contribution to protection from smoke, noise or smells would be limited due to their higher crowns.

• The lower part of the hedge (Trees 6 - 12) delineates the common boundary and was likely part of an intended garden design. It may assist with ameliorating effects of smoke or smells emanating from the ground level of the site but would have no appreciable effect on noise”

39. There is a sightline between the western balcony on the respondents’ property and the newly constructed terrace on the applicant’s property. T1 obscures that sightline so that only filtered sightlines are available between the two areas.

Whether the trees lose their leaves during certain times of the year and the portion of the year that the trees have less or no leaves (s 14F(p))

40. The Golden champa and Sweet viburnum are both evergreen and retain foliage all year round.

The nature and extent of any view affected by the obstruction and the nature and extent of any remaining view (s 14F(q))

41. The nature of the view affected by the obstruction are views over the side boundary to the water and to the land and water interface. The view that is obstructed nonetheless has other trees within it, including multiple Angophora costata, magnolia trees and a frangipani. However, those trees form part of the view to the water, and do not obstruct it, whereas the trees the subject of the application completely obstruct that view from the ground floor living area.

42. The remaining view is to the vegetated ridge around the bay, which is still of value but the most valuable aspect of the view is lost by the foliage of Trees 6-12.

The appropriate orders in the circumstances

43. Having considered the above, I accept it is appropriate to make orders for the pruning of Trees 6-12 such that they are regularly pruned to the height of 3m. This height removes the obstruction of the view to the water whilst also allowing those trees to maintain their function as privacy screening, which prevents overlooking from the ground floor (entry level) of each property to the ground level of the neighbouring rear yards. The height of 3m also allows for some growth between pruning. I do not consider it necessary to impose a limit of 3.5m for in between pruning, as it is sufficient to require pruning every 6 months to a height of 3m.

44. However, I do not accept the respondents’ position that the removal of only one of the larger trees (T2) is sufficient to restore the obstructed view. The evidence is that if the Golden champa remain, the pruning of the Sweet viburnum will provide them with additional access to sunlight that will encourage the growth of lateral branches and foliage below their existing canopy, which will ‘fill in’ any view created by the pruning of trees T6-T12. As such, there must be the removal of some of the Golden champa in order to prevent further obstruction of the view. The obstruction cannot be prevented through pruning of the Golden champa given the evidence of Ms Mackenzie that such pruning would undermine the health and stability of those trees.

45. To prevent the obstruction of the view, I do not accept the applicant’s position that the removal of all of trees T1-T5 is required. Tree T5 largely only affects views to the water in new locations added by the additions. These were not views that have been lost, as there was never actually a view to the water enjoyed from those new additions. Tree T5 offers some morning shade to the rear yard of the respondent as it is at the most northern edge of the hedge.

46. Tree T1 provides privacy between the newly constructed northern terrace on the applicant’s property and the western balcony on the respondents’ property not protected by a privacy screen. If trees T2, T3 and T4 are removed, the removal of tree T1 would only open a small additional corridor of a view from V2 and V4. Accordingly, the preservation of privacy between the two outdoor areas is of greater weight than the restoration of views that would be occasioned by its removal. The satisfaction of a control in the MDCP concerning separation distances for privacy is not sufficient to justify the removal of a tree in those circumstances. Whilst there is evidence with respect to whether tree T1 will be viable long term due to its location in a planter box, I consider that can be a matter for future consideration by the parties if required, and is not sufficient to order its removal as part of this application.

47. The removal of trees T2-T4 will restore much of the view to the water and the land/water interface from V2 and V4 that are currently obstructed by the growth of the hedge over the period that the applicant has owned the property.

48. Accordingly, I find that, in addition to the pruning of trees T6-T12, the removal of trees T2-T4 should be ordered to restore the views that are currently obstructed by the hedge.

The final orders

49. The Court orders that:

1. The application is granted.

2. By 30 June 2023, the respondents, by themselves or by engaging a suitably qualified and experienced arborist with appropriate insurances, are to:

1. Remove the Golden champa trees identified as T3 and T4 in Annexure A.

2. Remove the Sweet viburnum tree identified as T2 in Annexure A.

3. Prune the Sweet viburnum identified as T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11 and T12 in Annexure A, to a height of 3m.

3. Every 6 months, the respondents, by themselves or by engaging a suitably qualified and experienced arborist with appropriate insurances, are to prune the trees identified as T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11 and T12 in Annexure A to reduce their height to no more than 3m above ground level measured from the base of each tree.

4. All tree pruning and removal works ordered above are to be done in accordance with the Safe Work Australia (2016) ‘Guide to managing risks of tree trimming and removal work’.

5. The applicant is to allow any access required by the respondents or their contractors for the purposes of completing and cleaning up the works in Order 2.

J Gray

Commissioner of the Court

346482.22 Annexure A

**********

Decision last updated: 31 May 2023