Schou v Gonsalves

[2011] NSWLEC 1174

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Schou v Gonsalves [2011] NSWLEC 1174
Hearing dates:	30 June 2011
Decision date:	30 June 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 2
Before:	Fakes C; Galwey AC
Decision:	Application dismissed
Catchwords:	TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; obstruction of views
Legislation Cited:	Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ms R Schou (Applicant) Mr M Gonsalves (First respondent) Ms D Gonsalves (Second respondent)
Representation:	Applicant: Ms R Schou (litigant in person) Respondent: Ms D Gonsalves (litigant in person)
File Number(s):	20191 of 2011

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONERS: This is an application pursuant to s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) made by the owner of a property in Bangor against the owners of trees growing on a neighbouring property.

1. The applicant seeks orders for pruning and ongoing maintenance of several x Cupressocyparis leylandii 'Leighton Green' (Leyland Cypress) trees. These orders are sought on the basis that the trees obstruct sunlight to, and views from, windows of her dwelling.

1. The respondents wish to maintain the privacy provided to their dwelling by the trees.

Site inspection

1. The hearing commenced onsite with an inspection of the trees and both parties' properties.

1. The properties are on land between the Bangor Bypass and the Woronora River with a southerly aspect. They are on the fringe of a subdivision, with bushland immediately to the south sloping down to the river.

1. The respondents' property is to the east of the applicant's and has a battleaxe driveway at its northern end in an approximately north-south alignment. The Leyland Cypress trees have been planted either side of this driveway - 13 trees along its eastern side and 32 trees along its western side adjacent to the common boundary with the applicant's property.

1. Growth rates along both lines of trees are varied so that there are areas where the trees are little more than four metres high and other areas where they are over nine metres tall.

1. The applicant took us to two downstairs windows (W3 and W4) and five upstairs windows (W6 to W10) to point out obstruction of sunlight and obstruction of views produced by the trees.

1. The respondent took us to the front of her dwelling to demonstrate the privacy afforded to the main bedroom of her dwelling by the trees.

Submissions

1. The applicant contends that trees on both sides of the driveway block sunlight to two downstairs windows (W3 and W4). The windows face east. She was unable to state exactly how many hours that sunlight is blocked, but said that in winter the sun would normally come in through the windows from 7:30 a.m. but now, due to the trees, does not come in until approximately 9:30 a.m.

1. The applicant stated that the dining room (W4) and the laundry (W3) are both cold rooms due to the blocking of sunlight. She stated that she uses the dining room in the mornings. She stated that W10, a second bedroom upstairs, could experience an equivalent…