Sheehan v Santosa

[2023] NSWLEC 1279

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sheehan v Santosa [2023] NSWLEC 1279

Hearing dates:

21 February 2023

Date of orders:

06 June 2023

Decision date:

06 June 2023

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Douglas AC

Decision:

See Orders at [70].

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – damage to dwelling roof – unreasonable level of falling debris claimed

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, ss 7, 8, 9, 10, 12

Cases Cited:

Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 McPherson v Lake [2017] NSWLEC 1081

Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Texts Cited:

Australian Standard, AS 4373:2007, Pruning of amenity trees

Safe Work Australia, Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work 2016

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Annette Sheehan (Applicant)
Adam Santosa (First Respondent)
Carly Santosa (Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
C Koikas (Applicant)
C Santosa (Solicitor) (Respondents)

Solicitors:
Maguire & McInerney Lawyers (Applicant)
Nikolovski Lawyers (Respondents)

File Number(s):

22/348147

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: Two large Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutts) (the trees) are growing on fertile clay soils on an east facing hillside below the Illawarra escarpment, on the Santosas’ (the respondents) property in Mount Pleasant.

2. Mr Beisler, in an arborist report for the applicant (Exhibit D), called them “sentinel trees”, and this description is apt. The trees are mature and long established, about 25 metres (m) tall, with straight, strong trunks with diameters of about 1.25 m at breast height (DBH).

3. Eucalyptus pilularis comprises individuals that may live for 200 – 300 years or more, should they grow under ideal conditions and experience good fortune with respect to bushfires, storms, and lightning. In urban areas, their life span is usually much shorter.

4. Mr Beisler submitted that the trees were “remnant” and though I am not familiar with the history of this area’s settlement by non-first nations people, these Blackbutts are likely to be remnant of the natural vegetation. Determination of the age of long-established trees is difficult as many variables may impact their appearance. As a generalisation, ‘hollows’ (or cavities) begin to develop in long-lived Eucalyptus trees after 80 - 120 years, but their establishment is influenced by the severity and frequency of broken or shed branches or trunk apexes during major storms, and the health and vigour of the trees, which impacts resistance to wood decay fungi. Though these trees do not yet exhibit obvious hollows, I nonetheless expect their age to exceed 100 years.

5. Ms Sheehan (the applicant) claims to have endured falling branches breaking her dwelling’s roof tiles for many years, and her application included photographs of secondary damage from the entry of water. The applicant submitted that urgent intervention with the trees was necessary as she feared that her house insurer may otherwise discontinue her cover for such damage, given that she had made various prior insurance claims for damage resulting from the trees, and had another one pending.

6. As the hillside is quite steep, the applicant’s property is considerably lower than the respondents’ land. This difference in land levels amplifies the considerable height of the tree’s canopies such that branches may fall 20-30m before striking the house, or surrounding gardens and lawns.

7. The Santosas purchased their property in November 2020, and the applicant alerted the respondents to her concerns about the trees soon after. Responding quickly, Mr Santosa lodged a Tree Management Application with Wollongong City Council (Council) and on 4 January 2021, he received a notice of determination from Council permitting selective pruning of epicormic growth and pruning of all dead wood.

8. After having trouble finding a suitable contractor, the respondents had the works completed at considerable cost in November 2021. In an affidavit dated 16 February 2023 (Exhibit 1), at paragraph (6), Ms Santosa submitted that she and her husband had wanted the trees checked and dead wooded for their families’ safety and prioritised the maintenance of the trees.

9. Notwithstanding these pruning works, in June 2022 and again on 18 July 2022, Ms Sheehan delivered letters to the respondents, requesting pruning of all branches overhanging her property. The applicant noted that Council approval had been gained for these works and requested that the respondents contact a specified tree contractor to arrange for the works to be conducted.

10. Ms Santosa contacted Council for clarification. Council confirmed that no such approval had been granted and that permission for pruning of trees can only be sought from, and granted to, the tree owner. As the respondents had the trees pruned at considerable expense in November 2021, they were disinclined to have them pruned so soon afterwards.

11. Consequently, Ms Sheehan made an application on 18 November 2022, pursuant to s 7 of Pt 2 of the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) seeking removal of the trees from the respondents’ adjacent neighbouring property.

The onsite hearing

12. The onsite hearing on 21 February 2023 commenced on the respondents’ land. Mr Koikas of Counsel and Mr McDonald, Solicitor, represented the applicant, along with Ms Jackel from Mr McDonald’s office. Ms Sheehan and Mr Nori, roofing expert of Above and Below projects, also attended. Ms Santosa, Solicitor, represented the respondents, and was accompanied by Mr Santosa.

13. The trees are located on the eastern side of the respondents’ south facing driveway, close to the parties’ north-south common boundary, and their broad canopies intermingle. One tree (T1) is positioned near the south side nature strip and the second tree (T2) is about 12m further north. T1 has a relatively uniform canopy spread of about 14m while the canopy spread of T2 is about 16m north-south and about 18m east-west. The trees’ combined canopies overhanging the respondents’ driveway and front yard, and the applicant’s front and side yards, and the south-western corner of the applicant’s dwelling.

14. The trees have been pruned on many occasions, particularly canopy raising through the removal of lower branches, some of which was to manage the interaction with adjacent electricity wires. With such tall, vast trees, the extent of my inspection from ground level was limited. Nonetheless, the larger live branch junctions throughout the canopies appeared structurally sound, and I saw no obvious residual tears from the loss of such branches.

15. Considering that deadwood had been pruned in November 2021, the extent of deadwood observed was relatively high. Some epicormic (sucker) growth was also evident.

16. Upon moving to the applicant’s land, Ms Sheehan indicated many examples of fallen deadwood, and claimed that fallen bark from the trees on her terraced garden beds created an unreasonable maintenance burden. The applicant described how branches pierced deep into the soil, having fallen “like spears” from high above and gained considerable velocity. By way of example, the applicant showed me a dead branch, perhaps 2.2m long x 35mm maximum diameter and encouraged me to feel its weight, and thus gain insight to the possible severity of injury should a person be struck by such a branch.

17. Perusing aerial photographs inserted for Q2 in the Tree Dispute Claim Details (Exhibit B) prior to the hearing, I noted dense vegetation to the north of both dwellings. Upon inspecting this area to the rear of the applicant’s dwelling, I saw that these trees were insufficiently close or tall for their branches to be a likely cause of roof damage. It was also evident that most of these trees were relatively young and recently mature and contained little deadwood. Similarly, there were no sufficiently tall trees on the western side of the applicant’s dwelling from which branches were likely to have fallen on the dwelling.

18. Oral submissions were subsequently conducted on the respondents’ veranda.

The applicant’s proposed orders

19. The application lodged on 18 November 2022 proposed the Court make orders for the removal of the trees at the respondents’ expense.

20. With consideration of the significance of the trees, as detailed in Exhibit D, Mr Koikas sought leave to amend the proposed orders to pruning of branches in accordance with paragraph (6.0) Schedule of works, from page 9 of Exhibit D.

21. In summary, this schedule recommended:

1. Immediate removal of dead wood;

2. (Potential) selective pruning of both trees to remove foliage overhanging the applicant’s dwelling and yard, in 3 months; and

3. Removal of dead wood and monitoring of both trees every 2 years.

22. Mr Beisler qualified his recommendation for selective pruning in noting that removal of most of the foliage overhanging the applicant’s land “would be excessive and could be expected to impact the trees’ health and reduce their useful life expectancy”. The respondents made no objection, and I granted leave for this amendment of proposed orders.

The respondents’ alternative orders

23. In Exhibit 1, at paragraph (27), Ms Santosa noted offering to provide a signed commitment to Ms Sheehan, to have dead wood pruned from the trees every seven years.

Jurisdictional requirements

24. With respect to s 7 of the Act, an owner of land may apply to the Court for an order to remedy, restrain or prevent damage to property on the land, or to prevent injury to any person, as a consequence of a tree to which this Act applies that is situated on adjoining land.

25. The applicant sought leave of the Court to waive the requirements under s 8(1)(a) of the Act: to serve notice of the application and the orders sought to the respondents more than 21 days prior to the proceedings. Mr McDonald provided an Affidavit of service of the application documents to Council on 17 January 2023, as required by s 8(1)(b) of the Act.

26. Under s 8(3), the Court may waive the requirement to give notice or vary the period of notice under this section if it thinks it appropriate to do so in the circumstances. Considering the circumstances of this case, where further damage may occur as a result of the trees, I thus waived the requirement under s 8(1)(a) of the Act after receiving no objection from the respondents.

27. The Court’s ability to make orders is limited, at s 10(1) of the Act:

10 Matters of which Court must be satisfied before making an order

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

(a) that the applicant has made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the owner of the land on which the tree is situated, and

(b) if the requirement to give notice has not been waived, that the applicant has given notice of the application in accordance with section 8.

…

28. Ms Sheehan approached and spoke with the respondents in early 2021, detailing damage caused by the trees and her apprehension of further damage, the likelihood of injury from the trees, and she sought intervention with regard to the trees. The applicant sent letters to the respondents in both June and July 2022, requesting pruning of branches overhanging her land.

29. As a result, the applicant had made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the owner of the land on which the tree is situated, such that s 10(1)(a) of the Act was engaged. Section 10(1)(b) was also engaged by the applicant’s satisfaction of s (8) of the Act.

30. Therefore, the principal jurisdictional tests in this matter are at s 10(2) of the Act, which states:

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

(a) has caused, is causing, or is likely in the near future to cause, damage to the applicant’s property, or

(b) is likely to cause injury to any person.

31. If the jurisdictional tests at s 10 of the Act are satisfied, the Court can make orders such as those at s 9 to remedy, restrain or prevent damage to property, or to prevent injury to a person, as a consequence of the tree.

Damage caused by the trees

32. Mr Nori provided an affidavit and report (Exhibit C) dated 3 February 2023. In his affidavit, Mr Nori noted having climbed and inspected the applicant’s dwelling roof on 11 July 2022 where he observed many cracked tiles and holes in gutter guard. He said he also “noticed many deadwood branches lying on the roof”. A diagram showing the locations of damage and an array of colour photographs of cracked tiles and holes in gutter guard were included in his report.

33. Mr Nori opined that the cracks were likely caused by impact rather than factors such as tile deterioration from weathering and that the holes in the gutter guard were likely caused by penetration by an object. While Mr Nori did not speculate as to the cause of the damage, I am satisfied that this damage was caused by falling deadwood from the trees.

34. Based on the quantity, location, and size of deadwood evident on the trees, most of which had apparently died and remained on the trees in the interim since the November 2021 pruning, I am also satisfied that further damage is likely in the near future. In the decision of Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592, the near future is defined, as a rule of thumb, to be a period of one year. Consequently, s 10(2)(a) of the Act is engaged.

35. Though the application included photographic evidence of a car dent said to be caused by a fallen branch, there is considerable distance between the trees’ overhanging branches and the applicant’s driveway. At Annexure ‘J’ of Exhibit 1, the respondents included a photograph of the applicant’s son’s car parked on the roadway directly under the trees’ canopy. As it is relatively easy to park the cars clear of the trees’ canopies, whether in the garage or elsewhere, I am satisfied that likely damage to cars is readily preventable.

Likelihood of injury to persons

36. Based on the decision in McPherson v Lake [2017] NSWLEC 1081 (at [10]), in considering injury, the Court must assess and determine the risk posed by a tree in the foreseeable future based on the characteristics of the tree/s, the history of any failures, any other relevant evidence, and the circumstances of the site apparent at the time of the hearing.

37. Though the human occupancy of the applicant’s dwelling is high, I am not satisfied that falling sticks identified at the hearing are sufficiently large to pierce through the roof and through the ceiling and cause injury to persons. Though Mr Nori has provided evidence of sticks having damaged tiles and gutter guard and their presence on the roof, there was no evidence of sticks penetrating through the roof.

38. I agree with Mr Beisler that the human occupancy rate in the ‘target zone’ under and near the trees’ canopy is likely to be rare to occasional, given that there is little evidence of gardening or other activity in this area. Dead branches, such as the example Ms Sheehan showed me, are likely to fall onto the ground, or ‘spear’ into the lawn or garden in the ‘target zone’ and this may indeed be disconcerting. Nonetheless, it is well documented that during high winds and storms, when dead wood is most likely to fall from the trees, the frequency of human occupancy ‘outside’ is usually much lower than average, and there have been no reported past injuries.

39. Considering that the location of the applicant’s front door and driveway, where human occupancy would be more frequent, is well clear of the trees’ canopy overhang and beyond the ‘target zone’, the likelihood of impact with humans is possible, but unlikely. Therefore, I am not satisfied that injury to persons is likely. Engagement of s 10(2)(b) of the Act requires that the tree is likely to cause injury to any person, and therefore s 10(2)(b) is not engaged.

40. Nonetheless, as only one element of s 10 needs to be satisfied to engage the jurisdiction, I may proceed to contemplate orders. In order to determine what, if any, orders should be made, the Court must consider s 12 of the Act.

Discretionary matters – Section 12

41. In making an order, the Court considers relevant matters in s 12 of the Act, as follows:

42. The respondents’ Blackbutt trees are both located close to the parties’ common side boundary. T1 is positioned at the front of the property adjacent to the nature strip, while T2 is about 12m north of T1 (s 12(a) of the Act).

43. Removal or pruning of the Blackbutts would require consent from Council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Some Councils maintain significant tree registers. The characteristics and qualities of these trees are sufficiently outstanding that they would satisfy the criteria for inclusion in most significant tree registers. On page 12 of Exhibit D, Mr Beisler noted that the trees “are well known in the region, and are frequently referred to as ‘sentinels’, and are somewhat locally iconic” (s 12(b) of the Act).

44. Pruning of live foliage from these long established, mature trees is likely to compromise their health and vigour by reducing photosynthesis, as photosynthesis creates carbohydrates which support all the trees’ essential functions. Pruning of live foliage should, therefore, not be undertaken as part of ‘normal maintenance’ but occur only to satisfy a required need.

45. Epicormic growth usually initiates in response to tree stress. Though epicormic growth is initially less well attached than ‘normal’ branches, there is no sound physiological basis to distinguish between epicormic and ‘normal’ foliage. Therefore, unless epicormic growth creates a risk, it should not be pruned.

46. It is regrettable that “selectively prune epicormic shoots” was included in the conditions for Council’s January 2021 pruning permission, and “[r]emove all epicormic growth” was included in the description of works on the quote that informed the pruning of 11 November 2021 (s 12(b2) of the Act).

47. In Exhibit 1, Ms Santosa called the trees a “stunning feature” which add “scenic beauty” to the respondents’ land. They provide privacy, and “a significant amount of shade for our property which assists in energy costs”. Ms Santosa also said, “I believe they (the trees) add value to our property”, and this is indeed very likely. Established trees are known to enhance property values, at least in relatively prosperous areas, because of the environmental services and benefits they provide to human health and wellbeing (s 12(b3) and s 12(e) of the Act).

48. Considering their towering prominence when viewed from the street, the Blackbutt trees provide significant intrinsic public amenity, and are likely to have historical value (s 12(c) and s 12(f) of the Act).

49. As large examples of the dominant emergent species endemic to this region, the trees’ flowers, fruit, trunks, and branches would be expected to provide food and/or shelter for local fauna. Therefore, they are likely to make an important contribution to local biodiversity and to their ecosystems. In her affidavit, Ms Santosa said the trees “provide a home to many birds and other animals” (s 12(d) of the Act).

50. On the relatively steep slope of both parties’ land, with houses located on different levels, the trees’ extensive, spreading root systems would contribute to soil stabilisation and to the absorption of water and the reduction of run off (s 12(g) of the Act).

51. Section 12(i) of the Act considers anything, other than the tree, that has contributed or is contributing to any damage or likelihood of damage, including any act or omission by the applicant and the impact of any trees owned by the applicant.

52. The claim of excessive maintenance resulting from the decortication of bark onto the applicant’s land is addressed in Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 (Barker), which, at [20], establishes the Tree Dispute Principle;

“[20] It is now appropriate to state these in a more specific form as a principle which may be applied when considering urban trees and ordinary maintenance issues arising from them. We state the principle in the following terms:

For people who live in urban environments, it is appropriate to expect that some degree of house exterior and grounds maintenance will be required in order to appreciate and retain the aesthetic and environmental benefits of having trees in such an urban environment. In particular, it is reasonable to expect people living in such an environment might need to clean the gutters and the surrounds of their houses on a regular basis.

The dropping of leaves, flowers, fruit, seeds or small elements of deadwood by urban trees ordinarily will not provide the basis for ordering removal of or intervention with an urban tree.”

53. Though I acknowledge the presence of extensive bark, on Blackbutts, bark is mainly restricted to the trunk and thus falls relatively close to the tree base. It also decorticates for a relatively short period each year. Given that the applicant’s terraced garden beds appeared largely unattended, the bark could be left to slowly decompose and thus provide organic matter to soil organisms. Should there be an imperative to remove it, maintenance would be required only for a short period each year. The bark is not causing damage. Therefore, any maintenance expectation falls under the tree dispute principle established in Barker.

Findings

54. The applicant has satisfied the preliminary jurisdictional tests at s 8 and s 10(1) of the Act. Section 10(2)(a) of the Act is engaged by past damage, and likely near future damage, to the applicant’s dwelling roof as a result of falling deadwood from the trees.

55. While it is normal for branches to die and shed from trees, the relatively rapid re-accumulation of deadwood is likely to be a symptom of tree stress. When deadwood which initiates and accumulates at branch tips (termed “dieback”) presents in association with epicormic growth on larger branches, previous root damage is one likely cause, and repeat pruning of foliage around adjacent electricity wires would cumulatively impact T1.

56. The root damage is likely to have been caused by root severing, level changes, and surface sealing around the trees’ extensive root zones during construction of the respondents’ dwelling and driveway. Though this damage has not occurred in the recent past, a time lag of many years is to be expected between damage to roots, and symptoms of the damage exhibiting on the trees. Root damage may have also occurred during terracing of gardens on the west side of the applicant’s land. Similar symptoms often appear when trees are heavily stressed by insufficient water, but considering the above average rainfall recorded since 2020, this was unlikely to be the cause.

57. The trees appear to have tolerated and adapted to such root damage quite well, and abundant rainfall since 2020 has provided ideal conditions for the growth and maintenance of foliage. The trees currently display good health and vigour. Mr Biesler rated the trees as “A: Normal vitality, typical for the species”.

58. I concur with Mr Beisler’s assessment of T2 at paragraph 5.0 of Exhibit D, where he describes the possible pruning of all foliage overhanging the applicant’s land beyond the common boundary as “a drastic and excessive pruning event”. Nonetheless, extensive pruning is required to prevent future damage to the applicant’s dwelling, so a balance must be struck, regardless of the likely negative impacts on the trees.

59. Consequently, orders will be made for pruning of live branches growing above the applicant’s dwelling and above a 3.5m wide buffer zone beyond the roof edges to account for the likely impact of wind on falling branches, as displayed below in the plan view of the trees’ canopies after pruning (not to scale). Orders shall also be made for pruning of deadwood.

Figure 1: Plan view of trees’ canopies after pruning

60. Due to the significance of the trees, as displayed in consideration of s 12 of the Act, these pruning works shall be undertaken under arborist supervision. This supervising arborist shall hold both Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) level 5 and AQF level 3, and considerable experience.

61. AQF level 5 skills include risk assessment, and development and communication of appropriate specifications for works, while AQF level 3 covers practical tree works, development of work method statements, and an understanding of the ease or difficulty, and practicality of required tree works. Though this skillset combination is relatively rare, based on the curriculum vitae in his report, Mr Beisler meets this requirement, as does at least one other arborist working in the Illawarra region.

62. All pruning shall comply with Australian Standard, AS 4373:2007, Pruning of amenity trees (the AS) and the diameter of live branches selected for pruning should be as small as practicable.

63. Monitoring and subsequent dead wooding shall be undertaken as per recommendation (3) of Mr Beisler’s ‘Schedule of works’ in Exhibit D, and the applicant’s proposed orders. Based on the rate of re-accumulation of deadwood since the November 2021 dead wood pruning, combined with improved heath and vigour likely to flow from the high rainfall of recent years, a default dead wooding frequency of every two years is reasonable.

64. The initial live branch pruning will remove a significant amount of the overhanging canopy, thus reducing the proximity and likely size of future deadwood. Prudent selection of appropriate live branch pruning cut locations in the initial works, in accordance with guidelines for ‘Reduction pruning’ in Chapter 7 of the AS, may successfully direct regrowth away from the applicant’s dwelling and the buffer zone, and relatively less deadwood may reaccumulate in response to increased tree vigour accruing from three consecutive high rainfall years.

65. Due to uncertainty regarding the future intersection of these conditions, it is appropriate for the supervising arborist to have discretion in the determination of the frequency and timing of future works. The supervising arborist may thus choose to modify the intervals between subsequent pruning of both deadwood and live regrowth.

Conclusions

66. I have examined the tree and the site and have reached the following conclusions.

67. The respondents value the shade provided by the trees which reduces energy costs, their scenic value, and contribution to the intrinsic amenity of the district. The trees contribute to the respondents’ privacy and to local biodiversity, as they “provide a home to many birds and other animals”. At paragraph (5) of Exhibit 1, Ms Santosa notes that “our gardens have been landscaped around them”.

68. In this case, managing the interaction between people and dwellings, and large, significant trees in close proximity necessitates ongoing tree inspections, maintenance and financial investment.

69. Notwithstanding that the trees were in situ before the applicant’s dwelling, it is customary for the respondents to pay for works subject to orders made under the Act, and this shall not be varied here.

Orders

70. The Court orders that:

1. Within 60 days of the date of these orders, the respondents, at their expense, shall employ an arborist with AQF level 5 and AQF level 3 qualifications, who holds all appropriate insurances (the supervising arborist), to supervise the reduction pruning of two Eucalyptus pilularis, to remove all branches overhanging, and within 3.5m of overhanging, the applicant’s dwelling. This is displayed in Figure 1, at [59] of the judgment. The supervising arborist shall also direct the pruning of deadwood, per Orders (3) and (4).

2. Within 75 days of the date of these orders, the respondents, at their expense, shall employ AQF level 3 qualified arborists who hold all appropriate insurances (the arborists), to reduction prune two Eucalyptus pilularis, in accordance with the supervising arborist’s directions, to remove all branches overhanging, and within 3.5 metres of overhanging, the applicant’s dwelling, per Figure 1, at [59] of the judgment.

3. Within 75 days of the date of these orders, the respondents, at their expense, shall employ the arborists to prune, in accordance with the supervising arborist’s directions, all deadwood above 20mm at the branch collar and located more than 2m from the common property boundary from the canopies of two Eucalyptus pilularis that overhang the applicant’s land.

4. Within 75 days of the date of these orders, the respondents, at their expense, shall employ the arborists to prune, in accordance with the supervising arborist’s directions, all deadwood above 40mm at the branch collar from the sections of the canopies of two Eucalyptus pilularis overhanging the applicant’s land between the common property boundary and 2m beyond the common property boundary.

5. Within 24 months after the pruning works in Orders (2), (3), and (4), and during the same month after every subsequent 24 month period, the respondents, at their expense, shall employ the supervising arborist to inspect the two Eucalyptus pilularis and determine the nature and timing of further pruning required to maintain the specifications established in Orders (2), (3), and (4).

6. Within 60 days of each determination by the supervising arborist of the nature and timing of further pruning, the respondents, at their expense, shall employ the arborists and the supervising arborist to complete the said pruning to maintain the specifications established in Orders (2), (3), and (4).

7. All pruning shall comply with AS 4373:2007 Pruning of amenity trees, particularly with respect to guidance for ‘Reduction pruning’.

8. The pruning works shall comply with the Safe Work Australia Guide to Managing Risks of Tree Trimming and Removal Work, 2016.

9. The applicant shall provide all reasonable access to her property for quotations, and supervision and completion of the works, upon receipt of at least 72 hours’ notice by email from the respondents, advising the date and approximate start time of the works. A copy of contracted arborists’ insurance Certificates of Currency shall be attached to the email.

10. All works shall be completed during reasonable daytime working hours.

J Douglas

Acting Commissioner of the Court

**********

Decision last updated: 06 June 2023