Sukkarieh v Goodwin

[2023] NSWLEC 1759

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sukkarieh v Goodwin [2023] NSWLEC 1759

Hearing dates:

20 June 2023

Date of orders:

20 June 2023

Decision date:

20 June 2023

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Douglas AC

Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

(1) The application is refused.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – high hedges – nature of a hedge – is hedge severely obstructing sunlight or views

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F

Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Regulation 2014, s 4

Cases Cited:

McLaren v Lewis [2011] NSWLEC 1170

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

Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Samar Sukkarieh (Applicant)
Craig Andrew Goodwin (First Respondent)
Louise Marie Goodwin (Second Respondent)

Representation:

S Sukkarieh, Self-represented (Applicant)
C Goodwin, Self-represented (First Respondent)
L Goodwin, No Appearance (Second Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/128294

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It was given orally and has been revised and edited prior to publication.

Background

1. Samar Sukkarieh, the applicant, owns a property in Toukley with her husband, and they share a side boundary with the respondents, Craig and Louise Goodwin. The rear of both parties’ waterfront properties face north towards Budgewoi Lake and the boundary between the properties is oriented roughly east-west.

2. The applicant and her husband purchased their property in 2014 and lodged a development application (DA) with Wyong Shire Council in 2016 for the construction of a two-storey dwelling extending to about 4 metres (m) from the waterfront, in place of an existing old boathouse. The properties now fall under the jurisdiction of Central Coast Council (Council), which was established in 2016 upon the amalgamation of Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council.

3. Mr Goodwin objected to the DA as the proposed dwelling was to be much taller than the existing boathouse and to occupy a much larger footprint, and he opposed the proposed location, about 16 m closer to the waterfront than the respondents’ dwelling and other neighbouring houses, which were constrained by a 20 m setback from the lake. Mr Goodwin called this 20 m setback area the flood zone.

4. In his objection to Council, included in Exhibit 1, Mr Goodwin noted that the proposed dwelling would significantly impact his family’s existing water, jetty, and undulating landscape views across an arc from north to east, due to the imposing nature of the building’s west side wall, which was planned to rise to a height greater than 9 m, within 1 m of the common boundary. Mr Goodwin stressed the negative impact on his family’s privacy that would likely arise from potential oversight through four proposed first floor windows and from the west side of an open balcony located to the north of the first floor of the applicant’s dwelling.

5. Though Council initially provided a report to Mr Goodwin which indicated that the applicant’s development would not be…