Van Zwieten v Radge

[2013] NSWLEC 1252

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Title:

Van Zwieten & anor v Radge & anor

Medium Neutral Citation:

[2013] NSWLEC 1252

Hearing Date(s):

19 December 2013

Decision Date:

19 December 2013

Jurisdiction:

Class 2

Before:

Galwey AC

Decision:

(1) The application is upheld in part.

(2) Trees 1 and 2 are to be removed by the respondents within 60 days of the date of these orders.

(3) Beginning 2014 the respondents are to prune or engage a suitably qualified horticulturist or arborist to prune trees 3-8 and 13-17 to a height of no more than 2.4 metres (measured above ground level along the boundary fence) annually within 2 weeks either side of the autumn equinox.

(4) Beginning 2014 the respondents are to prune or engage a suitably qualified horticulturist or arborist to prune trees 9-12 to a height of no more than 4 metres (measured above ground level along the boundary fence) annually within 2 weeks either side of the autumn equinox.

(5) The applicants are to provide all access for cleaning up debris from the works in (3) & (4) during reasonable hours of the day, on reasonable notice from the respondents.

Catchwords:

TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS); hedge; obstruction of sunlight; damage; removal of some trees ordered; pruning of some trees ordered.

Legislation Cited:

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Cases Cited:

Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192
Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152; (2008) LGERA 280
Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29
Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012
Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

APPLICANTS
Maria Van Zwieten
Terry Van Zwieten

RESPONDENTS
John Radge (First Respondent)
Kristen Radge (Second Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel:

APPLICANTS
Maria Van Zwieten and Terry Van Zwieten(Applicants in person)

RESPONDENTS
Mr Peter Mills and Mr Tony Sattler

- Solicitors:

APPLICANT

RESPONDENTS
Sattler & Associates P/L

File Number(s):

20728 of 2013

JUDGMENT

Background

1. Maria and Terry Van Zwieten live in Terrey Hills. Their dwelling is close to the common boundary with the neighbouring property, owned by John and Kristen Radge. The Radges ('the respondents') planted a row of Leyland Cypress trees on their property along the boundaries around their rear garden some 5-8 years ago. The Van Zwietens ('the applicants') subsequently became concerned that the Cypress trees along their common boundary are obstructing sunlight to windows of their dwelling, and also that roots of some trees are damaging paving on their property. They have applied to the Court under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 seeking orders for the removal of seven trees due to existing damage and the risk of future damage (under Part 2 of the Act), and for pruning of ten trees to prevent sunlight obstruction (Part 2A of the Act).

2. The application includes 12 trees within the original planting, now well established, as well as a more recent planting of five trees. The applicants used different tree numbering in the two parts to their application. For clarity, one system of tree numbering is used here and a numbered plan is included as an addendum. The established trees are numbered west to east, 1 to 12. The five newer trees are numbered east to west, 13 to 17. Regarding the application under Part 2A, all 17 trees are regarded as a single hedge. This is discussed further below.

3. The respondents dispute the extent to which their trees are causing damage or blocking sunlight.

4. Before making any orders under Part 2 of the Act, the Court must be satisfied at s 10(2)(a) that the trees have caused damage, are causing damage, or are likely to cause damage in the near future. The applicants do not claim risk of injury. The degree of satisfaction required is discussed in Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29, where Craig J states at [62] that "something more than a theoretical possibility is required in order to engage the power under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act ...". The tree does not have to be the only cause, merely a cause (there can also be others), as discussed by Preston CJ in Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152; (2008) LGERA 280, at [179]. These jurisdictional tests, and the degree of satisfaction required, must be applied to each tree that is the subject of this part of the application.

5. Regarding the application under part 2A of the Act, the jurisdictional tests at s 14A(1) are satisfied: the parties do not dispute that the Cypress trees form a hedge or that, at least for the established trees, they are more than 2.5 metres tall. For the Court to make orders under Part 2A with regard to sunlight obstruction, the jurisdictional tests at ss 14E(2)(a)(i) and 14E(2)(b) must also be satisfied, and this is where the parties are in dispute. Therefore I must determine if the trees are causing a severe obstruction of sunlight to windows and, if so, whether it is severe enough to warrant intervention when balanced against any reasons not to interfere, such as privacy and screening.

6. The Court is not obliged to make the orders that the applicants seek. The Court may make orders as it sees fit under ss 9 and 14D after considering matters at ss 12 and 14F.

7. The hearing took place onsite, allowing inspection of the trees and related matters. Ms Catriona Mackenzie, arboricultural consultant, provided a report for the respondents and gave evidence at the hearing.

Application under Part 2

1. The applicants allege that roots from trees 1 and 2 are causing damage to their paving. The trees are approximately 60 cm from the boundary fence. The damage comprises lifting and moving of square pavers, causing an uneven surface.

2. At the hearing six pavers had been removed close to tree 1 and a root approximately 50 mm in diameter could be seen at the surface. The applicants say that this area, approximately half a square metre, is the only area damaged by tree roots - other uneven areas were damaged by a bobcat. The applicants say that more damage is likely in future as the trees continue to grow.

3. The respondents acknowledge that roots of Tree 1 have caused damage. Ms Mackenzie stated that roots could be partially cut before relaying the paving.

4. The applicants point out that four of the five newer trees are planted even closer to the boundary, approximately 20 cm from the fence. They say it is inevitable that they too will damage paving or other parts of their property in future. Ms Mackenzie stated that, as the trees are so small (less than 2 metres tall), they are unlikely to cause damage within the near future and therefore the Court has no jurisdiction over these trees.

Findings under Part 2

1. The proximity of the exposed roots to the surface satisfies me that roots of tree 1 have caused damage, even if the bobcat also caused damage in the same area. Thus the Court's jurisdiction at s 10(2)(a) is enlivened. The area of damage is relatively small, and the paving is by no means in flawless condition elsewhere. However, considering the proximity of trees 1 and 2, and their likely growth rates, further damage seems likely. Despite Ms Mackenzie's suggestion that the tops of the roots could be cut before relaying the paving, I accept the applicants' point of view that further damage is likely and that it is reasonable to take steps to prevent this. Regarding the risk of damage in the near future, I see no reason to diverge from the 'rule of thumb' established by the Commissioners in Yang v Scerri [2007] NSWLEC 592, and applied consistently by the Court since then: that a period of around 12 months reasonably represents 'the near future' for the purposes of the Act.

2. Installing a root barrier, or even a shallower root deflector, would prevent damage for the foreseeable future. However its installation would be a significant undertaking of some expense to the respondents (should I so order) and would cause some disruption to the applicants. I am therefore reluctant to take that course. I also note that the respondents, while aware of the application for removal of two of the established trees (1 and 2), have not suggested a root barrier or any other suitable alternative to removal.

3. Trees 1 and 2 are in close proximity to the paving and are likely to cause damage in the near future. The trees provide benefits described within s 12, most notably to the respondents' amenity, privacy and garden design. However, due to the lack of suitable alternatives, I find it reasonable that they be removed.

4. Regarding the five smaller trees, they are not causing damage presently and I do not accept that they are likely to cause damage in the near future and therefore the Court does not have jurisdiction over these trees under Part 2. They are closer to the pavers than trees 1 and 2 and the respondents are now at least aware of the possibility of their roots causing damage in a longer timeframe. Should such damage occur the Van Zwietens could of course make a new application.

Application under Part 2A - obstruction of sunlight

1. The applicants say that the trees obstruct sunlight to five windows, all part of the sunroom. W1 is on the north side of their dwelling, W2-W5 on the eastern side facing their rear garden. They have not submitted shadow diagrams but rely on photographs accompanying the respondents' statement as well as the respondents' shadow diagrams. They say these show a severe obstruction of sunlight, not only at the winter solstice but right through to the equinox. They say they and their two children use the room frequently, and that it used to be sunny and warm in winter but is now dark and cold.

2. The respondents, while conceding that there is some interference of sunlight caused by the hedge, say there is insufficient evidence that the hedge causes a severe obstruction. They say there is no expert evidence to show this; that the shadow diagrams referred to by the applicants were prepared by the respondent, whose expertise in this area is unknown. They say therefore the Court cannot make orders.

3. The respondents further submit that other plants, most notably the applicants' palm tree, obstruct sunlight. The applicants point out that it is a single plant that filters light, rather than blocking it. The applicants point to photos showing the solid shadow caused by the hedge on their windows, with filtered shade from the palm on other surfaces.

4. The respondents argue that the trees are part of their garden design, created to maximise amenity to their property and screen the large industrial buildings to their east. The applicants acknowledge this benefit of screening but argue that their resulting loss of amenity is more significant.

5. The respondents say they will lose privacy if the hedge is pruned to 2 metres, as the applicants will be able to see into their garden. During the hearing Ms Mackenzie stood in the respondents' garden so we could see from the applicants' garden the likely extent of privacy loss. I accept that pruning the plants may result in some loss of privacy, but this must be balanced against the amenity loss for the applicants. The applicants conceded during the hearing that pruning the trees to 2.4 metres might allow sufficient light to their windows.

6. Ms Mackenzie also pointed out the negative impact that pruning at 2 metres would have on the trees, as it may leave their tops with an unattractive woody appearance.

Findings regarding sunlight

1. Firstly I will be treating all the plants as one hedge, despite the two distinct planting times. Notwithstanding Preston CJ's discussion in Johnson v Angus [2012] NSWLEC 192, especially at [33] and [43], the five newer Cypress trees have been planted so as to extend an existing hedge. In Johnson, a single tree that predated an adjacent planted hedge could not be regarded to form part of that hedge. Here, the original Cypress trees were planted so as to form a hedge, and the newer ones planted to extend that hedge - i.e. to form the same hedge.

2. Secondly, as discussed by the Commissioners in Wisdom v Payn [2011] NSWLEC 1012 at [66], the Court's jurisdiction applies to all trees within a hedge where at least two trees reach 2.5 metres height, even if some of the trees are less than that height.

3. Despite the lack of expert shadow diagrams, including elevations that Mr Sattler says would be helpful, I am satisfied from the photos and the onsite view, with my experience, that all the established trees along the common boundary cause a severe obstruction of sunlight to the applicants windows from autumn equinox, through winter to the spring equinox. The hedge appears to deprive them of the only winter sunlight available to their sunroom, while this is the period that sunlight is most desired. The sunroom looks to the rear garden and I accept it is a room they would frequently use. The loss of sunlight is significant. The first respondent's shadow diagrams (even while he may not be an expert) at least support my own view of what the likely impacts would be to the applicants.

4. I accept that pruning is not the most desirable outcome for established cypress trees, and it may negatively affect their appearance. I also accept the respondents' desire for screening and privacy. Pruning will indeed affect the present uniform height around the boundaries of their garden. However the negative impact to the applicants is such that, weighing these matters as required by s 14F and 14E(2)(b) I find that pruning of the trees is warranted.

5. To allow sunlight in while maintaining some screening, plants toward the rear boundary will be maintained at a higher height.

6. I note that the applicants have said they wish to prune the southern face of the hedge along their boundary, so no orders will be made for pruning that face.

7. No orders have been sought for repairing the damaged paving so this task lies with the applicants. Because trees 1 and 2 are being removed I note that the applicants may cut the exposed roots.

8. Orders

   (1)The application is upheld in part.

   (2)Trees 1 and 2 are to be removed by the respondents within 60 days of the date of these orders.

   (3)Beginning 2014 the respondents are to prune or engage a suitably qualified horticulturist or arborist to prune trees 3-8 and 13-17 to a height of no more than 2.4 metres (measured above ground level along the boundary fence) annually within 2 weeks either side of the autumn equinox.

   (4)Beginning 2014 the respondents are to prune or engage a suitably qualified horticulturist or arborist to prune trees 9-12 to a height of no more than 4 metres (measured above ground level along the boundary fence) annually within 2 weeks either side of the autumn equinox.

   (5)The applicants are to provide all access for cleaning up debris from the works in (3) & (4) during reasonable hours of the day, on reasonable notice from the respondents.

   ____________________________
   D Galwey
   Acting Commissioner of the Court

   **********

   (See addendum: Numbered Plan)