Guinea & Strugar v Buckley [2022] NSWLEC 1704

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Guinea & Strugar v Buckley [2022] NSWLEC 1704 Hearing dates: 12 December 2022 Date of orders: 16 December 2022 Decision date: 16 December 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Horton C Decision: See orders at [78] Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – bamboo hedge – whether severely obstructs sunlight – whether severely obstructs views - orders Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Pt 2A, ss 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2019, cl 4 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 22 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ana Guinea (First Applicant) Tomi Strugar (Second Applicant) Andrew Buckley (First Respondent) Natalie Buckley (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Guinea (Self-represented) (First Applicant) T Strugar (Self-represented) (Second Applicant) M Lewis (Solicitor) (Respondents)

Solicitors: Ardent Lawyers (Respondents) File Number(s): 2022/303179 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: Two properties in Niger Street, Vincentia, share a common boundary, along which a hedge of bamboo was planted, that has now grown to a height that the Applicants in these proceedings, Ms Ana Guinea and Mr Tomi Strugar, assert obstructs sunlight to certain rooms, and also obstructs western district and mountain views. 2. It is commonly held that the bamboo hedge between the dwellings was first planted in 2019, around the time that the Respondents, Ms Natalie and Mr Andrew Buckley, completed the construction of a two-storey dwelling on their site at 38 Niger Street. 3. A second crop of bamboo was then planted sometime in 2021, which is generally along the shared boundary in the rear yards. 4. In an affidavit, with annexures, prepared by Ms Buckley dated 7 December (Exhibit 1), it is asserted that the origins of the hedge lie in the Applicants' request for privacy between the properties. 5. The Respondent's submit evidence of invoices to the effect that the hedge is regularly maintained by Saltwater Gardens to a height of 4.5m. 6. However, the Applicants state the bamboo also strikes their dwelling in high winds, in the vicinity of their bedroom, has damaged the colorbond fence between the properties, obstructs sunlight to certain windows and obstructs distant views, and growth of the bamboo results in sheathing that demands time and cost to remove the detritus that falls on the Applicant's side of the boundary fence. 7. The Applicants now apply to the Court under s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ('the Trees Act'), in the Class 2 division of the Court's jurisdiction, seeking orders for the bamboo to removed, or pruned and maintained at a height that would remedy the obstruction of sunlight and views. 8. The hearing took place on site, and the parties appeared in person. The Court, in the company of the parties, was taken to the rear yard of both properties, and into certain rooms of the dwellings.