Langton v Aguilar [2012] NSWLEC 1155

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Langton v Aguilar [2012] NSWLEC 1155 Hearing dates: 6 June 2012 Decision date: 06 June 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Galwey AC Decision: (1)The application to remove the tree is upheld. (2)The respondent is to engage and pay for a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (minimum AQF level 3) to remove the tree to ground level. This work is to be carried out in accordance with the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry. (3)The works in (2) are to be completed within 60 days of the date of these orders. (4)The respondent is to give the applicants at least three days' notice of the works. (5) The applicants are to allow all reasonable access for the works in (2) during reasonable times of the day. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS): risk of damage to property; removal ordered. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Native Vegetation Act 2003 Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mrs Linda Langton and Mr Kevin Langton (Applicants)

Ms Rosemarie Aguilar (Respondent) Representation: Mrs Linda Langton -Litigant in person (Applicants)

Ms Rosemarie Aguilar – Litigant in person (Respondent) File Number(s): 20114 of 2012

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1ACTING COMMISSIONER: A large gum tree grows in the front garden adjoining the Langtons' property, overhanging their driveway and dwelling. Due to their concerns that the tree may shed limbs or entirely fall onto their property, they seek orders from the Court for its removal under s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. 2Ms Aguilar owns the adjoining property on which the tree is situated. Since the Langtons submitted their application to the Court she has applied to Council for, and received from Council, permission to remove the tree. She intends to remove the tree but says she cannot afford to at present. Her property is on the market. 3I am to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over the tree and what orders would be appropriate to prevent damage or injury.