Browne & anor v Amlee Investments [2013] NSWLEC 1221

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Browne & anor v Amlee Investments [2013] NSWLEC 1221 Hearing dates: 20 November 2013 Decision date: 20 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Fakes C Decision: Application upheld in part; removal of one hedge; restriction of height of replacement plantings Catchwords: TREES [NEIGHBOURS] Hedge; obstruction of views Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2007 Cases Cited: Haindl v Daisch [2011] NSWLEC 1145 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr L and Ms K Browne (Applicants) Amlee Investments (Respondent) Representation: Applicants: L and K Browne (Litigants in person) Respondent: Mr L Muriniti (Solicitor) Respondent: L C Muriniti & Associates File Number(s): 20690 of 2013

Judgment This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1COMMISSIONER: The applicants in this matter have lived on their property at Collaroy since 1985. Photographs taken in 1988 from the rear of their dwelling show quite extensive views of Collaroy and Narrabeen beaches as well as distant headlands at Avalon and those further north towards Gosford. 2The applicants have applied under s 14B Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) for orders seeking the removal of what is described as a bamboo hedge growing on adjoining land to the northeast. 3The application is made on the basis that the bamboo is severely obstructing the views they enjoyed when they purchased their property. 4The respondent's position is that the bamboo is not a hedge for the purpose of the Act, but in any event, there is no severe obstruction caused by it to any of the applicants' views. The respondent contends that the bamboo is necessary for privacy screening between the respondent's dwelling and the adjoining property to the west. 5In applications under Part 2A of the Act, there are a number of jurisdictional tests that must be satisfied sequentially.