Brown v Sharp [2019] NSWLEC 1382

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Brown v Sharp [2019] NSWLEC 1382 Hearing dates: 25 July 2019 Date of orders: 25 July 2019 Decision date: 25 July 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Douglas AC Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – hedges – water views and sunlight obstructed Legislation Cited: Interpretation Act 1987 Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Granthum Holdings Pty Ltd v Miller [2011] NSWLEC 1122 Johnson v Angus (2012) 190 LGERA 334; [2012] NSWLEC 192 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) 134 LGERA 23; [2004] NSWLEC 140 Tooth v McCombie [2011] NSWLEC 1004 Texts Cited: Review of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (2009) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Roderick Collin Brown (Applicant) Craig Sharp (First Respondent) Jacqui Sharp (Second Respondent) Representation: R Brown, litigant in person (Applicants) C and J Sharp, litigants in person (Respondents) File Number(s): 2019/94233 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It was given orally and has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1. COMMISSIONER: The applicant, Mr Brown, and the respondents, Mr and Mrs Sharp, share a long side boundary at their properties in Bundeena. Both blocks face a sloping street to the east and are sufficiently elevated to capture views of the adjacent shoreline, and an expanse of Port Hacking to the north. 2. Mr Brown's property is further south and higher up the slope than the respondents', and his views of the water are gained directly across Mr and Mrs Sharp's rear yard. Mr Brown contends that two mature trees form a hedge, which severely obstructs sunlight to living area windows. He also contends that a bamboo hedge, planted in 2017 to the west of the trees, severely obstructs views from a living room towards Port Hacking, and that a clump of Ghost bamboo, which he deems to be a hedge, severely obstructs both light and views. 3. Mr Brown has thus submitted an application under s 14B of Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Act) against Mr and Mrs Sharp, the owners of trees growing on an adjoining property. 4. He seeks the following orders (summarised): "1. Remove all vegetation on the common boundary, including T1 to T5; 2. Hedge T4 should be trimmed annually, to maintain a maximum height between 2.5 and 4.5 metres, where the 2.5 metre maximum height relates to the section five metres from Cottage window 14 and 15 3. The respondents shall take financial responsibility for all vegetation maintenance." 1. The Respondents', Mr and Mrs Sharp, request alternative Orders, which are: "1. We agree to the removal of the African Olive Tree (T1) at Rod Brown's cost, if the Pencil Pine (T2) remains as is. 2. The Gracilus Bamboo Screen (T4) from the end of our building/ flats to the end of Rod Brown's new house, will be trimmed twice a year, at our cost, in December and May to a height of 4.5 metres. 3. We agree to maintain the Ghost Bamboo (T5) at our cost and continue trimming back culms close to Rod's property."