A neighbours’ dispute over the size of a hedge on a waterfront property has led a court intervening to resolve the long-running battle after negotiations broke down.
Catherine L’Estrange and Louise-Anne Louw applied to the NSW Land and Environment Court for orders to be made for their neighbours Allison and Jason Cunial to prune and maintain their hedge at a reasonable height.
Ms L’Estrange and Ms Louw, who live in Ocean Shores, north of Byron Bay on the NSW north coast, said since they bought the property, upslope from the Cunials’, in 2021, their view of the ocean had become obstructed.
The two women won the dispute, with their neighbours now ordered to regularly prune the row of 13 lilly pilly trees forming a screen along the boundary.
In responding to the application, the Cunials had said they pruned their hedge and that it did not severely obstruct their neighbours’ view.
A neighbours’ dispute over the size of a hedge on a waterfront property has led a court intervening to resolve the long-running battle after negotiations broke down. Stock image
The hedge is approximately 3.5–3.8 metres high, but it has been higher.
‘This view was the principal view available from the applicant’s dwelling when they purchased it,’ David Galwey, the acting commissioner of the Land and Environment Court, said in his decision.
‘Their living areas, where they and their guests are likely to spend most of their time, have large glass doors and windows facing to the east.
‘When I consider these factors together — the value of the view, the extent to which it is obstructed, and the high-use areas from which it was available — I find that trees in the hedge cause a severe obstruction of the applicants’ view.’
Before taking the matter to court, the neighbours had been in negotiations for about two years in an attempt to reach an agreement over the height and maintenance of the trees.
‘A matter that might have been reasonably resolved by a neighbourly discussion over the fence has progressed to court proceedings,’ Galwey said.
The Cunials submitted to the court they were willing to maintain the hedge, but their neighbours submitted that was unlikely given their past resistance to pruning and maintaining the hedge at a reasonable height.
The Cunials also submitted the hedge was valuable for their privacy, shading and cooling, and provided a screen to limit overlooking into their home from their neighbours’ property.
The court heard the Cunials pruned the hedge, but only after receiving legal letters or the application to start court proceedings.
‘It seems to me that the parties could have reached a reasonable agreement providing for both the respondents’ privacy and the applicants’ views,’ Galwey said.
‘Although the respondents expressed a commitment to do so in future, their unwillingness to do so until now, sways me toward making orders for maintaining the hedge’s height.’
Catherine L’Estrange and Louise-Anne Louw said since they bought the property in 2021, their view of the ocean (pictured) had become obstructed
After an on-site hearing in June, Glawey ultimately made orders in favour of L’Estrange and Louw.
‘I find that the respondents’ lilly pilly hedge severely obstructs the applicants’ view and that the situation justifies making orders for pruning the trees at regular intervals,’ Galwey said.
In a decision handed down on Tuesday, the court ordered that during February and August every year, the neighbours are to engage a contractor to prune the hedge, so that it’s no taller than 3.8m in height and so that no branches overhang the boundary.
The neighbours will also be required to provide one weeks’ notice of each pruning event and the pruning should be completed during reasonable hours of the day.
The case followed a similar one earlier this year, where neighbours faced off in court over palm trees after one complained they were obstructing her spectacular views.
Read Related Also: Pass the popcorn: Nadler to face primary challenge from …
Georgina Black said her uninterrupted views of Sydney Harbour were obstructed when neighbour Samira Jeihooni planted six cabbage palm trees at her property in Rose Bay, in November 2021.
Ms Black, who bought her waterfront home for $27.08million in 2015, asked the Land and Environment Court to order Ms Jeihooni to remove the trees, which can grow up to 15metres high.
Six palm trees caused a costly courtroom battle over $28million harbourside views (pictured) in Rose Bay, one of Australia’s wealthiest suburbs
She said the cabbage trees were obstructing her views and that Ms Jeihooni should plant a different type of tree that would grow to no more than than eight metres.
Before the trees were planted, Ms Black had spectacular views of the Harbour Bridge and Opera House from her dining room, kitchen and a first-floor bedroom, she said.
Ms Black’s town planner said in her application that four of her neighbour’s trees had a ‘severe and devastating impact’ on her views.
But Ms Jeihooni said the trees helped give privacy and shade to her garden, swimming pool and house.
In her decision, acting commissioner Lynne Sheridan said, ‘The previously available views contributed significantly to the qualitative enjoyment of (Ms Black’s house).’
The commissioner noted that since the the application was made, Ms Jeihooni had the trees pruned.
She also pointed out that Ms Black’s husband offered to pay for the removal of the trees, but that was turned down by Ms Jeihooni’s husband.
‘The nature of communications between the parties during the hearing satisfied me that they would be unlikely to reach agreement,’ Ms Sheridan said.
In order to make the Jeihoonis cut down their trees, the court had to find that two or more of the trees formed a hedge and severely obstructed a view.
While Ms Black’s arborist said the palms did form a hedge, Ms Jeihooni’s arborist said they did not and never will as their leaves won’t ever connect.
Ms Sheridan, who visited the site, found the trees did not form a hedge, giving three reasons in her explanation.
Firstly, she said the palm trees were not planted close enough together to form a continuous barrier or screen.
‘Secondly, I find it unlikely that someone attempting to establish a hedge or screen would have planted palm trees which characteristically have a straight slender trunk with fronds at the top of the trunk,’ Ms Sheridan said.
‘Thirdly, there is no sign that these trees have ever been maintained by (Ms Jeihooni) as a hedge.’
Before the trees (shown in an image provided by the Land and Environment Court) were planted, Ms Black had spectacular views of the Harbour Bridge and Opera House from her dining room, kitchen and a first-floor bedroom, she said
Ms Sheridan added that the trees obstructed little of Ms Black’s views.
‘For example, my observations on site were that the palms do obstruct views of the Harbour and the Sydney Harbour Bridge from several seats at the dining room table or from one particular view from the kitchen.
‘However the totality of the view, including views of Sydney Harbour, the Harbour Bridge and Opera House from other parts of the dining room table, dining room, living room, kitchen, secondary living areas and bedrooms are retained,’ she said.
Ms Sheridan dismissed Ms Black’s application.
