Written by Are your neighbours’ plants obstructing your view? The recent case of Pearce v Gleeson [2022] NSWLEC 1543was a dispute between neighbours in Newport as to whether lilly pilly hedges were obstructing the plaintiff’s view to the extent that orders should be made to prune the trees. The Plaintiff’s applied to the court under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (the Trees Act) to obtain this order.
The hearing took place onsite. The Plaintiffs engaged a consulting arborist to assess the trees and prepare a report. The plaintiffs submitted that they had discussed the issue with their neighbours, and mediation was arranged but the plaintiff’s did not participate, preferring to negotiate directly with their neighbours (and without their neighbours legal representative). The neighbours thus alleged that the plaintiffs had not made a ‘reasonable effort’ to reach agreement, as required by s 14E(1) of the Trees Act.
In considering the application in accordance with the Act, the court found that the only one set of the two hedges severely obstructed the plaintiff’s view of the landscape as it was ‘more than moderate but less than devastating’ and was ‘severe.’ However, the other hedge did not severely obstruct any view, and thus the plaintiffs could not obtain a preventative order to cut the trees before any view obstruction occurred.
Notably, the Act only operates to provide a remedy to plaintiffs who suffer a loss of sunlight or a view, but not where the obstruction already exists at the time the person purchased their property. As the plaintiff’s had bought the property when the hedges were substantially the same height as at the time of their application, the request for an order to prune the trees was refused. This case demonstrates the operation of the Trees Act and the likelihood of obtaining a remedy under it.