Pt 2 application — neighbouring trees — boundary fence damage — hedge pruned prior to hearing — risk of further damage — Pt 2A application — obstruction of sunlight — obstruction not severe on day of hearing — balancing privacy against loss of sunlight — orders for pruning — bamboo hedge
Quick Take
1Where a bamboo hedge has been pruned prior to hearing such that the sunlight obstruction is no longer severe on the day of hearing, the Court may still find the jurisdictional test at s 14E(2)(a) satisfied if photographic and other evidence demonstrates the obstruction was recently severe and is likely to recur without ongoing management, applying Steber v Job [2019] NSWLEC 1308.
2Privacy benefits provided by a hedge to the respondent's property are a relevant consideration under ss 12(b3) and 14E(2)(b) that may justify orders for ongoing maintenance and height reduction rather than complete removal, balancing the applicant's interests in sunlight and property protection against the respondent's interest in screening.
3The established principle from Barker v Kryiakides [2007] NSWLEC 292 that leaf drop and minor organic debris from urban trees ordinarily will not justify removal orders continues to apply; regular gutter cleaning is expected of urban property owners.
