TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) — Pt 2A application — neighbouring hedge — bamboo — obstruction of views — whether the obstruction is severe — application refused
Quick Take
1Where respondent hedge owners have demonstrated a credible commitment to regular pruning and maintenance of a hedge at a height that does not severely obstruct views, the Court will not find a severe obstruction exists merely because the hedge could grow to an obstructive height if left unpruned — the likely ongoing state of affairs, not a hypothetical worst case, is the relevant consideration under s 14E(2)(a)(ii).
2The circumstances in Steber v Job and Hennessy v Unsworth — where hedge owners had demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to maintain the hedge — were distinguished on the facts; a respondent's credible evidence of intent and capacity to maintain a hedge defeats an applicant's reliance on potential future growth.
3An arborist's opinion on whether a view obstruction is 'severe' within the meaning of the Act carries no weight where the question is one for the Court and the opinion adds nothing beyond lay observation.
