Australia, Aug. 23 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 23:

1. COMMISSIONER: In late 2024, Quan Zhang and Xia Chen planted a row of slender weavers bamboo along the rear boundary of their St Ives property, comprised of two adjoining lots. Kim and Christopher Papapantos live in the adjoining property to the east. On the basis that the bamboo obstructs sunlight to their dwelling, the Papapantoses have applied to the Court seeking orders for it to be removed and for the height of any replacement hedge to be restricted.

2. The hearing took place onsite, allowing the Court to view the trees and both properties. The parties were self-represented.

Framework for this decision

3. The Papapantoses have applied to the Court pursuant to s 14B (Pt 2A) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (Trees Act). Bamboo plants are trees for the purposes of the Trees Act: s 4 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Regulation 2024 (NSW). The bamboo is planted so as to form a hedge and is more than 2.5 metres tall, so Pt 2A of the Trees Act applies to the bamboo: s 14A. The orders sought are one the Court can make at s 14D.

4. Therefore, relevant issues to be determined in these proceedings are:

* Whether the applicants have made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the respondents and given the required notice of the application: s 14E(1) of the Trees Act.

* Whether the Court can be satisfied that the trees are severely obstructing sunlight to the applicants' windows: s 14E(2)(a).

* Whether the Court can be satisfied that the applicants' interests outweigh reasons for not interfering with the trees: s 14E(2)(b).

* If orders are to be made, how consideration of the relevant matters at s 14F of the Trees Act should influence those orders.

The applicants' submissions

5. The Papapantoses submitted that they discussed their concerns with Mr Zhang and Ms Chen but were unable to reach agreement.

6. The rear part of the applicants' property is within a biodiversity zone. Mature turpentine and Sydney red gums that dominate their garden are protected. The trees, which are west of their dwelling, allow summer afternoon sunlight through to the west-facing windows of their living area windows on the ground floor of their dwelling.

7. The applicants submitted that bamboo culms have already reached 6-8 metres in height. Because the bamboo was planted recently, only its lower parts are covered in dense foliage, while its upper parts are relatively sparse. However, very soon the upper parts will fill out, creating a dense wall of bamboo up to 8 metres tall along their rear boundary. This will obstruct late afternoon sunlight to the applicants' windows.

8. The applicants submitted that the bamboo planting is inappropriate for several reasons. It is an invasive species planted in a biodiversity zone. They suggested it would plunge their garden into darkness and that it would outcompete their mature trees for water and nutrients, killing the trees. The bamboo was planted less than a metre from the dividing fence and will grow more than 60 cm taller than the fence, therefore not complying with council guidelines.

9. The applicants submitted that the bamboo is not needed for the respondents' privacy. They have limited opportunities for overlooking the respondents' property, and the respondents' bedroom windows are far enough away that they cannot see into the bedrooms. They would be happy to put some lattice or other extension atop the boundary fence to assist with privacy.

10. The applicants explained that they enjoy the view of summer sunsets over the respondents' property, but the bamboo will obstruct this view.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198cab49ca8fd7bb62f81269)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.