GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post - compelling neighbour to remove dangerous tree

[email protected] · 01-12-2008, 03:02 AM posted to aus.gardens,aus.legal

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:03:51 +1100, wrote:

Has anybody had any experience of compelling a neighbour to remove a
dangerous tree?

The tree is a massive euclaypt in the backyard of my neighbour's
terrace house. Most of the tree overhangs my back yard.

On two previous occasions branches have fallen into my yard - one
damaging the corner of the back verandah.

In today's wind a small branch fell on a friend's head. She had to go
to casualty, but is bruised only.

The neighbour has been, and still is, uncooperative.

Incredibly, Council says I can remove branches that overhang and are
less than 10 cm in diameter, but that's it.

Brilliant!

I can remove those that might hurt but not those that would maim or
kill.

Surely there must be a procedure for getting a court order for the
removal of a manifestly dangerous tree - regardless of the wishes of
my neighbour and Council? Relations with that neighbour (and only that
neighbour) are already hopeless, so there is no point in discussing
the matter yet again.

Has anybody had this experience of dealing with a hopeless neighbour
and council?

I live in NSW.

Thanks for the various comments. Given that the tree has already
damaged my property (smashed in the bathroom ceiling two years ago)
and now hospitalised (albeit for only 10 hours) a visitor to my back
yard - the lawyer says the case is a lay down misere for removal under
the 2006 Act mentioned by Phil.

In response to one poster, yes I know I can make property insurance
claims (and have in the case of the bathroom), but now we are risking
making life insurance claims.

There is nowhere in my back yard that is not overhung by the offending
tree. Because of the lean of the tree, about 60% of the tree overhangs
my yard and another 20% even overhangs the yard of the next door
neighbour furthest from the tree. She too wants the tree removed, so
we will have a dual action.

Evidently the 2006 act was introduced because of the dangerous delays
and recalcitrance of Councils when it came to giving permission for
the removal of manifestly dangerous trees.

I had to laugh when I again phoned the council's tree preservation
officer to find out whether council could order the tree's removal.
The officer evaded the question, but rabbited on about conservation
principles, sustainability, negotiation, etc.. When I mentioned the
relevance of serious personal injury and the 2006 Act she said "Oh, we
don't like residents to pursue that course of action." I hung up on
this irrelavant and patronising user of the royal 'we'.