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.

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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...363/index.html

Unfortunately, I doubt that you'll be able to force the removal of
branches merely because they overhang your property. You'd be able to
force the removal of dead branches (but you could do that yourself, even
if they're over 10cm in diameter). The mere fact that a branch might
fall off and injure someone in future (and even though one has already
caused injury) would not be sufficient grounds, unless you can show that
the tree is diseased.

Given the number of things the court has to be satisfied about, it would
be a job for a solicitor.

Sylvia.

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.


** You are in luck - pal.

Recently, a new law came into force in NSW called the " Trees ( Disputes
Between Neighbours ) Act 2006. "

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...t/tbna2006363/

Cases are heard by the Land and Environment Court.

Failure to comply with an order made by the same Court can incur a $100,000
fine.

Only problem is, YOU gotta convince the Court that tree is menace.

Lotsa luck.



...... Phil

"Phil Allison"

** You are in luck - pal.

Recently, a new law came into force in NSW called the " Trees ( Disputes
Between Neighbours ) Act 2006. "

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...t/tbna2006363/

Cases are heard by the Land and Environment Court.

Failure to comply with an order made by the same Court can incur a
$100,000 fine.

Only problem is, YOU gotta convince the Court that tree is menace.


** Just a quick thought -

if you can convince the LEC that THAT eucalypt is *INFESTED* with drop bears

game 100% over - pal.




.... Phil

g'day,

sadly this is the end resuts of the stupidity of council regulations
and "the save the trees" campagne (as far as i now this has been
policy down sydney way for a very long time). not even in brissy can
you remove dangerous gum trees (and in suburbia they are all
dangerous, just look at recent storms here in brissy).

and in the case of brissy the mayor has said there will be no relaxing
of the policy only trees that they deem pose a risk will be removed,
even with all the evidence that at least 80% of home damage was from
falling trees and major limbs most of them being gum trees.

so i guess the advice is if you don't want to live with the danger
these trees pose, then don't buy a property that has them or is near
them.

the minimum safe distance from these trees is their full grown height
+ 50%, so for a tree that reachs 50 meters heigh then you need minimum
of 75 meters space, for me 100% is the minimum. i lived in rural and
even at that there are no guarantees.

the sad fact is gum trees and suburbia don't mix.

when will a gum tree fall over or drop a major limb?? when nature
chooses for it to do so! as many do this when there is no storm or
wind involved.



snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:54:35 +1100, "Phil Allison"
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.


** You are in luck - pal.

Recently, a new law came into force in NSW called the " Trees ( Disputes
Between Neighbours ) Act 2006. "

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...t/tbna2006363/

Cases are heard by the Land and Environment Court.

Failure to comply with an order made by the same Court can incur a $100,000
fine.

Only problem is, YOU gotta convince the Court that tree is menace.

Lotsa luck.
Phil


Thanks Phil. Sounds a useful act. Friend sent to major hospital for a
CatScan, but probably nothing more than a depressed fracture to the
outer part of the skull - brain not touched.

The tree has a history of being a danger to life and limb.

Off to a solicitor on Monday to explore what evidence needs to be
collected.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:21:11 +0000, len gardener wrote:

g'day,

sadly this is the end resuts of the stupidity of council regulations and
"the save the trees" campagne (as far as i now this has been policy down
sydney way for a very long time). not even in brissy can you remove
dangerous gum trees (and in suburbia they are all dangerous, just look at
recent storms here in brissy).

As someone who has a major gum tree in the back yard, I always look
closely at tv pictures of fallen trees.

99% are inappropriate trees for the condition.
A lot are effectively planted in "pots", aka soil area too small that the
tree can not prevent itself from falling over.

Mine is one of a group of five that save me an enormous amount of money
for electricty for air conditioning.


when will a gum tree fall over or drop a major limb?? when nature
chooses for it to do so! as many do this when there is no storm or wind
involved.

Except in high wind, all the branches that drop off mine drop straight
down.

Now, as to why anyone would stand downwind of any tree in high winds, who
knows.

Nor do I understand how someone (both sides) can put in a pool, then
expect me to pay thousands of dollars to cut down my tree because it puts
leaves in their pool.

both mine are natural trees for the area and the big one ot the back
certainly predates any housing in the area.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:54:35 +1100, "Phil Allison"
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.


** You are in luck - pal.

Recently, a new law came into force in NSW called the " Trees ( Disputes
Between Neighbours ) Act 2006. "

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...t/tbna2006363/

Cases are heard by the Land and Environment Court.

Failure to comply with an order made by the same Court can incur a
$100,000
fine.

Only problem is, YOU gotta convince the Court that tree is menace.

Lotsa luck.
Phil


Thanks Phil. Sounds a useful act. Friend sent to major hospital for a
CatScan, but probably nothing more than a depressed fracture to the
outer part of the skull - brain not touched.

File a claim on the neighbours insurance and send the medical bill to them.
You're own insurer should be able to track them down if the neighbour is not
forthcoming with the details. Worth the excess claim.


The tree has a history of being a danger to life and limb.


All the more reason to get your neighbours insurance company involved.
They'll find a way to encourage the neighbour to do something premiums or an
exclusion.

Off to a solicitor on Monday to explore what evidence needs to be
collected.

Yep.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:52:01 +1100, terryc
wrote:
snipped

As someone who has a major gum tree in the back yard, I always look
closely at tv pictures of fallen trees.

might need to look closer, most of these trees as in most cases are
trees that predate the homes they fell on. these trees where
sleectively left when the estate was created. no gum tree is suited to
be near housing. most homes are in the what you may call new catagory.

typical of what happens when those types just have to build a home
among the gum trees. like your neighbours "bad choices"

99% are inappropriate trees for the condition.
A lot are effectively planted in "pots", aka soil area too small that the
tree can not prevent itself from falling over.

how can that be in these cases and lots of cases i see wher this
damage occurs as regular as when ther are gum trees to near homes.

snipped

Except in high wind, all the branches that drop off mine drop straight
down.

Now, as to why anyone would stand downwind of any tree in high winds, who
knows.

when a storm or big blow comes the direction of the wind is out of
your control so anywhere can be down wind. you get cyclone or tornado
type storms the wind comes in all directions.

many a person has suffered various injuries to death from branches
that fall straight down, that just adds the their potential to harm.

Nor do I understand how someone (both sides) can put in a pool, then
expect me to pay thousands of dollars to cut down my tree because it puts
leaves in their pool.

another case of home owners making bad choices is all that is.

both mine are natural trees for the area and the big one ot the back
certainly predates any housing in the area.

no doubt as you say but when will it fall or do damge to property or
person?? only nature can tell ter are no iron clad guarantees. it is
not a matter of "if" it is a matter of "when".

i've seen gum's in the middle of a paddock been ther all their life,
standing straight and tall and when suits they fall over.

as much as i love gum trees forests of them they are not suited to
suburbia in any shape or form.

sadly the original poste may very well chase good money after bad
going to the legal eagles (the only real winners) and at the end of
the day after much money has been sucked up the tree will likley still
be standing. unless the neighbour owner of the tree can see sense then
they need coucnil approval, and that's another story.
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:37:02 +0000, len gardener wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:52:01 +1100, terryc
wrote:
snipped

As someone who has a major gum tree in the back yard, I always look
closely at tv pictures of fallen trees.

might need to look closer, most of these trees as in most cases are trees
that predate the homes they fell on.

Not the ones I've seen on TV. Obviously not endemic. Can only remember a
few where it cam from neighbouring bushand.


how can that be in these cases and lots of cases i see wher this damage
occurs as regular as when ther are gum trees to near homes.

snipped

Except in high wind, all the branches that drop off mine drop straight
down.

Now, as to why anyone would stand downwind of any tree in high winds,
who knows.

when a storm or big blow comes the direction of the wind is out of your
control so anywhere can be down wind. you get cyclone or tornado type
storms the wind comes in all directions.

Correct, but what silly buggers walks out side and stands downwind to see
if the tree is going to drop a branch?


many a person has suffered various injuries to death from branches that
fall straight down, that just adds the their potential to harm.

Yep, usually camped under them.

no doubt as you say but when will it fall or do damge to property or
person?? only nature can tell ter are no iron clad guarantees. it is not
a matter of "if" it is a matter of "when".

So long as the roots are not disturbed, should be able to die and drop.
Being in the yard, it will probably be time to spring a loan for
demolition and gain a big load of firewood.


sadly the original poste may very well chase good money after bad going
to the legal eagles (the only real winners) and at the end of the day
after much money has been sucked up the tree will likley still be
standing. unless the neighbour owner of the tree can see sense then they
need coucnil approval, and that's another story.

Around here, you just need to express a fear that it might fall and
council is all keen to allow you to remove it. Also very easy to get a
dodgy arborist to say it is "bad". I've lost track of the number of
"termite infected" trees that have come down locally and, oh dear,
absolutely solid trunk.

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'.

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'.


** Is this another case of putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank ??



..... Phil

wrote:
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'.

Of course they don't like it, because it takes control out of their hands.

Sylvia.

wrote in message
...
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'.



I had a similar problem with a neighbour who had leaky
storm-water drains.

His water was percolating under my house. I proved this by
secretly pouring a strong blue dye into his spouting, and
then observing a blue colour welling up from the soil under
my floorboards.

Instead of raising hell by going to lawyers, who will keep
a contention going for as long as the money lasts, I
contacted a local architect who agreed to liaise with the
neighbour on my behalf and to explain the problem. The
neighbour agreed for me to fix the problem by having my
plumbers enter the that property and bypass the errant
drain (and surreptitiously pour a some concrete down the old
porous hole).

I paid for everything including the architect ($150.00),
the plumber ($200.00), and some sections of PVC conduit
($50.00).

All this was a mere bagatelle when compared with lawyers,
and time and frustration when done the other way.


I would suggest you offer to pay 1/2 the tree removal costs,
and failing results there, offer to pay all the costs.
It's all very sad, but there's no other way. Note too that
will build credit with the neighbour, and keep money out of
lawyer's pockets.

Peter Jason wrote:
wrote in message
...
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'.



I had a similar problem with a neighbour who had leaky
storm-water drains.

His water was percolating under my house. I proved this by
secretly pouring a strong blue dye into his spouting, and
then observing a blue colour welling up from the soil under
my floorboards.

Instead of raising hell by going to lawyers, who will keep
a contention going for as long as the money lasts, I
contacted a local architect who agreed to liaise with the
neighbour on my behalf and to explain the problem. The
neighbour agreed for me to fix the problem by having my
plumbers enter the that property and bypass the errant
drain (and surreptitiously pour a some concrete down the old
porous hole).

I paid for everything including the architect ($150.00),
the plumber ($200.00), and some sections of PVC conduit
($50.00).

All this was a mere bagatelle when compared with lawyers,
and time and frustration when done the other way.


I would suggest you offer to pay 1/2 the tree removal costs,
and failing results there, offer to pay all the costs.
It's all very sad, but there's no other way. Note too that
will build credit with the neighbour, and keep money out of
lawyer's pockets.


This is from the original post -

"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."

Since it was apparently no possibility of negotiating with the neighbour or
the Council, some legal mechanism was requested.

Sometimes there is no practical option but to deal with a lawyer.