Lonnon v Clow [2020] NSWLEC 1091

Lonnon v Clow [2020] NSWLEC 1091

The bamboo formed a tall, dense hedge along the common boundary and severely obstructed the most valued element of the applicant's view from his dwelling. After considering privacy, amenity and the possibility of future development, the Court found that a 4 to 5 metre hedge would still provide effective screening and that the applicant's interests in restoring and maintaining the view outweighed reasons not to interfere with the bamboo. Pruning twice yearly, rather than removal and replacement, was sufficient to restore and maintain the view while allowing the respondents to retain the bamboo.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Final Decision After Onsite Hearing
Outcome
Orders made requiring regular pruning of the bamboo; removal and replacement not ordered unless the respondents choose to remove and replace the bamboo in future.
Legal Topics
['bamboo Hedge' 'view Obstruction' 'pruning Orders' 'neighbouring Properties']
['environmental Law' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours'] ['bamboo Hedge' 'view Obstruction' 'pruning Orders' 'neighbouring Properties']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Application Under Part 2 a of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (nsw) / Final Decision After Onsite Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the bamboo formed a hedge to which Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) applied.' "Whether the bamboo severely obstructed a view from the applicant's dwelling." "Whether the applicant's interest in having the bamboo pruned outweighed reasons not to interfere with it." 'Whether orders should require removal and replacement of the bamboo or pruning and maintenance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The bamboo formed a tall, dense hedge along the common boundary and severely obstructed the most valued element of the applicant's view from his dwelling. After considering privacy, amenity and the possibility of future development, the Court found that a 4 to 5 metre hedge would still provide effective screening and that the applicant's interests in restoring and maintaining the view outweighed reasons not to interfere with the bamboo. Pruning twice yearly, rather than removal and replacement, was sufficient to restore and maintain the view while allowing the respondents to retain the bamboo.

Court Disposition

Orders made requiring regular pruning of the bamboo; removal and replacement not ordered unless the respondents choose to remove and replace the bamboo in future.

Orders

  • ['During April and October each year, beginning April 2020, the respondents are to prune all bamboo along the common boundary they share with the applicant to a height no greater than 4 metres.' "The respondents are to give the applicant at least two days' notice of the works." 'The applicant is to allow any access...