Neighbourhood dispute over trees blocking family’s lakefront views heats up as court makes major ruling

A bitter neighbourhood dispute over the height of several 20-year-old trees blocking a family’s lakefront views has landed in court – with a judge slapping down a proposal to have the evergreens removed from the property. Peter Economos took his neighbours John and Angie Warden to the NSW Land and Environment Court seeking the removal of three trees planted along the rear boundary of the Warden’s Mount Warrigal property, overlooking Lake Illawarra. Mr Economos, who has lived in the property south of Mr Warden’s since 2014, argued the 6-7m trees on Mr Warden’s property to the north blocked his lakeside views from his rear elevated deck and risked blocking them to a “severe” degree if not maintained. Mr Warden said the trees provided privacy from his neighbour, saying he was agreeable to having the trees pruned at a height of 2.5m from the top of the existing 1.5m Colorbond fence separating the two properties. “Recent pruning of the trees has not occurred due to physical limitations of the respondent (Mr Warden),” Acting Commissioner Peter Nichols said in his judgment. “In the application … Mr Economos seeks orders to trim and maintain trees to a height to reinstate the views previously enjoyed before the trees grew in height.” A hearing commenced with an inspection of Mr Warden’s rear yard and included viewings from Mr Economos’ property. “Mr Warden emphasised the desire to retain the existing trees for privacy and strongly resisted pruning lower than the previously pruned height,” Mr Nichols said. The four-bedroom home Mr Warden currently resides in was last sold in 2018 for $670,000, according to a realestate.com.au listing. “This beautifully renovated residence provides an idyllic family home crafted for effortless living and entertaining,” the online listing states. “It has a lovely coastal lifestyle feel within walking distance to Lake Illawarra foreshore, great commercial hub on Mackenzie Ave, major shopping district, schools and boat ramps.” The three trees which have caused such a legal headache are visible in the backyard of the home – some of the photos depicting various pruning works which had been undertaken years ago. All three trees are protected by the Shellharbour City Council’s tree management controls. Mr Economos’ property contains a rear elevated deck with views generally to the north across Lake Illawarra, with the court noting views were “present from the elevated deck to the west and east, across the lake and district across side boundaries”. In his judgment, Mr Nichols found the trees were not of such a size or in a sufficiently prominent location to make a marked contribution to public amenity. He also noted they could be regularly pruned without unduly affecting their health or function. “Pruning may result in thicker growth, and thus enhance the hedge’s utility for the respondents,” Mr Nichols continued. “Pruning of the trees will be ordered so the lake views are retained for the applicant (to a height of 6m above ground level), while retaining most of the trees’ benefits of privacy and landscape amenity for Mr Warden. “This will result in little loss of amenity for the respondent, and significant benefit for the applicants.” Mr Nichols said costs for an application of this sort brought on by Mr Economos usually fell on the respondent. However, he said aside from maintenance there was no actual reason to prune the trees. “The benefits gained by ongoing tree pruning go directly to the applicant,” Mr Nichols said. “For this reason, in this case the costs of tree pruning shall be borne by the applicant.” The Land and Environment Court dismissed the application to have the trees completely removed, instead ordering Mr Economos to engage and pay for an AQF level 3 arborist to prune them to a height of 2.5m above the existing Colorbond fence “to the previous pruning stubs”. “The work … is to be carried out in accordance with the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry,” the judgment states. The court ordered additional work to be undertaken every three years after the initial pruning and for Mr Warden to “provide reasonable access to the property for a contractor to undertake pruning works”.