A tribunal has stepped in to help resolve a dispute between neighbours over gum trees.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) handed down its decision on September 25 following a hearing before member Peter Roney.
The case involved the body corporate for a commercial premises on Bartlett Road, Noosaville, and the owners of a neighbouring residential property regarding 13 gum trees growing along the boundary of the two blocks.
The body corporate filed an application with QCAT in January 2023 seeking orders that the neighbours, whose land the trees were on, prune or remove them and cover the costs of the work.
An arborist report was later ordered by QCAT, with the body corporate contributing $1000 towards the cost. The report recommended pruning and canopy management work, which the neighbours then had done.
“The respondents spent in excess of $8000 having work carried out to the trees which were the subject of the application, in particular the removal of 10 trees, three of the largest ones, one which was damaged and one struck by lightning,” the ruling stated.
At the hearing, the body corporate sought reimbursement of $2400 for pruning undertaken before the case was filed, claiming the work was needed to remove overhanging branches and prevent damage to its property. It also requested $1000 to recover the arborist report cost.
However, Mr Roney ruled that such claims were not supported under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011, which does not allow for costs incurred before an application is made.
That law says tree-keepers are responsible for ensuring that their trees do not cause injury to people or damage to land or property.
“This is not an application … that the tree-keepers pay compensation to the neighbour for damage to the neighbour’s land, or property on the neighbour’s land,” the ruling said.
Scroll down to SUBSCRIBE for our FREE news feed, direct to your inbox daily.
Mr Roney also noted the neighbours “acknowledged that they had a responsibility to engage in ongoing maintenance of the canopy” and confirmed they would continue to use a professional arborist for regular upkeep.
“This is not like some other cases in this jurisdiction where the respondents have acted in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the other party to the proceeding by advancing a fallacious and frankly untenable case,” the ruling stated.
“I refuse the application, that for an order that the applicant be paid $2400 in reimbursement to it of the cost it incurred in pruning some of these trees prior to the filing of the application.”
Mr Roney also dismissed the body corporate’s application for the cost of the arborist report.
The aerial imagery in this story is from Australian location intelligence company Nearmap. The company provides government organisations, architectural, construction and engineering firms, and other companies, with easy, instant access to high-resolution aerial imagery, city-scale 3D content, artificial intelligence data sets, and geospatial tools to assist with urban planning, monitoring and development projects in Australia, New Zealand and North America.
