A dispute between neighbours over a tree estimated to be about 70 years old has been heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The matter revolved around a Eucalyptus microcorys, commonly known as a tallowwood tree, growing between adjoining properties in Mountain Ridge Crescent, Buderim.
The applicants claimed the tree, which is about 35 metres tall, should be removed because it had already caused damage to their house, and was likely to again in the future.
But the respondents opposed any attempt to remove it and took issue with claims about the source of debris in their neighbours’ yard, saying an arborist had conducted annual maintenance on the tree for years.
QCAT member Peter Roney handed down his decision on October 24 following a hearing in Caloundra, which also detailed the background to the dispute.
It said the applicants filed an application in July 2022 under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 for the removal of the tree, which was growing about 2.5m inside the boundary line of the respondents’ property.
“It has already caused serious damage to our house during the supercell storm on November 17, 2019, when large branches fell onto our driveway and roof. One of several large branches fell onto our roof, breaking a solid steel gutter bracket before bouncing off into our driveway,” their application said.
“It is very likely in future, especially during our storm season, that falling branches will cause further damage and may go through our roof, break a window or damage our solar panels. There is a risk of the whole tree toppling over and completely destroying our house. There is a risk of seriously damaging vehicles using the driveway.
“A projectile (branch) falling from a height over 30 metres could potentially go through our roof and kill or seriously maim a person on our property.
“We seek to have the tree removed as no amount of money or paying of insurance excess/rise in premium would compensate us for a serious injury to persons or damage to property.”
Related story: Neighbourhood tree dispute ends up in tribunal
In March 2023 the neighbours responded by saying they opposed any removal of the tree, pointing out that a qualified arborist had conducted maintenance on the tree for years at their expense.
“They put into evidence the invoices for that work, which total more than $9000 between 2018 and 2023,” Mr Roney wrote.
He also said two expert arborist reports had been produced, both of which concluded the tree was in good condition.
“The subject tree extends across the dividing fence approximately 2.5m at a height of approximately 14m above ground level,” Mr Roney wrote.
One of the reports concluded the native tree was “remnant vegetation” that pre-dated the homes on both properties, which were built in 1988, and was an “attractive amenity addition to the surrounding landscape”. It said the tree was a food source for wildlife including koalas, gliders, possums, nectar-feeding birds and insects.
The report said a “moderate amount” of dead wood up to 3cm in diameter was observed in the upper canopy.
“These small pieces of dead wood are reasoned to be the primary cause of nuisance for the applicant,” it said.
“The pieces of dead wood that are shedding, although small, still gain considerable inertia in an unbroken fall. Removal of all dead wood within the canopy will mitigate any potential damage as well as forming a base line to determine if dead wood formation is natural or being accelerated due to over pruning and tree decline.”
Mr Roney ultimately ruled that all dead branches of more than 1cm diameter over the applicants’ property be removed, and that the tree be inspected yearly by an arborist to determine its health and any pruning needs.
“I do not consider that destruction of the tree is needed to prevent serious injury to any person or prevent serious damage or substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the applicants’ use and enjoyment of their property,” he wrote.
“With a proper maintenance regime of the kind recommended by the arborists, unreasonable interference with the applicants’ use and enjoyment of their property can be prevented.”
He also noted the cost of damage caused to the applicants’ gutter after the 2019 storms was met by their neighbours.
“The position of the applicants was lacking in proportionality and was an unreasonable response to the difficulties that the presence of this tree presented. They were unprepared to resolve the issue for anything less than orders for the destruction of the tree,” Mr Roney wrote.
“My impression was that their evidence was often prone to overstatement and argumentativeness seen to support their contention that the tree ought to be destroyed.”
“Improperly, in my view, the applicants sought to challenge the objectivity, honesty and integrity of the QCAT-appointed tree assessor who did the assessment of the tree and wrote a report which by implication rejected the contention that it should be destroyed.”
