Background
A large, mature Sydney blue gum grew near the boundary between Laima Crook’s Chatswood property and the home of Ken and Robyn Greenaway. Large branches overhung the Greenaways’ dwelling. Dead and smaller branches had fallen and broken roof tiles, and a branch dropped during earlier pruning had damaged tiles, sarking, electrical cables and gas pipes. Concerned that larger branches could cause serious damage or injury, the Greenaways sought an order under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) requiring Ms Crook to remove the tree.
The Greenaways relied on an arborist’s report recommending removal because of asserted internal decay and structural risk. The Court found that report’s limited resistance-drilling data did not establish the extent of decay and that its conclusions were inconsistent and inadequately supported. The Court ordered Ms Crook to obtain sonic-tomography testing, which showed that 77% of the stem was sound wood at the lower test point and 90% was sound at the higher point. The resulting report assessed the stem as structurally viable and recommended retaining the tree.
Willoughby City Council was joined as a second respondent after the Greenaways indicated that access through an adjoining Council-managed reserve might be required for tree work. The Court also found that the property’s C4 Environmental Living zoning had the substantial character of a residential zone, so the Act applied.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that orders could be made because the tree had caused damage to the Greenaways’ property, satisfying the statutory threshold. It nevertheless declined to order removal. The tomography evidence showed that the western stem remained structurally viable, and the Court gave little weight to the contrary report. The tree’s good vigour and substantial environmental value—including its contribution to local habitat, biodiversity and the natural landscape—also weighed in favor of retention.
The Court concluded that pruning was sufficient to prevent further damage or injury. It ordered Ms Crook, at her expense, to have an insured, qualified arborist reduce or remove western crown branches so that no large branches remained above the Greenaways’ home, remove specified dead branches within 30 days, and undertake recurring pruning every three years beginning in July 2029. The work must comply with the applicable Australian pruning standard and SafeWork NSW code.
The orders require advance notice and disclosure of the arborist’s insurance details. They also require the Greenaways and Council, upon at least seven days’ notice, to provide reasonable access through their respective properties for the work.
Key Takeaways
- Proof that a neighboring tree has caused property damage permits the Court to make preventive orders, but does not automatically justify removing the tree.
- The Court preferred sonic-tomography evidence showing the extent and location of decay over inconclusive resistance-drilling results and unsupported assertions of catastrophic failure risk.
- Targeted and recurring pruning can be ordered when it adequately manages branch-failure risk while preserving a tree with significant environmental and amenity value.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden facing a landowner seeking removal of a mature neighboring tree. An arborist’s recommendation alone may carry little weight if the underlying testing does not establish the extent of structural weakness or if the conclusions exceed what the data supports.
It also underscores that the environmental, ecological and amenity values listed in the Trees Act are mandatory considerations. Even after the jurisdictional damage threshold is met, the Court may choose proportionate risk-management measures that preserve a valuable urban tree.