Millionaires in one of Australia’s wealthiest suburbs wage huge legal battle after neighbour whinges palm trees are obstructing his exclusive views
Feuding neighbours in one of Sydney’s wealthiest suburbs have faced off in court in a dispute over trees that were obstructing multi-million dollar views.
John Curtis, the former chairman of Allianz Australia, applied for an order through the NSW Land and Environment Court for palm trees to be removed from the neighbouring yard of Indonesian businessman Winardi Pranatajaya in Darling Point.
In a submission to the court, Mr Curtis claimed the palm trees blocked the ‘expansive view’ of the Opera House, CBD and Harbour Bridge from the first floor of his home that he bought in 1993.
Land and Environment Court of NSW acting commissioner David Galwey ruled against him, finding the trees were ‘not severely obstructing a view’.
Mr Galwey told the final court hearing, which took place at the property, the ‘reasons to avoid interfering with the trees outweigh Mr Curtis’ interest’ in preserving his view.
‘To my mind, the trees’ benefits, particularly their contribution to the amenity of Mr Pranatajaya’s property, outweigh the temporary nature of the view obstruction that seems about to befall Mr Curtis’ property,’ Mr Galwey said.
Mr Curtis had pointed out that that the council regularly trims the fig trees on public land along New Beach Road precisely so they do not impede harbour views, so trees on private land should also be prevented from blocking sightlines.
Former Chairman of Allianz Australia John Curtis submitted a court order that his neighbour remove a series of palm trees that were obstructing the views from his Darling Point home
‘The tops of the fig trees along New Beach Road sit just below the Harbour Bridge and CBD,’ Mr Galwey said.
‘According to Mr Curtis, council maintains those trees at a height of 14.2 metres to protect these views for property owners.’
Under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act, the court can order the removal or pruning of trees.
However the trees must be ‘severely’ obstructing sunlight or views and the neighbour must make a ‘reasonable effort’ to reach an agreement before taking the matter to court – which Mr Curtis did.
The act applies to trees planted in a row ‘so as to form a hedge’.
In this case the court found the palms did not form a hedge and therefore the tree dispute laws did not apply.
The acting commissioner said a photo tendered to the court as part of an arborist report ‘shows the fig trees along New Beach Road behind the palms, with the fig trees visible to the left and right of the palm fronds near the centre of the photo’.
Mr Galwey said the fig trees obstructed ‘valued view elements including the Harbour Bridge, the Opera House and the CBD.
Mr Curtis claimed the palm trees blocked his ‘expansive view’ from the first floor of his home which includes the sails of the Opera House, water views, the CBD and the Harbour Bridge
The court rejected the order, claiming the palm trees did not ‘severely’ obstruct his view and only temporarily hindered the property’s vista
‘Where palm fronds reach above the sightline to the tops of the figs, they obstruct only a small part of the sky view,’ he said.
Mr Curtis’ barrister argued once the palm trees grew they would obstruct the view from his first floor living area and the main bedroom.
The acting commissioner accepted the argument but claimed the obstruction of Mr Curtis’ view would only be ‘temporary’.
‘[As] these palms grow taller, the view obstruction they cause moves upward, eventually allowing the view again beneath their fronds,’ Mr Galwey said.
Mr Curtis’ barrister also argued the palm trees breached a height restriction on Mr Pranatajaya’s property of buildings and ornamentations.
However, Mr Galwey explained it was not clear whether trees were included in the definition of ornamentation and said it was not a matter for the these proceedings.
He added while the matter was not resolved and the order denied, the court was not belittling the nature of the dispute.
‘The court hopes that the parties find a way of reaching a suitable resolution,’ Mr Gawley said.
Mr Curtis is currently the chairman of Thrive’s advisory council and has previously been chairman of St George Bank and deputy chairman of Westpac Banking Corporation.
