A Sydney woman who took her neighbour to court, claiming that their palm trees were obstructing her Harbour views, has had the complaint dismissed.
Georgina Black, who lives in the affluent Sydney suburb of Rose Bay, said she had enjoyed uninterrupted views from her $28 million waterfront home, before her neighbour planted six cabbage tree palms after a rebuild of the property.
Ms Black bought her home in 2015, which boasted “iconic” views of the Sydney city skyline, Opera House and Harbour Bridge.
Court papers said, “She enjoyed uninterrupted views from those areas to the Sydney City skyline prior to the planting of the palm trees.”
But in November 2021, neighbour Samira Jeihooni planted the trees in the pool area of her home during a knockdown-rebuild of her property.
Cabbage tree palms can reach heights of up to 15m at maturity.
Ms Black applied through the Land and Environment Court to have her neighbour remove the palms and plant in their place a different species of tree that would grow no higher than 8m.
“The previously available views contributed significantly to the qualitative enjoyment of these spaces,” the court papers noted.
However Ms Jeihooni argued that the trees gave privacy to her garden as well as providing shade around the pool area. The claim also detailed the approved planning application which included the type of trees to be planted.
Since the application was lodged, Ms Jeihooni had taken steps to prune the trees, Acting Commissioner Lynne Sheridan said in the court decision.
At one point, Ms Black’s husband offered to pay for the removal of the trees, but that was declined by Ms Jeihooni’s husband.
“The nature of communications between the parties during the hearing satisfied me that they would be unlikely to reach agreement,” Ms Sheridan said.
A major argument by Ms Black and her arborist was that the trees formed a hedge. However Ms Sheridan’s findings determined that this was not the case.
“I find the trees are not planted to form a hedge for three reasons. Firstly, the palm trees are not planted close enough together to form a continuous barrier or a screen,” she said.
“Secondly, I find it unlikely that someone attempting to establish a hedge or screen would have planted palm trees which characteristically have a straight slender trunk with fronds at the top of the trunk. It is more likely, as suggested by Mr Hemmings, that these were planted as specimen trees to provide amenity for users of the swimming pool.
“Thirdly, there is no sign that these trees have ever been maintained by the Respondent as a hedge.”
After a visit to the site, Ms Sheridan said she thought the “vast majority of views from the Applicant’s dwelling are still available”.
“For example, my observations on site were that the palms do obstruct views of the harbour and the Sydney Harbour Bridge from several seats at the dining room table or from one particular view from the kitchen, however the totality of the view, including views of Sydney Harbour, the Harbour Bridge and Opera House from other parts of the dining room table, dining room, living room, kitchen, secondary living areas and bedrooms are retained,” she said in her dismissal of the application.
“From my observations, I do not find that there is a severe obstruction of views here.”