Residents of Villa Street take fight over city views to QCAT
Tensions can run high when it comes to cityscapes, and two couples who own property in a suburb south of Brisbane discovered that the hard way when a conflict broke out over trees.
Cameron Greenfield and his wife Stephanie Ratcliffe bought their townhouse in 2019, one of three houses built behind an existing cottage on a large block on Villa Street in Annerley.
At the time, the townhouse offered views over Brisbane’s CBD, an ideal vantage point for Riverfire and New Year’s Eve fireworks.
But the couple said a large black bean tree, also known as the Moreton Bay chestnut, on their neighbour’s property was increasingly obstructing their view.
The couple said that within three years their view had been almost completely blocked by the native evergreen tree, which can grow between 20 and 35 meters tall and its canopy can extend up to 10 metres.
Cutting and pruning trees can be a costly affair. Negotiating when a neighbor wants to cut down their tree or cut down yours is even more challenging and expensive.
Greenfield and Ratcliffe claim they first approached Salvatore Pollicina, 69, and his wife Susan Pollicina, 64, the owners of the neighboring flats, in November 2021 with an offer to pay half the cost of pruning the tree.
The couple said they contacted Pollicinas again the following May, this time offering to cover the expenses in full, but did not receive any response.
Four months later Greenfield and Ratcliffe took their fight to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and won.
The ruling in their favor was issued late last month, more than a year after the court heard the dispute.
The Pollicinas bought a nondescript block of blue weatherboards and brick flats in Waverley Street as an investment through the Pollicina Family Trust more than 20 years ago. They live in Annerley but not at the Waverley Street address.
The block of flats is located diagonally behind Greenfield and Ratcliffe’s townhouse, and the Moreton Bay chestnut tree stands in the rearmost, south-east corner of Pollicinas’ property.
“ [Pollicinas’] QCAT member Chris Carrigan’s ruling reads: “The situation is that there is no light intrusion and there are many views of the city.”
“The trees and branches do not affect the application and therefore no one can enter the property without permission and no costs will be imposed on the defendant.
“Applicants [Greenfield and Ratcliffe] “It has caused a significant and unreasonable interference with the care of the tree and the use and enjoyment of its units.”
Arborist Tim Scott inspected the tree and two properties in June 2022.
“The tree is endemic to the region and is known for its rapid growth rate, colorful flowers, domed dome and large seed pods,” the report states.
“Large space is needed when choosing a planting site due to its mature height and strong root system known to clog drains and lift concrete.
“With the growth of the subject tree over the past three years… the inner view of the city can now only be seen from the back right corner of the balcony.
“Cityscapes, added scenery, light show, [and] Events such as River Fever and New Year celebrations… so it is fair to assume that the significantly reduced visibility will have a significant impact. [effect on] customers’ property value.
Pollicinas maintained that the “view corridor” had always been partially blocked by the tree, and that this had not changed significantly since Greenfield and Ratcliffe purchased their property.
The court relied on Article 49 Neighborhood Disputes (Hedges and Subdivision of Trees) Act 2011This ensures that “any person affected by a tree” can apply to have the tree removed or pruned.
“In general, there is no automatic power at common law to retain a view of an owner’s property,” the decision states.
“However, there is a provision in the confidentiality agreement as follows: [Neighbourhood Disputes Act] for the defense of an opinion in such cases as the court deems appropriate in respect of a tree affecting a neighbor’s use and enjoyment of his land.”
The court ordered Pollicinas to prune the tree by 4pm on June 19 this year to ensure Greenfield and Ratcliffe “restore and preserve” their original view.
“Scheduled pruning of the tree will continue going forward to preserve the landscape… and will be carried out at least once a year,” the decision states.
If the tree is not pruned by June 19, Greenfield and Ratcliffe will have the right to demand that the work be done and the costs covered by Pollicinas.
Susan Pollicina said she was surprised by the court’s decision, but she and her husband will comply with the orders.
“I’m disappointed,” he said in this caption.
She added that neither she nor her husband remembered Greenfield or Ratcliffe offering to pay for the removal of the tree in full.
“This is about everything being fair,” he said. “It’s an expensive business; cutting down trees is expensive.”
Greenfield and Ratcliffe declined to comment when contacted by this imprint.
The court ordered that the tree be pruned but not removed; for the tree is “a valuable asset that provides many benefits to the local fauna and also provides shade from the afternoon sun for the defendant or the tenants of his property”.
It was also stated that the tree is a nesting area for birds and a food source for nectar-feeding birds.
Start your day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
