Fight over tree blocking apartment’s city views lands in tribunal

Tensions can run high when city views are at stake, and two couples owning property in a southside Brisbane suburb have discovered this the hard way in a clash over trees.

Cameron Greenfield and his wife Stephanie Ratcliffe bought their townhouse – one of three built behind an existing cottage on a large block on Villa Street in Annerley – in 2019.

At the time, the townhouse provided views of Brisbane’s CBD – an ideal vantage point for Riverfire and New Year’s Eve fireworks.

However, the couple said their view was progressively obstructed by a large black bean tree, also known as a Moreton Bay chestnut, on their neighbour’s property.

Within three years, the couple said, their view was almost entirely blocked by the native evergreen tree, which can grow between 20 and 35 metres tall with a canopy stretching 10 metres.

Cutting and lopping trees can be a costly exercise. Chopping a neighbour’s tree – or negotiating when they want to chop one of yours – is even more challenging and expensive.

Greenfield and Ratcliffe maintain they first approached the owners of the neighbouring flats Salvatore Pollicina, 69, and his wife Susan Pollicina, 64, with an offer to pay half the cost of pruning the tree in November 2021.

The couple said they contacted the Pollicinas again the following May, this time with an offer to cover the cost entirely, but received no response.

Four months later, Greenfield and Ratcliffe took their fight to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and won.

The judgment in their favour was published late last month, more than a year after the tribunal heard their dispute.

The Pollicinas purchased a nondescript block of blue weatherboard and brick flats on Waverley Street more than 20 years ago as an investment, through their Pollicina Family Trust. 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 far back, south-eastern corner of the Pollicinas’ property.

“The [Pollicinas’] case is that there is no interference of light and there are plenty of views to the city,” the judgment by QCAT member Chris Carrigan reads.

“The tree and the branches do not affect the application and therefore no one is to enter their property without permission and no costs will be incurred by the respondent.

“The applicants [Greenfield and Ratcliffe] maintain the tree has caused substantial and unreasonable interference with their use and enjoyment of their unit.”

Arborist Tim Scott inspected the tree and the two properties in June 2022.

“The tree is native to the area and is known for its fast growth rate, its colourful flowers, its domed canopy and its large seed pods,” his report states.

“Ample room is required when selecting a planting site due to its mature height and its vigorous root system that is known to block drains and lift concrete.

“With the growth that the subject tree has made over the last three years ... the view of the inner city is now only able to be glimpsed from the rear right corner of the balcony.

“City views are well known to increase property values due to the added vista, the light show, [and] events such as Riverfire and New Year’s celebrations … so it would be fair to estimate that the significantly diminished view will have had a substantial [effect on] the clients’ property value.”

The Pollicinas maintained the “view corridor” was always partially obstructed by the tree, and it had not substantially changed since Greenfield and Ratcliffe purchased their property.

The tribunal relied on section 49 of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011, which ensures that “any person affected by a tree” can apply for its removal, or pruning.

“Generally, at common law, there is no automatic entitlement for the retention of a view from an owner’s property,” the judgment reads.

“However, there is a provision in the NDA [Neighbourhood Disputes Act] for a view being maintained where the tribunal considers it appropriate in relation to a tree affecting the neighbour’s … use and enjoyment of the neighbour’s land.”

The tribunal ordered the Pollicinas to prune the tree by 4pm on June 19 this year to enable Greenfield and Ratcliffe to “regain and maintain” their original view.

“Scheduled pruning of the tree is to continue thereafter to maintain the view … and shall be conducted on at least one occasion annually,” the judgment reads.

If the tree is not pruned by June 19, Greenfield and Ratcliffe are entitled to have the work carried out and the cost reimbursed by the Pollicinas.

Susan Pollicina said she was surprised by the tribunal’s decision, although she and her husband would comply with the orders made.

“I am disappointed,” she told this masthead.

She added that she was not aware of what her husband had discussed with Greenfield and Ratcliffe about the division of costs.

“It’s about the fairness of it all,” she said. “It is an expensive job – any tree lopping is expensive.”

Greenfield and Ratcliffe declined to comment when contacted by this masthead.

The tribunal ordered the tree be pruned, but not removed, as it remained a “valuable amenity asset that contributes numerous benefits to local fauna, as well as providing shade from the afternoon sun for the respondent or the tenants of its property”.

It also noted the tree was a nesting site for birds and a source of food for nectar feeding birds.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.