Mackay couple takes neighbours to court over trees

A dispute between two neighbouring properties has been determined in court over claims backyard trees were impeding river and park views.

Mackay couple takes neighbours to court claim trees are blocking the breeze and their views of the Gooseponds.

A dispute between two neighbouring Mackay properties has been determined in court after a couple demanded the removal of several large trees they claimed were too big and disturbed their views.

Mark and Helen Parker argued lillypilly trees planted by UR Unlimited Resources Pty Ltd impeded their views over the Gooseponds alleging it was a “severe obstruction”.

The two properties share a common boundary in North Mackay and to provide a privacy screening UR Unlimited planted about 24 lillypillies within their land.

“Over the years the trees have grown to the point where the (Parkers) now say that their view of Gooseponds is obstructed, and the tees interfere with cooling breezes from the south/east in summer,” Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Member Richard Oliver, who determined on the papers, said in a recent judgment.

However UR Unlimited Resources hit back contesting allegations “the trees are at an excessive height, blocking views and obstructing the breeze”, claiming there had been “no real dialogue between the parties about the tree issue”.

Mackay couple takes neighbours to court claim trees are blocking the breeze and their views of the Gooseponds.

The judgment stated the respondents claimed they had trimmed the trees back and had even tried to trim back branches overhanging the boundary “but were told not to do so from the (Parkers’) land in case of an accident” and the only access was from their land.

“The material filed by both parties demonstrates that over the years there has been little real attempt to resolve the dispute through dialogue,” Mr Oliver said.

As a result the Tribunal ordered an independent tree assessor review the situation and imagery revealed none of the trees were planted near or on the common boundary.

“This group of trees do not cause substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the (Parkers’) land,” Mr Oliver found.

The assessment did reveal a tree in the Parkers’ own backyard “also impedes the view if not fully cut back”.

The Parkers claim the trees “prevented airflow and inhibited a view to a tributary of the Pioneer River and John Breen Memorial Park”.

The judgment revealed that photos taken from the respondent’s property, which is more elevated and had a clear view towards the Gooseponds “show no view of the river or the park is possible due to all the vegetation that grows on all of the blocks in between”.

Mr Oliver dismissed the application.