Neighbour claims Brisbane views lost by tree

A NEIGHBOUR claimed a large tree blocked Brisbane city views worth $500,000 to her property’s value and went to court to have it cut down. Now a tribunal has had its say on the issue.

Property at Auchenflower that has been in court over a Chinese Elm blocking the view. Dr Kathryn Radford is the owner of the property

THE owners of a chinese elm, which a neighbour said blocked city views worth $500,000 to her property’s value, have won an appeal and saved the tall shade tree from being cut down.

The 9m chinese elm, a declared environmental weed in Queensland, has been the subject of a “fiercely contested’’ dispute in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal since 2014.

In 2015, Dr Kathryn Radford, of Auchenflower, won the right to have her neighbour’s tree cut down and replaced with other trees, at her expense.

Dr Radford, who bought her house in 2003, but then moved and raised it on the block, said she had lost “fabulous’’ city skyline views because of the tree.

But the tree owners, who said it provided valuable shade, said any city views only became apparent when they cleared other vegetation in 2005 and the chinese elm grew up.

A tribunal member found the views from the house, at the time Dr Radford took possession of the land, could still be viewed from specific points in the repositioned house.

But a person had to be standing on the top of the rear stairs, lying down on the upper deck or standing on a chair on the lower level to see that same city view.

Nevertheless, tribunal member David Paratz found there was a severe obstruction of the view from Dr Radford’s home, caused by the tree and ordered it be removed.

The tree owners appealed and last month tribunal members Justice Tim Carmody and Senior Member Ian Brown overturned the decision.

Mr Brown accepted the view from the rear of Dr Radford’s house when she took possession showed a cityscape and the tree later largely obstructed the view.

But he said because of the “contrived’’ nature of the cityscape viewing points from the repositioned house, the view obstruction caused by the tree could not be called severe.

Mr Brown said Dr Radford also failed to prove substantial, ongoing, unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of her land.