Justin Hemmes wins court battle with neighbours over ‘tall trees’ at The Newport Arms pub
A BIG branch of hotelier Justin Hemmes’s hospitality empire landed him in court thanks to neighbours twigging he had planted taller-than-expected trees — but luckily for him the complainants proved to have more bark than bite.
NSW
Don't miss out on the headlines from NSW. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A BIG branch of hotelier Justin Hemmes’s hospitality empire landed him in court thanks to neighbours twigging he had planted taller-than-expected trees — but luckily for him the complainants proved to have more bark than bite.
Hemmes emerged the victor on Thursday after legal action by three residents who live adjacent to his sprawling northern beaches mega-pub The Newport Arms.
The trio claimed a row of trees on the property, which were craned in shortly before the hotel’s official relaunch last year, had blocked their sunlight and ruined their multimillion-dollar water views.
The 40m long line of the trees runs along the pub’s driveway on the side of the residents’ waterfront apartment block on Beaconsfield St.
Desmond Cleary, Thomas Crehan and Alan Latimer claim the trees either blocked the sunlight coming into their luxury apartments, severely obstructed their views over Pittwater and into neighbouring Bayview — or both.
However, the NSW Land and Environment Court dismissed the application to force Hemmes to prune the line of 4.5m-tall lillypilly trees back to a height of 3m.
OTHER NEWS: HEMMES BUYS THE COLLAROY HOTEL
OTHER NEWS: HEMMES SET TO REVAMP ALEXANDRIA HOTEL
Commissioner Fakes agreed with an argument by Hemmes’s lawyers that a diagram submitted by the residents illustrating their loss of sunlight was “not prepared in accordance” with the rules of the court.
This meant the degree to which the residents claimed the trees were blocking sun to their apartments could not be proven, which tainted their case, the court heard.
“While I understand the intent of the photographs ... they are insufficient to prove (the neighbours’) contentions,” Commissioner Fakes told the court.
The resolution may have been in Hemmes’s favour but a spokeswoman for the Merivale boss said there would continue to be a “conversation” about the trees and hoped a happy compromise could be reached.
“We don’t want angry neighbours ... they are nice people,” Hemmes’s spokeswoman said.
“We will of course look at ways that we can keep all parties happy and that may mean making some modifications to the trees moving forward. Justin is definitely open to that.”
Mr Crehan declined to comment on behalf of the residents until they had received and read the commissioner’s written judgment.
Commissioner Fakes ruled the trees were also consistent with planning controls and the views they were blocking were already “constrained” by the pub, its car park and other trees.
It also could be “detrimental” to the tree’s health to prune them to 3m, she said.
She also ruled the obstruction of the view did not meet the “severe” threshold under law and said the property still had “expansive and near views of Pittwater” and the Mona Vale shore to the south.