Ocean Shores neighbors are at war over the height of the hedge, as homeowners complain it obstructs their view of the water on NSW’s north coast

A neighbor dispute over the size of a hedge on a waterfront estate has led a court to step in to resolve the long-running battle after negotiations broke down.

Catherine L’Estrange and Louise-Anne Louw applied to the NSW Land and Environment Court to order their neighbors Allison and Jason Cunial to trim and maintain their hedge to a reasonable height.

Ms L’Estrange and Ms Louw, who live in Ocean Shores, north of Byron Bay on the NSW north coast, said that since they bought the property against the Cunials escarpment in 2021, their ocean views had been obstructed.

The two women won the dispute, with their neighbors now being ordered to regularly prune the row of 13 lilly-pilly trees that form a screen along the border.

In response to the application, the Cunials said they had trimmed their hedge and it did not seriously obstruct their neighbours’ view.

The hedge is about 3.5-3.8 meters high, but has been higher.

“This view was the main view available from the applicant’s residence when they bought it,” David Galwey, the acting Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court, said in his decision.

“Their living areas, where they and their guests are likely to spend most of their time, have large glass doors and windows facing east.

“When I look at these factors together – the value of the view, the degree to which it is obstructed and the commonly used areas from which it was available – I find that trees in the hedge are a serious obstacle to applicants’ view.”

Before taking the matter to court, the neighbors had been negotiating for about two years, trying to agree on the height and maintenance of the trees.

“A matter that could reasonably have been resolved by a neighbor dispute over the fence has moved to court,” Galwey said.

The Cunials submitted to the court that they were willing to maintain the hedge, but their neighbors argued that this was unlikely given their previous resistance to trimming and maintaining the hedge at a reasonable height.

The Cunials also argued that the hedge was valuable for their privacy, shade and coolness, providing a screen to limit the view of their home from their neighbors’ property.

The court heard that the Cunials trimmed the hedge, but only after receiving legal letters or being asked to start legal proceedings.

“It seems to me that the parties could have reached a reasonable agreement that covered both the privacy of the respondents and the views of the applicants,” Galwey said.

“While the respondents have made a commitment to do so in the future, their reluctance to do so thus far leads me to issue orders to keep the hedge up.”

After an on-site hearing in June, Glawey finally made orders in favor of L’Estrange and Louw.

“I think the respondents’ lilly-pilly hedge seriously obscures applicants’ view and the situation warrants orders for the trees to be pruned on a regular basis,” said Galwey.

In a decision on Tuesday, the court ordered neighbors must hire a contractor to trim the hedge so that it is no more than 12 feet (3.8 meters) tall and no branches extend beyond the boundary every February and August each year.

Neighbors should also give one week’s notice of any pruning event, and pruning should be completed within reasonable hours of the day.

The case followed a similar case earlier this year, in which neighbors faced palm trees in court after one of them complained they were obstructing her spectacular views.

Georgina Black said her uninterrupted view of Sydney Harbor was obstructed when neighbor Samira Jeihooni planted six cabbage palms on her Rose Bay property in November 2021.

Ms Black, who bought her waterfront home in 2015 for $27.08 million, asked the Land and Environment Court to order Ms Jeihooni to remove the trees, which can grow up to 50 feet (15 m) tall.

She said the cabbage trees obscured her vision and Ms. Jeihooni had to plant a different type of tree that would not exceed eight meters in height.

Before the trees were planted, Ms Black had spectacular views of the Harbor Bridge and Opera House from her dining room, kitchen and a first-floor bedroom, she said.

Ms Black’s urban planner said in her filing that four of her neighbors’ trees had a “serious and devastating impact” on her views.

But Ms. Jeihooni said the trees helped provide privacy and shade to her garden, pool and home.

In her decision, Acting Commissioner Lynne Sheridan said, “The views previously available have contributed significantly to the qualitative enjoyment of (Ms. Black’s home).”

The Commissioner noted that Ms. Jeihooni had had the trees trimmed since the application.

She also pointed out that Ms. Black’s husband offered to pay for the removal of the trees, but was rejected by Ms. Jeihooni’s husband.

“The nature of the communication between the parties during the hearing reassured me that they are unlikely to reach an agreement,” Ms Sheridan said.

In order for the Jeihoonis to cut down their trees, the court had to determine that two or more trees formed a hedge and severely obstructed the view.

While Ms. Black’s arborist said that the palms did indeed form a hedge, Ms. Jeihooni’s arborist said they did not and never will, as their leaves will never connect.

Ms. Sheridan, who visited the site, found that the trees did not form a hedge and gave three reasons in her explanation.

First, she said the palm trees weren’t planted close enough together to form a continuous barrier or screen.

“Secondly, I think it unlikely that anyone trying to create a hedge or screen would have planted palm trees that typically have a straight, slender trunk with leaves at the top of the trunk,” Ms Sheridan said.

“Thirdly, there is no sign that these trees were ever maintained by (Mrs. Jeihooni) as a hedge.”

Mrs. Sheridan added that the trees did little to obstruct Mrs. Black’s view.

‘For example, my observations on the spot were that the palms obscure the view of the harbor and Sydney Harbor Bridge from different seats at the dining table or from a certain view from the kitchen.

“However, the totality of the view, including views of Sydney Harbour, Harbor Bridge and the Opera House from other areas of the dining room, dining room, living room, kitchen, secondary living areas and bedrooms, is preserved,” she said.

Ms. Sheridan denied Ms. Black off.