The ‘wrong tree in the wrong place’ – a 35-metre or so Hoop Pine that caused neighbourly retaliation.
A homeowner who dug a pool in his own backyard has been hit with a court order to pay thousands to save his neighbour’s tree that became ‘stressed’ because of it.
In a ruling that should ring alarm bells for homeowners installing pools and outdoor structures on narrow suburban blocks, the homeowner has been hit with a damage bill after he installed a pool on his property – which stressed out the tree next door.
And both neighbours have also been issued strict prohibition against “neighbourly retaliation” – with the state tribunal having to formally order them to collect and dispose of the tree’s litter that lands on their own properties at their own cost.
The tree was there first, and is healthy – which saw it granted protection by the tribunal.
Allen Edward Blundell told to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal during a hearing over the case that his practice of tossing collected seed pods, spiked seeds and pine needles over the boundary fence was inappropriate and agreed to stop immediately.
This after Mr Blundell applied to QCAT demanding the complete removal of the self-sown Hoop Pine belonging to his neighbour – claiming the tree dropped hazardous spiked seeds, damaged his pool filtration system and blocked sunlight.
In the ruling, QCAT member Paratz AM said “this matter raises an issue that is becoming more significant in Brisbane and other cities and larger regional towns, particularly as development of smaller blocks increases.”
The judgment said it was well summed up as being “the wrong tree in the wrong place” but refused to order the removal of a healthy tree – saying “the neighbour has brought upon himself to a large extent the impact of the leaf litter by choosing to build a swimming pool under the branches of the tree”.
The judgment said “there is clearly no basis to order the removal of the tree at this time, being a healthy tree that is currently causing interference with the neighbour’s enjoyment of his land, where other measures such as pruning can currently sufficiently alle
Trees have a protection zone around them.
Not only was the removal request rejected but Mr Blundell was handed a bill for damage to his neighbour’s tree’s root system that allegedly occurred during pool construction in his backyard.
The tribunal heard that Mr Blundell installed a 4.8-metre by 4.0-metre in-ground concrete pool in November 2023, directly adjacent to the tree located on the boundary of his neighbour, Jason Nissen.
Expert evidence had confirmed the tree was a healthy, semi-mature specimen, and that root damage caused the canopy to brown and stressed the tree – triggering increased leaf drop into the newly constructed pool.
QCAT heard excavation work for the pool was carried out without consulting an arborist or obtaining non-destructive root investigations – which resulted in a 17.7 per cent incursion into the tree’s structural root zone (SRZ) and tree protection zone (TPZ).
“The neighbour has caused harm to the tree by excavating within the tree protection zone … the cost of that should similarly fall upon the neighbour who has caused the need for it.”
“The neighbour has brought upon himself the impact of leaf litter into the swimming pool which he knowingly built beneath the existing branches of the tree … the cost of doing so should not lie on the tree-keeper, but rather should lie on the neighbour who has put himself in that situation.”
Under the tribunal’s orders, Mr Blundell must pay for all remedial works required to fix the damage his pool excavation caused, including three soil treatments using organic biologicals, with at least one treatment including pesticides to restore root health.
Six months after soil treatments begin, he must also do branch length reduction pruning above his pool area to halve the overhanging branches.
The tree owner, Mr Nissen, was ordered to pay for standard Class 2 pruning in 12 to 18 months under Australian Standard AS 4373-2007.
