In a leafy suburb of Sydney, a homeowner's concern for safety has sparked a year-long dispute with local authorities over a towering gum tree that straddles the line between private property and public land. This saga not only highlights the complexities of property law but also serves as a cautionary tale for other Australians who might find themselves in a similar predicament.

Billy, a resident of Mortdale in Sydney's south, has been locked in a bitter war with the Georges River Council over a gum tree he deems dangerous. The tree, which is suffering from a fungal infection, has become a source of anxiety for Billy, who fears it could topple over and cause serious harm or even death.

Sydney homeowner disputed Georges River Council over a dangerous gum tree. Credit: Facebook

The gum tree in question has grown in such a way that it sits half on Billy's property and half on council-owned land, complicating the issue of responsibility. Billy has expressed his willingness to work with the council to resolve the matter, suggesting a shared agreement for the removal of the tree. However, the definition of responsibility remains murky, with the council indicating that Billy could be held liable for any damage or injury caused by the tree, whether from falling branches or its eventual collapse.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the tree's roots have altered the landscape of Billy's garden, transforming what was once a flat area into a slope. This not only affects the aesthetics and usability of his property but also raises concerns about the structural integrity of the land and any nearby infrastructure.

Despite the potential risks, the council has maintained that the tree's health is satisfactory following an investigation and pruning efforts. They have also indicated a willingness to address the issue of the footpath being affected by root growth. However, the council requires Billy's written consent to prepare a report for their consideration regarding the tree's removal, which he has yet to provide.

This standoff between Billy and the Georges River Council underscores the challenges homeowners face when dealing with vegetation that crosses boundaries. It's a reminder that while trees are an essential part of our urban landscape, providing shade and beauty, they can also become points of contention and potential hazards.

For our readers, this story serves as a reminder to stay informed about your local council's policies on tree management and to understand your rights and responsibilities when it comes to trees on or near your property. It's also important to maintain open communication with your council and seek professional advice if you find yourself in a similar situation.

The case also raises questions about the balance between preserving our natural environment and ensuring public safety. How do we protect our cherished green spaces while also safeguarding our homes and loved ones? It's a delicate balance that requires cooperation and understanding from all parties involved.

Key Takeaways

• A Sydney homeowner is in a dispute with Georges River Council over a large, potentially dangerous gum tree.
• The tree stands both on the homeowner's property and council land, leading to confusion over responsibility.
• The council has pruned the tree and deemed its health satisfactory but acknowledges the issue with root growth affecting the footpath.
• Should the tree need to be removed, both parties would have to agree and be liable, according to the council.
• (Note: These four key takeaways summarise the most critical points of the homeowner's situation with the gum tree and the council's stance. Details like the homeowner's name and exact location, while mentioned in the article, are not included as key points for brevity and relevance.)

We invite you to share your thoughts and experiences. Have you ever faced a similar issue with a tree on your property? How was it resolved? Your insights could be invaluable to fellow Australians navigating the complexities of property ownership and environmental stewardship. Join the conversation in the comments below!

 

[dabski2]

We had a similar problem with a weeping willow, its leaves were a Slip Hazard, and its roots were damaging the driveway and Brick retaining walls. We took photos got an Arborist's report to support the safety issues and proposed Council remove the Tree. Council inspected the tree and after deliberation had the tree removed. We replaced with a non invasive tree

 

[janj]

We had a gum tree out on council's verge, dying with white ants. council came out said there is new growth, awhile later the tree started to split down the middle, they had to remove it, or it would have fallen on our house.

 

[Veggiepatch]

Local councils have been responsible for at least one "murder" by not allowing the removal of potentially hazardous trees.

 

[Catherines]

Our Council wanted to plant trees on our street’s footpath. The trees in question would eventually reach a height of 30-40 metres and close enough to a similar width. Most (if not all) of our neighbours said ‘No’ and I researched its growth and wrote council a letter with that information, also saying ‘No’.

My argument - only one place it could be planted was right in front of where we paid well over $3500 to have solar panels installed and the tree would eventually block out the sun from doing what the panels were meant to do, i.e. reap the benefits for the owners. At the time of installation our government and council were encouraging residents to instal these panels. They work very well for us and, along with more panels on the western side of the house for afternoon sun, they provide all (and more) than enough electricity; we haven’t paid one bill for well over 5 years, instead getting a few hundred dollars credit in feed-in tariffs each year on unused electricity. Our current credit stands at over $800!

 

[waggadragon1]

Our Council wanted to plant trees on our street’s footpath. The trees in question would eventually reach a height of 30-40 metres and close enough to a similar width. Most (if not all) of our neighbours said ‘No’ and I researched its growth and wrote council a letter with that information, also saying ‘No’.

My argument - only one place it could be planted was right in front of where we paid well over $3500 to have solar panels installed and the tree would eventually block out the sun from doing what the panels were meant to do, i.e. reap the benefits for the owners. At the time of installation our government and council were encouraging residents to instal these panels. They work very well for us and, along with more panels on the western side of the house for afternoon sun, they provide all (and more) than enough electricity; we haven’t paid one bill for well over 5 years, instead getting a few hundred dollars credit in feed-in tariffs each year on unused electricity. Our current credit stands at over $800!

which power company are you with if you dont mine me asking

 

[Jennylolo]

my street has been lined with trees without consent, planting them slap bang in the middle of our frontages. If we wanted a view obscured we would have planted a tree or hedge. At least put it to the side so the street appeal still exists. In the middle it cuts value of properties, especially when also deciduous and make a mess.

 

[Catherines]

which power company are you with if you dont mine me asking

AGL - and we live in Brisbane, Queensland so get good sunshine most of the year. They send us a cheque at the end of every year to the tune of $450-500 (depending on various factors) and the balance is carried over, so some of this current $800 would be some of the carry over. We did instal early when first encouraged by our gov to do so. Our feed in rate is about 45 cents in the dollar for each unit (don’t ask me for the calculations though!!) but we’re grateful for whatever we get. Over the years feed-in credits have dropped quite considerably.

 

[novezar]

AGL - and we live in Brisbane, Queensland so get good sunshine most of the year. They send us a cheque at the end of every year to the tune of $450-500 (depending on various factors) and the balance is carried over, so some of this current $800 would be some of the carry over. We did instal early when first encouraged by our gov to do so. Our feed in rate is about 45 cents in the dollar for each unit (don’t ask me for the calculations though!!) but we’re grateful for whatever we get. Over the years feed-in credits have dropped quite considerably.

You can certainly 'Spray" that again.
"Bowen" to the rescue. Bloody hell about that thought.

 

[novezar]

Isn't it part of common law, that any vegetation growing over your property, regardless of who owns it, you can have it cut off and dispose of same. This applies to trees as well.

 

[Beany]

With councils you also have the opposite problem, if the tree is on the line between the council property and the house property and they can come along and remove trees they deem not to be safe without letting you know, so you go out and have some shade near your driveway and come back to nothing there and your property is open to the world. We live in a housing trust home which is government owned and even they didn't know that the council was removing all three trees. They seem to have their own rules.

 

[Janice McKay]

Councils should listen and act on the complaints of individuals as to many trees have come down after councils say they are ok. Gum trees especially have a very bad habit of toppling over because of their root system. Wake up, before you kill another person which has happened due to falling trees.