Sydney harbour-side pool dispute quickly escalates to court battle
- Replies 3
A picturesque harbour-side suburb was the setting for a bitter backyard battle that went all the way to the NSW Land and Environment Court.
Cremorne Point resident Russell Gill was stunned when his leaking pool revealed that bamboo roots from the neighbouring property had infiltrated his pipes causing a flood in his backyard.
'Landscape gardeners removed all accessible bamboo stems and roots from the applicant’s rear garden.'
'This required removal of almost all plants installed in the landscaping works.
'Even with this extent of bamboo removal, Mr Gill was unable to prevent bamboo regrowth.'
While investigations uncovered significant damage, Mr Gill’s neighbour Xuekei Chen, who had recently purchased the property that used bamboo for privacy and stablisation of the soil, claimed ignorance of the bamboo's invasive tendencies.
Mr Gill claims Ms Chen told him that removing the bamboo would be too difficult.
As the problem recurred despite removal attempts, Mr Gill insisted action was needed to 'future proof' his home, while Ms Chen worried about privacy without the dense screening.
Ms Chen’s solicitor, Matthew Jaukovic refuted claims form Mr Gill’s plumber that '60 per cent of his in-ground pipes' were ruptured because of the roots. Instead, they cited the age of the pool, which happens to have been installed 17 years ago, as the main culprit for the deterioration.
Acting Commissioner John Douglas visited the site himself, inspected the backyard, and concluded that the running bamboo posed an ongoing threat.
'It’s no surprise it is also called “running bamboo” (...) its use is discouraged,' Acting Commisioner Douglas said.
'Professional horticulturists and landscape gardeners are normally aware of the invasive potential associated with rhizomatous bamboo.'
'Many local councils discourage its use. Unlike clumping bamboo, rhizomatous bamboo is rarely available in nurseries.'
'I am satisfied that without intervention, the bamboo is likely to recur in the near future.'
Mr Gill reportedly did not seek compensation for the damage on his property—which is estimated to be anywhere between $18,000 to $20,000.
However, Mr Douglas ordered Ms Chen to cut and remove the bamboo at her expense.
But it’s not a complete loss for Ms Chen’s camp, as Mr Gill was also ordered to plant a replacement tree to address his neighbour’s privacy concerns.
Members, what are your thoughts on this court battle? Have you experienced something similar with your own neighbours? Let us know in the comments below!
Cremorne Point resident Russell Gill was stunned when his leaking pool revealed that bamboo roots from the neighbouring property had infiltrated his pipes causing a flood in his backyard.
The flooding in a Sydney homeowner’s property was allegedly caused by the root of his neighbour’s bamboo plants that ruptured his pool pipe. Image source: Freepik.
'Landscape gardeners removed all accessible bamboo stems and roots from the applicant’s rear garden.'
'This required removal of almost all plants installed in the landscaping works.
'Even with this extent of bamboo removal, Mr Gill was unable to prevent bamboo regrowth.'
While investigations uncovered significant damage, Mr Gill’s neighbour Xuekei Chen, who had recently purchased the property that used bamboo for privacy and stablisation of the soil, claimed ignorance of the bamboo's invasive tendencies.
Mr Gill claims Ms Chen told him that removing the bamboo would be too difficult.
As the problem recurred despite removal attempts, Mr Gill insisted action was needed to 'future proof' his home, while Ms Chen worried about privacy without the dense screening.
Ms Chen’s solicitor, Matthew Jaukovic refuted claims form Mr Gill’s plumber that '60 per cent of his in-ground pipes' were ruptured because of the roots. Instead, they cited the age of the pool, which happens to have been installed 17 years ago, as the main culprit for the deterioration.
Acting Commissioner John Douglas visited the site himself, inspected the backyard, and concluded that the running bamboo posed an ongoing threat.
'It’s no surprise it is also called “running bamboo” (...) its use is discouraged,' Acting Commisioner Douglas said.
'Professional horticulturists and landscape gardeners are normally aware of the invasive potential associated with rhizomatous bamboo.'
'Many local councils discourage its use. Unlike clumping bamboo, rhizomatous bamboo is rarely available in nurseries.'
'I am satisfied that without intervention, the bamboo is likely to recur in the near future.'
Mr Gill reportedly did not seek compensation for the damage on his property—which is estimated to be anywhere between $18,000 to $20,000.
However, Mr Douglas ordered Ms Chen to cut and remove the bamboo at her expense.
But it’s not a complete loss for Ms Chen’s camp, as Mr Gill was also ordered to plant a replacement tree to address his neighbour’s privacy concerns.
.png){kind=icon}
