A tense legal battle in one of Sydney‘s wealthiest suburbs has come to an end after homeowners took on the neighbour next door over a tree encroaching onto their $3million property.
Rozelle couple Sally Armati and David De Coster took their strata neighbour to court over the tree which has plagued the inner west homeowners since August 2024.
The NSW Land and Environment Court heard the couple asked the Pine Street apartment complex strata to remove the tree, but a dispute arose after the willow myrtle was only pruned.
The couple, who moved into the neighbouring $3.35million Mansfield Street property in June 2024, went to court demanding the strata remove the tree and pay to fix a timber fence and a retaining wall.
Ms Armati and Mr De Coster, who declined to comment when contacted by the Daily Mail, said the tree is ‘likely to fall onto and damage their property or cause injury to somebody’.
Both sides presented evidence to support their cases during the outdoor court session which was held onsite so the presiding member could inspect the tree and both properties in person.
The couple noticed the tree was pressing against the top of the fence and buckling it soon after moving in.
The court heard the tree’s stem also grew against and displaced the bottom of the fence.
The strata of this Rozelle complex refused to remove a tree
The ‘buckling and displacement of the fence’ was observed during the onsite hearing and the strata did not dispute that the tree is damaging the fence.
In response, the strata submitted if the tree required removal, it was ‘due to actions on Ms Armati’s and Mr De Coster’s land’.
The strata claimed the couple ‘should pay the cost of its removal’ and disputed Ms Armati’s and Mr De Coster’s ‘compensation claims’.
Ms Armati and Mr De Coster lodged their claim under the Trees Act to ‘prevent the tree causing damage to their property or injury to a person, and to remedy damage caused by the tree’.
Acting-Commissioner David Galwey found the couple made a ‘reasonable effort to reach agreement’.
The court heard several arborists and a pest control expert, who inspected the mischievous myrtle, returned varying reports on its condition.
Ms Armati and Mr De Coster engaged Growing My Way tree consultant Kyle Hill to inspect the tree.
The court heard Mr Hill noted ‘cavities in the tree with evidence of termite activity’ and a ‘structurally weak union between the tree’s two main stems’.
The willow myrtle (above) has caused a major spat between neighbours
‘Of greatest concern is the potential failure of a co-dominant stem,’ Mr Hill concluded.
The couple also engaged Rentokil to inspect their property and the tree in January this year.
The Rentokil report included ‘evidence of borer activity in the tree’ and noted the ‘moderate extent of damage was possibly caused by furniture beetle’.
The strata had previously engaged Aura Tree Services expert Daniel Heartwood to inspect the tree in September 2024.
Mr Heartwood recommended two branches be removed but found no reason to remove the tree entirely.
‘This tree is growing mostly over the neighbouring property and is essentially following the light provided by the space it is occupying,’ Mr Heartwood noted in his report.
‘There were no defects observed with the root plate or main trunk. Two first order branches were observed to have decay and borer damage.’
The strata later engaged Heartwood Tree Consulting expert Daniel Leonard who inspected the doomed tree last month.
Rozelle, in Sydney’s inner-west, is on the city’s wealthiest suburbs
Mr Leonard assessed the tree’s health as ‘fair’ but noted a ‘slight reduction in its vigour’ since the September 2024 inspection.
‘He assessed the tree as being structurally poor due to fungal decay within its lower stem,’ Mr Galwey noted.
‘After some discussion in his report about the impacts of development works at [the couple’s property] on the tree’s roots, Mr Leonard estimated the tree’s useful life expectancy to be five-to-ten years.’
The court heard Mr Leonard also recommended the timber fence be ‘modified or rebuilt to give appropriate clearance’ to ‘allow for the tree’s growth’.
Mr Leonard recommended ‘further excavation near the tree be avoided’ and the myrtle be ‘monitored by an arborist annually’.
Mr Galwey sided with Ms Armati and Mr De Coster and their arborist.
Mr Galwey also found the myrtle was likely to injure someone if it remained in place.
The strata countered by saying if the tree ‘must go’ then Ms Armati and Mr De Coster have to pay for its removal.
Mr Galwey considered several ‘relevant matters’ which included minor pruning of the tree would not alleviate safety concerns.
He also considered the tree has ‘no historical, cultural, social or scientific value’ and it’s ‘not indigenous to the area and contributes little to the local ecosystem and biodiversity’.
Mr Galwey also considered most of the shade benefit provided by the tree favours Ms Armati and Mr De Coster.
‘The tree’s removal is required to prevent damage or injury,’ he said.
‘Ms Armati and Mr De Coster have not contributed to this risk. The strata will be responsible for tree removal and for planting a replacement tree.’
‘In the absence of any reasonable alternative to mitigate the risk, the tree must be removed. The strata will arrange and pay for tree removal.’
Both parties were ordered to share the cost of constructing a new timber fence.
