Brisbane Homeowner Ordered to Trim Trees Blocking River Views After Four-Year Dispute

A four-year dispute over a river view in Brisbane has concluded with a homeowner ordered to significantly trim a row of trees. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) ruled on August 18 that five weeping lily pillies and viburnum trees, planted by Louise and John Arvier, constituted a "severe obstruction" to the river view enjoyed by their neighbors, Angus and Alissa McDougall.

The McDougalls purchased their Graceville home in 2019 for $2 million, citing the glimpse of the Brisbane River from their balcony as a key attraction. Shortly after, the Arviers planted the fast-growing trees along their shared property boundary.

As the trees matured, they gradually blocked the river view. The McDougalls then initiated legal proceedings, arguing that the vegetation had become a major obstruction. Under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act, they had to demonstrate that the trees substantially interfered with their enjoyment of the home.

QCAT member Vass Poteri ordered Mrs. Arvier to prune the trees to approximately three meters by October 30. She is also required to trim branches extending beyond the boundary and continue this maintenance at least twice a year for the next decade. The ruling also noted that privacy concerns, which Mrs. Arvier had cited as the reason for planting the trees, could be addressed through alternative means such as blinds or curtains.

Mrs. Arvier had sought permission to allow the trees to grow to six meters, stating they were necessary for her family's privacy. She had purchased the property in 2015 and built a new home in 2020. The tribunal heard that Mrs. Arvier denied the vegetation substantially interfered with the McDougalls' outlook.

However, evidence presented to the tribunal indicated the river outlook was a significant selling point for the McDougalls' property. Real estate agent Gina Pevy testified that the view from the upstairs bedroom and balcony was a primary attraction that drew the couple to the five-bedroom home. Mr. Poteri found that allowing the trees to grow taller than three meters would create a "substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference" with the McDougalls' home enjoyment.

If Mrs. Arvier fails to comply with the pruning order, the McDougalls have the right to hire a contractor to perform the work after providing 28 days' notice. The costs incurred would be recoverable as a debt. Mr. McDougall described the process as slow and frustrating for those disadvantaged by the obstruction.