A years-long neighbourhood dispute in an affluent Sydney suburb culminated in a court battle over bamboo and protected blue gum trees. The conflict between residents Zhe Zheng and Xiaoping Wan and their neighbours Michael and Debra Anne Carew, located on Albert Road in Beecroft, was brought before the New South Wales Land and Environment Court in December of last year.
The court proceedings stemmed from a deteriorating relationship that began in 2020. Initially, the Carews expressed concerns about three large, 80-year-old blue gum trees on Mr. Zheng and Ms. Wan's property. They cited the maintenance burden from falling leaves, bark, and branches, and presented evidence of damage to cars and roof tiles, as well as an injury to Ms. Carew's head attributed to falling branches. However, attempts by Mr. Zheng and Ms. Wan to remove the blue gums were blocked by the Hornsby Shire Council, which deemed the trees a protected species and noted they were healthy.
In June 2023, Mr. Zheng and Ms. Wan obtained a fencing order, requiring the Carews to contribute over $3,000 for a 1.8-meter Colorbond fence along the shared eastern boundary. Shortly after, in September 2023, the Carews planted a row of Slender Weavers Bamboo along this boundary, close to the new fence.
This bamboo planting triggered a new notice of demand from Mr. Zheng on September 22, 2023, citing concerns about potential fence damage, bamboo encroachment, and obstruction of morning sunlight to east-facing windows. The Carews refused to remove the bamboo, stating they valued the privacy it provided, particularly in light of what they described as intrusive security cameras installed by Mr. Zheng, some of which pointed towards their driveway.
By 2025, the bamboo had grown significantly, allegedly causing damage to the fence and encroaching onto Mr. Zheng and Ms. Wan's property, according to court documents. The bamboo was also reported to be severely obstructing sunlight to the residents' windows. In response to the complaints, Mr. Carew referenced the ongoing issues with Mr. Zheng's trees and the perceived nuisance from the cameras, formally refusing the request to remove the bamboo.
During an onsite inspection, Mr. Zheng demonstrated the positioning of his security cameras, asserting they were for family security and not directed inappropriately. Mr. Zheng and Ms. Wan alleged the bamboo had damaged and displaced the boundary fence, noting the hedge was planted immediately adjacent to the Colorbond fence with little separation. They also anticipated future gutter and roof damage, as well as potential subsurface damage from bamboo roots.
The Carews countered that clumping bamboo was unlikely to cause damage and claimed their neighbours had not provided evidence of risk. They reiterated the bamboo's value for privacy and its aesthetic contribution, while also pointing to the perceived injustice of being asked to remove the bamboo when Mr. Zheng did not prune his overhanging trees.
On June 26, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Zheng and Ms. Wan. Acting Commissioner John Douglas found that the bamboo was causing misalignment of the boundary fence, constituting damage. The court determined that the restraint of the bamboo, apparently to direct it away from the Carews' driveway, was the primary cause of the fence leaning towards the bamboo.
The Carews were ordered to remove the bamboo within 45 days of the decision and to cover any repair costs for the fence if damage was confirmed.