A hedge war between neighbours in one of Sydney’s wealthiest suburbs has finally come to an end after more than a decade of conflict.
Tensions first arose in Mosman between Kiam Ham and his neighbours Grahame and Liz Hawkins in 2010, a year after Ham moved in next door.
The dispute over the multimillion-dollar estate (estimated to be worth nearly $5 million) began over a hedge, retaining wall and fence installed by the Hawkins family.
Mr Ham said they blocked the view of the water from the first floor of his home.
Mr Ham complained to Mosman Council about the fence before it was ordered to be reduced in size “to maintain the view of the water from the adjacent property”.
She also complained that trees and shrubs in her neighbour’s garden blocked her view, before a formal agreement was also reached in 2010 for vegetation in the Hawkins’ yard to remain below the top of the boundary fence.
A war broke out between neighbours in Mosman after one accused the other of planting trees that blocked their views of the water (photo from 2021)
The image shows the controversial trees and bushes on the dividing fence that separates the two houses.
But things took a turn for the worse again in 2013 when Mr Ham claimed his neighbours planted three trees – a fig, a grevillia and an olive – which ended up blocking views and sunlight from his property.
In 2019, Mr. Ham demolished the house and built a new two-story home.
In February 2023, the council granted Mr Hawkins permission to prune part of the crown of his fig tree, provided the height was not reduced.
But in November of that year, Mr Hawkins received a letter from the council informing him that there had been a complaint about the height of the fig tree.
“If you wish to make an application to prune or remove the tree in question, Council will consider this favourably,” the letter from Mosman City Council reads.
‘It is understood that this action would resolve the issue and seek to restore the Council’s intention to share views when it considered its development application some time ago.’
It is believed no attempt was made to prune or remove the fig tree, so Mr Ham took his neighbours to the Land and Environment Court, demanding that the views and blocked sunlight to the fig tree and two other trees be restored.
“Mr. Ham contended that the defendants had planted the trees in front of his windows to intentionally obstruct the water views previously available to him,” Acting Court Commissioner John Douglas said in his decision.
Mr Ham had argued that despite having water views from the second level of his property, he and his family preferred to be downstairs.
Some of the stunning views available from Mosman on Sydney’s north coast
From the upper level of Mr Ham’s property there are “great views across the water” but he said he and his family preferred to use the downstairs living area and found the upstairs bedroom “inhospitable”.
‘North-facing bedroom windows also offered high-quality views of the water and landscape, but again, Mr. Ham downplayed their importance,’ Douglas said.
Mr Douglas refused Mr Ham’s application, saying he was not satisfied that Hawkins’s “trees were planted for the purpose of forming a hedge as required by the Trees Act”.
He added that the fig tree had been on the property before the Hawkins moved in, while the other trees had been planted in separate areas along the boundary.
The grevillia was less than 2m tall and the olive tree, which was about 5m tall, had been given to the Hawkins and planted in front of their living room so they could see it.
“I am not satisfied that (the trees) have caused a serious obstruction to the applicant’s view from his dwelling,” he said.
Mr Ham’s application was rejected.
