Legal right to a view

In Australian property law is there any right to retain a view?

(Google was not my friend)

Situation: elderly couple living for 50 years in a house with a view of a bay and islands. Always had great neighbours all around them.

New owners have bought the property below them and without any discussion have planted a dense row of fast growing cyprus trees all along their back fence (the elderly people's front boundary) which will grow pretty quickly and completely obliterate the entire view as well as cutting most of the light into their property.

Mediation doesn't exist in their small town so that's not an option I think.

Do they have any legal rights at all?
 
Not as far as I am aware.

That is why, when buying specifically for a view, we go to such lengths to buy a property where the views cannot be built out, no matter what the neighbours build (or grow).

Agreed. Either buy your neighbouring property or get a covenant over it- otherwise no joy.
 
Only time I can imagine one having rights to a view are if it was part of a development and was sold as such.

If you buy a property from a developer who also owns the land between you and the water and he sells it with a statement around having a view then I think he would then be in breach of the new consumer legislation if he then went and did a secondary development blocking your view.

While the development would go on you would have a right against the developer in this case as you would be entitled to assume by him owning that land and saying he will not build your view out you are entitled to expect that this will be the case as you relied on his statement at the time of sale.

If the land in front is owned by someone else it would get messy, but still the developer should not make claims he cannot keep and I think even in this case if a block was sold "with views" and this was expressed in some way by the developer and not just apparent at the time of sale then you would have a right to same.
 
If you buy a property from a developer who also owns the land between you and the water and he sells it with a statement around having a view then I think he would then be in breach of the new consumer legislation if he then went and did a secondary development blocking your view.
You mean something like this.
http://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-wollongong-107212940
or this also in the same block
http://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-wollongong-106694442

I believe the RE was the developer of this unit block but also owns the vacant block directly behind this block which is yet to be developed/built. I suspect that when all the current units get sold then the next development will take place and the "ocean vista" may have to change to "ocean glimpses".
 

Attachments

  • 20110228103044.jpg
    20110228103044.jpg
    21.9 KB · Views: 140
  • 20110308115905.jpg
    20110308115905.jpg
    22 KB · Views: 135
..New owners have bought the property below them and without any discussion have planted a dense row of fast growing cyprus trees all along their back fence (the elderly people's front boundary) which will grow pretty quickly and completely obliterate the entire view as well as cutting most of the light into their property....QUOTE]

Hi Amadio

By the sound of it, your friends had a long range view out and over the neighbours property

So the new owners are protecting their privacy by planting the trees

Different States have different planning requirements for the built environment, but few regarding the natural environment

Your friends could possibly involve Council but only regarding the shadow pattern which will eventually be cast by the trees

In Melbourne, no one has the right to a view, and everyone has the right to develop their property to the full extent of the law, subject to overlooking and overshadowing restrictions

About the only 'view' we can rely on is the actual outlook to the street

Regards
Kristine
 
If you buy a property from a developer who also owns the land between you and the water and he sells it with a statement around having a view then I think he would then be in breach of the new consumer legislation if he then went and did a secondary development blocking your view.
You mean something like this.
http://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-wollongong-107212940
or this also in the same block
http://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-wollongong-106694442

I believe the RE was the developer of this unit block but also owns the vacant block directly behind this block which is yet to be developed/built. I suspect that when all the current units get sold then the next development will take place and the "ocean vista" may have to change to "ocean glimpses".

I apologise you are right that para in isolation is wrong.

He must not only make a statement as to it having a nice view but must also say it will not get built out. He has made no promise in the former case by saying simply it has a nice view like in your case so there is nothing there for you to rely on.

My second para above was clearer (and more importantly correct!):

While the development would go on you would have a right against the developer in this case as you would be entitled to assume by him owning that land and saying he will not build your view out you are entitled to expect that this will be the case as you relied on his statement at the time of sale.

This is quite distinct from things outside his control. He might say this view will not get built out because it has been national park for 50 years. If the gov decides to turn the NP into a sewerage treatment plant you will not have a case against the developer if he did not know of it when he sold you the block. Or for example the block set down 4m below yours which yuou thought would give you ocean views decides to plant a row of norfolk island pines...
 
Cypress?

Is that the native cypress pine tree?

They only grow here on the worst sandiest soil on a steep ridge. Thay need maximum drainage. I'm surprised they'd grow on the coast, but I have no idea really.

Obviously a bit of herbicide would do the trick, but for a more ethical result, get the oldies to really water their garden next to the new trees. I'm sure with a bit of waterlogging the trees will cark it.


See ya's.
 
Well, forget all that.

A bit of research tells me there are numerous species. Some grow in a desert, and some will grow in a rainforest, some will grow on the coast, and every other environment in between.


See ya's.
 
Thanks for the replies. I think they are too old for guerilla tactics but you never know.

TC - I'll tell them about the overwatering bit. They have a large quantity of big and full rainwater tanks. It would be quite easy to turn the fenceline into a bog.
 
i understand where you are coming from.

we too have magnificent views but the oldies down below had (years ago) planted oleanders along the boundary.

asides from the fact that i can't stand oleanders due to the toxicity to "everything", i used to have a really good relationship with the owner and used to lop them back every year to retain the view ... until hubby flooded the pool and turned her block into a waterfall.

i have lopped back as far as a can without it being visable to her ... as for the rest? ... at 94 years of age i am just waiting for her to go somewhere, and then i'll either whip down and lop them better, or buy the place!
 
There is, in general no right to a view. This has been reafirmed in the planning and environment court as recently as July 2009 in Collard v BCC. It probably has been validated even later than that but my subscription to the QPELR lags behind a bit.

There are numerous cases in the QPEC each year where someone with more money than sense challenges a development that affects their view. Even where the development may exceed the acceptable soloutions in the city plan, if it complies with the overall desired environmental outcomes it will still get through.

There are places in Brisbane city's plan that outline the unacceptability of seeking an overheight submission on a ridgeline so that the building stands out too much from a great distance, but this should not be confused with the right to a view.

Collard case is attached although the submission appellant disappeared in this case when it was discovered that they view they were trying to protect was from the illegal storey they had placed on their house that was well and truly overheight.
 

Attachments

  • _COLLARD_v_BRISBANE_CITY_COUNCIL_[2009]_QPEC- reaffirmation of no right to a view.doc
    65.5 KB · Views: 521
Collard case is attached although the submission appellant disappeared in this case when it was discovered that they view they were trying to protect was from the illegal storey they had placed on their house that was well and truly overheight.

That's funny.
Something about "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind. :D
 
Thanks for the replies. I think they are too old for guerilla tactics but you never know.
Have they tried the more civil approach e.g. just talked to the new property owners? Perhaps they could offer to replace the cypress trees with something that won't grow as large...
 
Have they tried the more civil approach e.g. just talked to the new property owners? Perhaps they could offer to replace the cypress trees with something that won't grow as large...

Yes - they are very civilised old dears and much loved by everyone in the community. It was the first thing they tried.
 
Back
Top