Connell v Brusensky [2026] QCAT 318

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: PARTIES: Connell v Brusensky [2026] QCAT 318 BRUCE CONNELL (applicant) v IAN BUSENSKY & MEGAN BRUSENSKY (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: NDR198-25 MATTER TYPE: Neighbourhood Dispute DELIVERED ON: 14 July 2026 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Cairns DECISION OF: Member Auld ORDERS: The Respondents are to arrange for the height of the bamboo hedge situated on 218 Toohey Road, Tarragindi adjacent to the boundary line with 220 Toohey Road, Tarragindi to be reduced to the height of the boundary fence, or 1.8 metres, whichever is lower. The Respondents are responsible for the costs of the work. The work must be completed within 45 days of the date of this decision. The Respondent’s are to undertake continued maintenance on the bamboo hedge and ensure that its height does not exceed the height of the boundary fence, or 1.8 metres, whichever is lower. CATCHWORDS: ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – TREES, VEGETATION AND HABITAT PROTECTION – DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS – where land affected by a tree – where bamboo hedge blocks natural light – where bamboo hedge impacts land owner’s use and enjoyment of land – where affected land owner took steps to resolve – where tree owner failed to file response – where tree owner failed to file material – whether appropriate to make an order for removal of bamboo hedge pursuant to section 66 – where Directions made that if no Response filed by extended date matter would be determined on the basis of material filed. -- 1 of 5 -- 2 Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2001 (Qld), s 46, s 65, s 66. APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) REASONS FOR DECISION Background and Application [1] This is an application by the Applicant Mr Connell, where by the Applicant complains of a bamboo hedge located on the Respondent’s property, which is blocking natural light from the northern side of the Applicant’s house. [2] In his application the Applicant states that three of his bedrooms are on the northern side of his house and always dark and in need of additional lighting due to the hedge blocking the natural light. The Applicant also complains that in the winter he requires additional heating in his house which was initially designed to require minimal climate control. [3] Since December 2024 bamboo has restricted natural light on the Applicant’s solar panels and hot water systems. The Applicant says that the initial restrictions on the roof were minimal but as the bamboo grew the Applicant had felt the effects on the heating and natural light within his house. [4] In his application the Applicant has provided a sketch of his property and the Respondent’s property showing bamboo hedge running all the way down the boundary line between the two properties. [5] The Applicant has filed minimal supporting documentation with his application. The supporting documentation includes: (a) An aerial picture showing the location of the bamboo hedge and the shade over the Applicant’s solar panels at hot water system that are located on his roof. (b) A letter from 11 December 2024 from the Applicant to the Respondents whereby the Applicant notifies the Respondents that the Applicant has observed degradation in solar and water heating which was due to the bamboo casting a shadow over the solar panels. In this letter, the Applicant requested that the Respondent cut the bamboo to such a level that it did not overshadow the Applicant’s roof. (c) A letter from 7 July 2025 whereby the Applicant advises the Respondents that the bamboo has grown further and continues to impact the hot water system and solar panels on the Applicant’s roof. The applicant requested that the Respondent’s reduce the height of the bamboo within the next 30 days. The Applicant also requested that if the Respondents disagreed with reducing the height of the bamboo to advise by return letter or email to the applicant. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 [6] No further material has since been filed by the Applicant either with the application or prior to this matter being determined. Directions [7] Since the filing of this application the Tribunal has issued several sets of directions in relation to the filing of a response by the Respondents as well as further material in this matter. [8] On 8 September 2025 the Tribunal directed that the Respondents file a response to the application by 4:00 PM on 3 November 2025. This direction was not complied with by the Respondents. [9] On 21 November 2025 the Tribunal extended the time frame for the Respondents to comply and file a response to 4:00 PM on 3 December 2025. The Respondents did not comply with this direction. [10] On 8 April 2026 the Tribunal noted that the Respondents failed to comply with the directions previously issued to file a response to the application for a tree dispute, and directed that the application is to be determined on the papers, based on the material filed with the Tribunal and without an in person hearing. Finally, the Tribunal directed that any further submissions that either party wish to rely upon were to be filed in the Tribunal and provided to the other party by 4:00 PM on 30 April 2026. [11] Neither party has filed any further material in this matter. [12] The matter has come before me for determination on the material before the Tribunal which comprises only of the Applicant’s application and supporting documentation included with the application that I have summarised above. The Law [13] Where land is affected by a tree a landowner may apply to the tribunal under section 66 all the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) (the NDA). [14] Land is affected by a tree if it adjoins land on which the tree is situated and either: (a) its branches overhang the land; or (b) The tree has caused, is causing, or is likely within the next 12 months to cause- (i) serious injury to a person on the land; (ii) serious damage to the land or any property on the land; or (iii) substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the neighbours use and enjoyment of the land.1 [15] Before making an order under s 66 of the NDA, I must be satisfied that: (a) The neighbour has made reasonable effort to reach agreement with the tree keeper;2 1 NDA, s 46. 2 NDA, s 65(a). -- 3 of 5 -- 4 (b) The neighbour has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute under any relevant local law, local government scheme or local administrative process; Beyond the branches of the trees extend at least 50 centimetres over the applicants land;3 (c) The neighbour cannot probably resolve the issue using the process in part 4;4 (d) The applicant has given a copy of the application to the respondents.5 [16] I am satisfied that the Applicant has made reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with the Respondents through the written correspondence requesting that Respondents reduce the height of the bamboo, on two separate occasions. [17] I'm also satisfied that the Applicant cannot properly resolve the issues using part 4 given the size an extent of the bamboo hedge that runs on the boundary line between the two properties. [18] Whilst there is no immediate risk of harm to persons on the land, the main point of consideration before me is whether the bamboo hedge is causing a substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of the Applicant’s land. Section 66 (2)(b)(ii) provides that the obstructing trees being the bamboo hedging must be at least 2.5 metres above the ground and the obstruction is a severe obstruction of sunlight to a window or roof of a dwelling on the neighbours land. [19] Section 66 (5) of the NDA sets out the type of orders that the Tribunal can make. Consideration [20] In considering this matter, I note that there is very limited material before the Tribunal by way of evidence, submissions or other documents that would assist the Tribunal in making an order under section 66. [21] In saying that, I accept that the Respondent’s bamboo hedge is causing a severe interference to the Applicant’s use and enjoyment of his land by blocking sunlight from the Applicant’s windows, solar panels and hot water systems that are located on his roof. [22] The Applicant has on two occasions quite reasonably requested that the Respondent’s reduce the size of the bamboo hedge so that it does not impact the sunlight on the Applicant’s land. [23] The Applicant’s requests, on the material before the Tribunal, appear to have received no response at all. Similarly, the Tribunal’s directions for Respondents to file a response were also not complied with. As such, the Respondent’s are not engaging with the Application before the Tribunal. [24] I accept that in order under section 66 must be made so that the Applicant’s use and enjoyment of his land is no longer impacted by the bamboo hedge on the Respondent’s property. 3 NDA, s65 (b). 4 NDA, s65 (c)(ii). 5 NDA, s65 (d). -- 4 of 5 -- 5 Orders [25] For the reasons set out above I ordered that: (a) The Respondents are to arrange for the height of the bamboo hedge situated on 218 Toohey Road, Tarragindi adjacent to the boundary line with 220 Toohey Road, Tarragindi to be reduced to the height of the boundary fence, or 1.8 metres, whichever is lower. (b) The Respondents are responsible for the costs of the work. (c) The work must be completed within 45 days of the date of this decision. (d) The Respondents are to undertake continued maintenance on the bamboo hedge and endure that its height does not exceed the height of the boundary fence, or 1.8 metres, whichever is lower. -- 5 of 5 --