Homeowner's bitter war with council over ‘dangerous' gum tree
Billy says a huge gum tree which leans over his property is a major safety hazard. But because it's half on his land, and half on council's, nobody wants to take responsibility for it.
A concerned homeowner says he's worried a sick gum tree in his backyard might "fall onto someone and kill them" — but because it's technically located half on his property and half on council-owned land, the two parties are locked in a battle over who's responsible for it.
Sydney man Billy, from Mortdale in the city's south, said the very large gum in the corner of his yard regularly drops branches and is apparently suffering from a fungal infection. He said, despite its age and height, to keep himself and pedestrians walking by safe, it should be removed.
But because it's quite literally grown onto half of his property and half onto the public footpath, council said, Billy claimed, that he will "be held responsible" for any "infrastructure damage" from having it cut down. He said he was told he may also be liable should any part of it fall on someone.
Man's quest to have 'dangerous' and 'sick' gum tree removed
Georges River Council reportedly encouraged Billy to fill in a form to have the tree removed, but because there are only two definitions — a street tree and privately-owned tree — it's not stipulated who is responsible in unique situations such as these. Billy said as a compromise "the best they could come up with was a shared agreement".
Sydney man finds out he doesn't own property he bought six years ago
Aussie couple fear they'll be killed by gum tree looming over property
Retiree facing $7600 council fine over 'meticulously looked after' plants
"But I don't know what a shared agreement is," Billy told A Current Affair, adding that this back-and-forth had been ongoing for a year.
"Just be honest and upright and tell us what you want, and we'll work with the council. If you want to keep the tree, it's yours, if you want it to go down, we go halves — no problem. Just look after safety, and look after [my] home because if it falls this way (pointing toward his house), I'll be homeless.
"I don't want to go financially broke if we kill someone, and somebody sues me. The branches are always falling, and somebody's going to get injured — I don't want that."
In addition to the potential safety hazards, Billy argued his "garden used to be flat" now, thanks to the tree's roots "I've got a slope". "Council will take my rates but they'll never take the tree down," he said.
"The surveyor said it's technically more on crown land, too," he added.
Georges River Council responds
Speaking to Yahoo News Australia, a spokesperson for council said "there's been an ongoing matter between Georges River Council and resident Billy" for over a year.
"Council is seeking to work in partnership with him to address his concerns," the spokesperson told Yahoo. "For over 12 months there has been numerous correspondence between Council and the resident, including site visits and meetings with technical experts, council staff and councillors.
"Council has pruned the tree, and an investigation deemed its health satisfactory. Council are reviewing the issue of the footpath being affected by root growth for possible remediation.
"Council outlined the next step to address the resident's remaining concerns includes potential removal of the tree. For this to move forward, council requires Billy's written consent to prepare a report for the council's consideration.
"He has not provided this consent. Given the complexity associated with the position of the tree, any current/future identified risks and/or management of the tree will be undertaken based on both parties being liable."
Do you have a story tip? Email: newsroomau@yahoonews.com.
You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube.
