Recently, I wrote a piece on one of the biggest neighbourly niggles around – fences. by JANICE HUGHES, DIRECTOR, ASPIRING LAW

There was a lot of feedback; yep, every second person’s got a story about what can be the most divisive of those dividing lines.

Off the back of that fences article (see Blogs), I also received a reader request to look at another gnarly catalyst of boundary barneys: trees and bushes.

Disputes over trees can be as complex as the root systems beneath the soil. There’s a plethora of dos and don’ts.

It’s always wise to check out the rules first, whether you’re planning to plant or fell a tree, or in cases where you and your neighbour aren’t seeing eye to eye.

"Any tree or hedgerow planting within 2m of the boundary cannot exceed 1.9m in height".

In a nutshell, though, an owner or occupier who allows a tree growing on his or her property to encroach on adjoining land might find themselves accused of causing a nuisance and defending a court action if they don’t sort it out.

Some of the answers to common tiffs over the size and positioning of trees and hedges lie, in black and white, in the district plan. For example, in Wanaka there is a rule that, notwithstanding protected species, any tree or hedgerow planting within 2m of the boundary cannot exceed 1.9m in height.

Routinely, the most sensible course to address grumbles about trees shading and encroaching on an adjacent property is to agree with your neighbour how and when trees are to be pruned, and by whom. If that’s not settled, your neighbour is quite entitled to take matters into their own hands if your tree has branches hanging over their land. Too bad if the pruning’s not done with the bonsai-like finesse you’d have brought to the job.

As well as dealing with disputes where trees pose a potential or actual risk to health or property, under the Property Law Act 2008, the District Court can, in some circumstances, order a land owner or occupier to remove or trim trees if they cause "undue interference” to: views; the ability to grow trees or crops, or, the general enjoyment of land, including, specifically, due to shading or falling leaves, flowers, fruit or branches.

The court must, however, be satisfied that any hardship the applicant is facing is greater than that caused to the defendant by the making of the order. It also can’t make an order relating to any trees protected under the Resource Management Act 1991 – unless, that is, it is necessary to protect life, health or property.

The Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulation 2003 deals specifically with obligations in respect of trees to protect the electricity supply and safety of the public. It includes provisions prescribing the distance from electrical conductors within which trees must not encroach, rules relating to the cutting or trimming of trees that encroach on electrical conductors, and liability for any breaches.

Don’t forget, neighbourly tree problems can run deep. Should the roots of a tree on your property span to your neighbour’s and collect a pipe or two along the way, guess who’s likely up for the repair bill? That would be you.

Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on

[email protected].

T: 03 443 0900

W: www.aspiringlaw.co.nz

Janice Hughes is a director of, and senior legal adviser at, Aspiring Law. Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.