Family vows to continue fight over trees

A MASTERTON family will appeal a court order to axe 150 trees on their land that blocks the views of a neighbour.
The order ? which could set a precedent for the increasing number of people on rural lifestyle properties ? was handed down after a civil hearing in Masterton District Court earlier this month that capped a 12-year battle between Kaituna neighbours Colin Garstang and Steven Courteney.
The Garstang family own a home built in 1995, featuring a three-storey Tuscan-style tower, which sits about 160m away at its closest point on a 20m uphill elevation from the Courteney home.
The Courteney family felt the views from the Garstang property invaded their privacy, and planted a stand of eucalyptus trees, which have grown tall enough to block the view from the neighbouring property.
Mr Garstang, represented by Wellington lawyer Hugh Rennie QC, sought the court order under Section 129 C of the Property Act to remove the trees, as they are an undue obstruction.
Mr Courteney, a petroleum geologist, who has spent more than $100,000 so far pursuing the case, said he spoke yesterday with his legal team about lodging an appeal against the order to axe the trees.
"The decision came as a complete surprise and is unbelievably savage.
"It really has become a David and Goliath battle and we are absolutely ready for the second round," Mr Courteney said yesterday.
He said the order affects about 150 eucalyptus trees planted along an 82m stretch near the boundary of the two properties.
Judge Michael Radford asked before the three-day hearing if mediation could settle the differences but Mr Courteney said he wanted the matter resolved in court.
The judge said the case was always going to depend on whose version of events he believed, and he found Masterton solicitor Mr Garstang more credible.
Judge Radford's decision could have ramifications for other property owners, as he found the view from the Garstang property was a significant and essential feature of the house, and its loss could constitute a hardship.
Mr Courteney argued through his representation that a view was not property, and the Garstang family had no rights to a view.
Judge Radford found otherwise.
"It follows that because of the lack of the view which was planned and specifically built for, there is a reduction in enjoyment of it for residential purposes."
Judge Radford said he did not consider the arguments from the Courteney camp to be well founded despite Mr Courteney claiming the trees were vital to protect their privacy. Judge Radford branded "as tenuous at best" a claim by Mr Courteney that people in the Garstang home could look into the bedroom of Claudia Courteney, 17.
The Courteney home was abundantly screened from the Garstang home by trees and shrubs, he said.
"There is a distance between the two properties (of) 156m or thereabouts, and in my view the issue of privacy is diminished by the fact of that distance."
Judge Radford said the dispute is long-running and bitterly-contested and he also ordered Mr Courteney to pay his neighbours' legal costs.
Mr Garstang, after learning of the decision, had earlier told the news media that although the ruling went in his favour an appeal was more than likely and "we will not be driven out".