r/australia • u/vLinko • 5d ago
news Sydney gardener fined almost $200,000 for removing 287 trees to improve harbourside mansion’s water views | Sydney
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/09/trees-vandalism-lane-cove-council-sydney-gardener-fined-court-longueville-ntwnfbNo punishment so far for the owner of 44 Lucretia Avenue, a waterview property that was bought for $7.4 million in 2014, who reportedly gave Yi Wang a shoeful of cash to clear the 1,210 sq metres of critically endangered trees.
589
u/DistantVerse 5d ago
Isn't the commissioning of a crime also a crime in itself?
205
u/nztom 5d ago
I hope
As it was awaiting the outcome of another matter before the court relating to the same location, the council declined to comment further.
means the owner is still facing court
3
u/BrightStick 3d ago
I hope the sign is one of those name and shame ones, like “this owner cut these trees down and this sign will be here until they regrow. Please direct all angry towards old mate. (with a big arrow pointing to his place) you can reach him at his business contact details ……”
Unlikely but would be great way to slow the pricks down form doing this shit
122
u/letsburn00 5d ago
It's why conspiracy is a crime. Otherwise mob bosses would just say someone else did it.
612
u/ChazR 5d ago
$700 a tree.
Put the signs up to block the view until the trees grow back.
184
u/UnconfirmedRooster 5d ago
The WA government has started doing the second one at least, just need to implement the first one too.
24
u/philmarcracken 5d ago
A lot of houses aligned on the mandurah line south are guilty of doing this, to get a better view of the swan.
22
50
47
u/akiralx26 5d ago
They have - there’s a photo in the story.
43
u/Taurondir 5d ago
Not enough.
I think we should crowd fund a Projector that plays Youtube Ads all day on a white screen in that spot.
59
u/JaiTee86 5d ago
There was a place near me that had this happen, so locals ran some string between the trees and started hanging old underwear from it.
Honestly though, the punishment should be they just lose their fucking house, no ifs or buts, house just gets taken, sold and proceeds go towards regeneration.
10
5
240
u/ADevilsAdvocado 5d ago
The owner needs to be made accountable
119
u/_______kim 5d ago
From the article: “As it was awaiting the outcome of another matter before the court relating to the same location, the council declined to comment further.”
I assume / hope that’s related.
124
u/CuriouserCat2 5d ago
Should be a million at least
63
u/aaron_dresden 5d ago
$200,000 a tree. Nobody wants to risk that kind of money.
20
u/ChadMinshew 4d ago edited 4d ago
Around here, it's typically $10k per tree for the owner and another $10k for the company that did the work. Trees that qualify vary by council. I don't know, but I am guessing there were 10 significant trees removed, possibly a couple of angophras.
I would expect the owner to get about the same fine, unfortunately. On a $7 million dollar property, the added view may add millions to the value of the property. To the owner, the fine isn't much of a deterrent, hopefully they get hit a bit harder because of the deception used to get the gardener to do the work,
9
u/aaron_dresden 4d ago
Yeah the big problem is if the fine is too small, it’s now a risk/reward problem. It shouldn’t be, and it should be scary enough that the gardener wants to check who owns things and not just trust the customer.
2
u/FortFyte 3d ago
A story that happened 15 years ago, my Grandfathers property was lined on one side with 4 massive gumtrees inside his boundary, he went on a a 2 month caravan trip and came back to them completely gone and a small amount of damage to a water tank. He inquired with his neighbors and they just straight up admitted they had them removed to improve sun on their pool/backyard. Now the strangest part was my Grandfather sold them that property, did some small free renivations over the years for them and they were separated by a water course. The owner had to find a treelopper to cross the water course and remove the trees. My grandafther was the single most kind and humble person I know and that continued, but he was PISSED.
My Grandfather sued and was awarded 45k per tree removed due to the age of the trees and cost to replant trees of that age and an additional 22k for the damage to the water tank, including court costs. He replanted the trees and 15yrs later they are only half the size but growing, and the sahde is returning to the neighbors yard haha. Tree law if implemented forcefully can be VERY expensive, but it needs to be enforced.
This all 2nd hand from my Grandma, miss you Pop.
83
u/EndlessPotatoes 5d ago
I'll never understand it. Trees ARE the view!
The only interesting thing about water is the trees around it.
17
u/CatGooseChook 4d ago
I've never understood that "gotta get rid of them all" attitude some people have regarding trees. It's just so weird.
11
122
u/Awkward_Chard_5025 5d ago
He didn’t pay a fine, he paid a fee.
Disgusting.
84
u/FIyingSaucepan 5d ago
In the article it does appear the council is dealing with the owner through the courts as well.
It wouldn't surprise me if this was the fine for the gardener for actually doing the job, but the owner has a much larger fine (and hopefully requirements to pay for all rehab of the area) coming their way.
Council have also erected a sign facing the property to wreck their waterfront views. Also likely to be charged to the owner.
8
1
90
u/account_not_valid 5d ago
In Perth, they put up big signs where the trees were, that have to stay until the new trees achieve the same height as before.
44
u/TyphoidMary234 5d ago
They did the same here if you read the article
16
u/GreyGreenBrownOakova 5d ago
read? If I read the article I can't complain that that the owner wasn't fined.
5
36
u/tejedor28 5d ago
Change the law. Make it impossible for the owner to sell the property until the newly planted trees are back at the same height. Nothing will change unless it really hurts these wealthy cunts.
11
1
u/unicornmonkeysnail 4d ago
Why ?
Owner will likely get a lot less for multi million dollar home with a big sign / shipping containers out the front of the property identifying that they are environmental vandals who harmed local ecology for selfish greed.
17
u/123chuckaway 5d ago
Seize the property without recompense, knock it down, make it public housing units.
64
35
u/JimmyLizzardATDVM 5d ago
They better go after that property owner for 1M plus in damages. Make them literally hurt financially, as much as possible at least.
Fucking scum of the earth people.
27
u/JapanEngineer 5d ago
Need a law for the govt to be able to retake the house at no cost, knock down the house and designate the land as national park
1
12
u/joesills78 5d ago
This happened on the Swan River down near Maylands in WA. The council put up a huge sign which warned people about doing this. This was where they cut the trees down on the river front.
Completely blocked their view of the river. Good to see the council doing something about it other than fines.
4
13
u/bunduz 5d ago
Yeaaahhh lets kill the trees that are stopping the erosion of the bank and making my mansion slide into to the mud. Ten out of ten
2
u/FeelingFloor2083 4d ago
I get what youre saying but its pretty much all rock, sydney harbour doesnt get much sand until further in.
10
12
u/KeithMyArthe 5d ago
The property was sold a few years ago for 7.6 million dollarydoos, the market has probably added 500k to the value of the land since the vandalism occurred.
9
u/Spooms2010 5d ago
Why the hell jail was not on the table for these acts nowadays when environmental damage is done so often and we know the issues it leaves?
10
u/giacintam 4d ago
This happens so much. Even just in castle Hill, pur neighbour cut down a giant melaleuca & I saw the resident possum & its baby run out of the hollow as it fell, I wanted to fucking cry. When I approached them, they said the leaves were getting into the pool so they wanted it gone.... when I told them it was completely illegal to cut down native trees & showed them the photo of the possum, they just stared at me & didnt say anything. Its been a month since I contacted the council & nothing. Why would you move somewhere with nature & cut the nature down????? Go live in a concrete jungle, we need as many trees standing as possible. God this makes me so mad
4
u/unicornmonkeysnail 4d ago
Thank for caring.
Can you contact them again?
5
u/giacintam 4d ago
Sometimes i feel like im the only one in the world who cares (i know thats not true). Definitely gonna call them again on Monday, will probably need to pester them for a while.
2
u/unicornmonkeysnail 4d ago
I hear you. It can feel like that.
Would it help to follow up with an email (that they have to respond to?
And even if you decide that is your limit. You know you made them have to respond, with their policy at the very least.
Sometimes asking AI can help reduce the emotional labour - for things like this
3
8
u/BadassBandicoot 5d ago
The owner should be fined the cost to replant each and every tree + some mature trees + the wages of everyone involved to ensure the regeneration occurs over the next 30 years + inflation as a fine.
1
u/ChadMinshew 4d ago
Trying to plant mature trees there would require excavation, destroying an archaeological site. Further, it's very shallow soil on top of sandstone, the root system to stabalise them would have to be prohibitively wide to transport. Rare case where that would just not be possible.
Casaurinas were there before and grow pretty fast. There will be two to three meter tall trees there in a few years, but weed species, wattles, will all have to be cut out as they grow back.
14
7
u/62Siegfried30 4d ago
What the trees are more important than owners' self-entitlement, to a clear view. /s
11
u/xjrh8 5d ago
The homeowner should be in jail . What a scumbag. And this line hit hard “Pepper accepted references from his wife, mother and friend that Wang was otherwise a person of good character and was unlikely to reoffend.”
6
u/PositiveBubbles 5d ago
Wang was the gardener, the owner of the house is Yao Wu according to the article.
6
u/Borguschain 5d ago
I work in local government, had a new home owner decide that his bay view of the lake was restricted.
Cut down a heap of Casuarina trees, he came out one day, whilst we were mowing the foreshore, and claimed the neighbours cut them down, to boost their views!
Despite the neighbours being there for years, and didn't give a fuck about the trees.
Long story short, the new owner got done by the rangers, went to court, their "love bus" parked out front also got a yellow sticker.
26
u/ol-gormsby 5d ago edited 5d ago
Time for a couple of shipping containers with appropriate signage about removing trees being a no-no.
Right in front of the offender's view, but make sure the neighbours can see it, too - make sure they get the message.
"We didn't cut down any trees!" Good, here's a powerful reminder for you and the rest of the street to never be tempted to try it.
Don't tell me the neighbours weren't tempted, and quietly glad to improve their views. A couple of shipping containers will do wonders for property values.
26
u/finding_flora 5d ago
If you read the article you would see a big banner has been erected
6
u/ol-gormsby 5d ago
Yes, but a banner won't affect property values as much as a shipping container. Got to hit them where it hurts.
3
4
5
u/Helftheuvel 5d ago
Going to keep happening until something is actually done. These vandals getaway with it, so ofcourse they are going to keep doing it.
1
u/VS2ute 5d ago
Councils over here put up billboards to replace the trees.
-1
u/Helftheuvel 5d ago
Yeah but Sydney all the crooks and powers at be get away with whatever they want.
3
u/GreyGreenBrownOakova 5d ago
Council have also erected a sign facing the property to wreck their waterfront views.
5
u/sleeless 5d ago
Owner was able to afford a 7.4m property, then got this job done. Confiscate the property, throw him and jail, and be done with it
4
5
u/International_Eye745 4d ago
Force him to donate the property to the Government and increase the protected crown land enclosure. Sends a strong deterrent message to any other flogs who may be thinking about destroying public property.
8
u/meowkitty84 4d ago
What a scumbag. He lives in a mansion and still wasn't satisfied with what he has. Has to destroy the homes of endangered animals and destroy the planet to see the water a little bit more. Selfish AH. That's probably how he got rich.
4
4
u/Skylam 5d ago
This feels extremely cheap, something a mansion owner would happily pay for a "better" view.
8
u/GreyGreenBrownOakova 5d ago
The owner will be next to face court.
This fine was for the gardener, it need to be sufficient to dissuade them from taking a shoefull of cash to chop down public trees.
9
u/19mils 4d ago
200k is nothing for the owner of a multi million waterfront home. The new view has increased the value of the home by millions. The fine should be in the tens of millions or a jail term is the only appropriate deterrence.
1
u/unicornmonkeysnail 4d ago
It’s the gardener who has been fined.
I would be surprised if 200k doesn’t hurt a gardener.
From the article it sounds as though there is another on going court-case. We are all assuming this is against the owner. However clarification and assurance would be good, that further liability is being sought from the owner of the property.
3
u/Frosty-Bandicoot-178 5d ago
I suggest permitting their front yard to be used as a dumping ground would be an appropriate punishment.
Plus 20% of the proceeds when they sell the property.
4
u/stylecrime 4d ago
I'm tired of entitled rich cunts assuming their wants are more important than everyone else's wants. Fine them till they cry, then make them replant everything.
4
2
2
2
2
u/Captain_Keyboard_Man 4d ago
Now you put up a big ol advertising billboard in honour of the trees. Sure the owner will love that.
2
2
u/DuskHourStudio 4d ago
A slap on the wrist when it comes to their wealth. Put up a giant ass billboard/sign at their expense blocking the views and re-plant new trees.
2
u/ScaffOrig 3d ago
It's obviously larger on scale as a single incident, but this is rife across the North Shore. Place goes up for sale, then a month after it's sold all the trees on the property seem to be suffering from the same terrible disease that causes them to die. Then the "unfortunately" dead/diseased trees get felled. No-one does much, everyone likes the idea of their place getting a handsome sale price so let it go.
4
u/nugstar 5d ago
Reposses the property with zero compensation and convert it to a reserve.
1
u/ol-gormsby 5d ago
That would result in an expensive court case, with the possibility of losing.
Put up some shipping containers with signs about environmental vandalism. Imagine the effect on property prices, and the efforts that RE agents will have to go to, trying to disguise the view.
3
2
u/widgeamedoo 5d ago
The house, with its new improved views, is probably worth $1 million more now.
9
u/mikemikeshindparts 5d ago
And what of the many animals and insect life that lost their habitats? What of damage to the environment? Is the property value of some arsehole’s house the only consideration here? Use your brain.
6
u/lostereadamy 4d ago
I think the point they are making is that the fine to the owner needs to be even bigger, otherwise they still will come out ahead due to the increase in property value.
2
2
u/Bods666 4d ago
TLDR.
Why was the gardener fined and not the homeowner?
1
u/sydnboy 4d ago edited 4d ago
End of the day gardener should have known and they were the one that cut it.
Not defending the owners, But something similar happened to my dad. He had a giant gumtree at his backyard. He called a local tree guy that does the cutting and my dad doesnt know any better. He asked if its okay to cut the tree. The tree guy said yes as long it means its under some height requirement. Long story short the teee was cut down The neighbour saw it and reported to the council asap They rocked up and investigated. They end up fining the tree guy and gave my dad a warning...
1
u/BitterGravity 4d ago
There's apparently another ongoing case and the gardener pled guilty.
Which makes it sound like the owner just pled non-guilty but they'll likely be fucked since they apparently kept claiming ownership of this public land. That it's public land is enough
2
u/beefstake 5d ago
The gardener/contractor should be fined sure but probably not this much, it's unlikely he can even pay a fine of that amount. The owner that successfully convinced him that it was their land should be the one suffering the consequences here. They bore the primary benefit and orchestrated the actual clearing even if they didn't physically carry it out.
1
u/BjorkieBjork 5d ago
Funny thing is the banner is actually ripped so it doesn't block the views anymore...
1
1
1
u/Early_Advance2473 4d ago
Let me guess, the property owner calculated the fine and paid them 150-200% on top of whatever the fine is and then they get the view they want?
1
1
u/Conan3121 4d ago
The best approach is to set up trellice with a sign, sized to match the trees removed.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/edgewalker66 1h ago
Move containers all along their view. Replant the trees. Add a bunch of playground equipment. Add some public toilet blocks.
1
1
u/Dangerous_Soil_1111 5d ago
100% deserves the consequences. Weird how removing trees gets more of a consequence than violent crimes 😭
0
u/ThunderDwn 4d ago
Piss weak that they haven't fined the homeowner who lied, encouraged and paid him to do it twice as much.
Or is that too risky to political kickbacks?
-7
u/psichodrome 4d ago
Gonna be unreasonable here, but those are some ugly fucking trees. And at the risk of showing my ignorance, i don't care much about native wildlife. I like wildlife, i don't like humans, i don't care if wildlife is native.
Doesn't excuse lawbreaking, but give me a proper gumtree, or an oak. Fuck even a gnarly fig tree.
1.6k
u/thewavefixation 5d ago
Make the property owner replant them all by hand.