It is always the reposnsibility of the committee when dealing with perimeter fences that separare body corporate scheme land from an adjoining neighbour. However, this is not the same when dealing with trees.
One of our schemes was recently asked to remove a tree that was impacting a neigbour. The neighbour had filled out the relevant QCAT forms and submitted their request to the body corporate that we manage. However, this scheme was defined by survey as a standard format plan of survey (SFP) and not as a building format plan of survey (BFP). The tree was within the boundary of one of the lots and in this instance the ‘treekeeper’ was the lot owner and not the body corporate. Consequently, we advised the neighbour to resubmit the paperwork and direct it to the lot owner.
In a reverse situation, and in a different scheme, the tree of a neigbour was impacting more than one lot owner within a scheme that we manage. The scheme we manage was again a scheme defined by a standard format plan of survey (SFP). Two lot owners were directly impacted by the tree and the body corporate also had a portion of common property that was being impacted. In this case, a single letter was sent to the neighbour that was jointly written and signed by the two lot owners together with the body corporate. The three parties may end up filing a joint QCAT application if the neighbour does not take action in regard to their tree. Interestingly, you do not need to be a ‘directly adjoining’ neighbour to raise a tree dispute. If you are impacted by a tree, you have the right to raise a dispute with a tree keeper.