Both parties hired lawyers over the conflict, which centred around Norfolk Pine-framed ocean views , which the Land and Environment court accepted were "iconic" and "outstanding".

The court heard Austinmer resident Suzen Forte sold part of her property in January 2015 after advertising it as having "never-to-be-built-out ocean and beach views".

In August 2015 Wollongong council gave Forte and her husband - builder Mark Forte, a proponent of the controversial Thirroul Plaza redevelopment - approval to build a two-storey house and pool on the remaining land.

It was a condition of the development that "landscaping ... should preserve view corridors across the site where attainable".

The Fortes finished their new house in about December 2018. That same year, their neighbours added a second storey to their house - a move that sparked privacy concerns for the Fortes, particularly around their swimming pool, the court heard.

Conflict arose in mid-2018, at first over a boundary fence, then over a row of Tiger Grass the Fortes planted along the boundary, which was "severely" obstructing the applicants' view by the time the court paid a visit.

"Though photographs displayed the Tiger Grass forming a dense screen, prior to the hearing its height had been pruned and clumps had been bound up with twine, presumably to lighten its appearance," the court noted, in a judgement published in October and revised this week.

The neighbours, Bradley and Kylie Fussell, took the matter to court in July 2022, after two years of failed attempts at mediation and negotiation, and after council did not enforce its landscaping condition.

"The rationale provided by Council was that the language of the consent condition was 'should' rather than 'must', and thus it was not an enforceable DA condition," the court noted. "Regardless, the intent of this condition remains relevant ... the lack of enforceability of this consent condition does not extinguish its objective".

The court found the hedge played an important role in providing privacy to the Forte property.

"Having said this, given that the applicants' desired view was conditional on a view corridor across their land, as displayed in promotional material employed by the respondent to sell their dwelling to the applicants, it is unreasonable and disingenuous to expect complete privacy without view sharing."

The court ordered that the hedge be pruned and kept less than 30cm above fence height.