Anyone any experience with disputes over a neighbour's trees...?

[BrummieDave]

We've lived in BD Towers for 21 years and have a south west facing garden. When we moved in, the hedge/trees at the end of our garden, all exclusively in our neighbours property, were about the height of the panel fence, so 6ft. Now unchecked, they are well over 20 feet high, and above the level that I can trim them, extend into our garden by about 10 feet. Consequently, we lose the sunshine much earlier than we'd wish on a hot sunny day.

The trees in question are mainly coniferous, and I have repeatedly requested the trees be reduced but the lady who lives there steadfastly refuses to even discuss it. I'm very aware that bad feeling between neighbours can be a no win situation, and have resisted the urge to go heavy/legal, but as we are now redeveloping the back garden, enough is enough.

So I'm looking for any views on two things in particular:

Firstly, anyone had any success beyond the doorstep conversations, pleading to people's sense of reasonableness in such matter?

Secondly, anyone ever used the 'Over the garden hedge' legislative approach and if so, what was the outcome: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... rden-hedge

[GrahamPlatt]

I’ve been on the other side of that equation. However I was in agreement that “something must be done”, so did. Cost ~£1k though, which might be part of your lady’s refusal to consider it.

[dspp]

When I needed to ensure stumps did not regrow I would drill some holes into them and pour a mixture of used sump oil and glyphosphate weedkiller into them. There is a vigorous discussion of whether that is more or less effective than copper nails, but it certainly used to work for me. If any roots penetrate your garden and are accessible to you then perhaps you could experiment.

https://www.mygardeningnetwork.com/land ... -leylandii
https://www.gardenerscorner.co.uk/threa ... ils.51740/
https://www.gardenerscorner.co.uk/threa ... ate.34024/

regards, dspp

[Lootman]

I’ve been on the other side of that equation. However I was in agreement that “something must be done”, so did. Cost ~£1k though, which might be part of your lady’s refusal to consider it.

If the cost is the neighbour's only objection then the solution is simple. Offer to pay for the work. Then the only issue would be having access to the neighbour's property to do a proper job.

At least that was the solution when I wanted a neighbour's tree pruning. In my case the reason was different - it was blocking a nice view. As far as I know there is no legal right to a view so it was just a matter of negotiation. I also explained that the tree itself would benefit from a professional pruning rather than, say, me just hacking off the pieces that overhang my land which I am entitled to do anyway.

There may be more of a legal case for deprivation of light rather than deprivation of view. But suing your neighbour isn't really going to create a warm, fuzzy feeling between you, and could be expensive and still fail.

One other thing. If you are in a preservation area or a national park, as two of our houses were, then you may need to seek your local authority's permission for any pruning plans. And you can probably forget about removing a tree altogether whether it is yours or not. I had a battle with Haringey council about that, and had to prune it far less than I wanted. Ironically the tree later died, which solved my problem in a different way.

[Mike88]

Look here:

https://www.gov.uk/how-to-resolve-neigh ... trees-and-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... he-council

I've had the same problem. There is an appeal procedure to the local Council but first you have to get an independent mediator to arbitrate but am told nearly always the tree owner refuses to cooperate or to share the costs. In informal discussions with my local Council I was told by their tree expert that Councils rarely find in favour of the applicant as that would leave Councils open to legal action for damages because trimming a tall tree to 6ft will often kill it.

[BrummieDave]

I’ve been on the other side of that equation. However I was in agreement that “something must be done”, so did. Cost ~£1k though, which might be part of your lady’s refusal to consider it.

If the cost is the neighbour's only objection then the solution is simple. Offer to pay for the work. Then the only issue would be having access to the neighbour's property to do a proper job.

At least that was the solution when I wanted a neighbour's tree pruning. In my case the reason was different - it was blocking a nice view. As far as I know there is no legal right to a view so it was just a matter of negotiation. I also explained that the tree itself would benefit from a professional pruning rather than, say, me just hacking off the pieces that overhang my land which I am entitled to do anyway.

There may be more of a legal case for deprivation of light rather than deprivation of view. But suing your neighbour isn't really going to create a warm, fuzzy feeling between you, and could be expensive and still fail.

One other thing. If you are in a preservation area or a national park, as two of our houses were, then you may need to seek your local authority's permission for any pruning plans. And you can probably forget about removing a tree altogether whether it is yours or not. I had a battle with Haringey council about that, and had to prune it far less than I wanted. Ironically the tree later died, which solved my problem in a different way.

It will cost a lot more than £1k, and I have offered to pay and even compensate for the inconvenience of having people in the garden etc. so that's not this issue.

And there is a legal case (Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003), as I linked in my OP, and my council offers the service based on the legislation I showed above.

Not looking for general views tbh, I've thoroughly researched this for years. I was specifically looking for anyone with experience of using the 'High Hedges' legislation, and getting local councils involved (which itself costs in excess of £500).

[BrummieDave]

Look here:

https://www.gov.uk/how-to-resolve-neigh ... trees-and-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... he-council

I've had the same problem. There is an appeal procedure to the local Council but first you have to get an independent mediator to arbitrate but am told nearly always the tree owner refuses to cooperate or to share the costs. In informal discussions with my local Council I was told by their tree expert that Councils rarely find in favour of the applicant as that would leave Councils open to legal action for damages because trimming a tall tree to 6ft will often kill it.

Thanks Mike (the links you provided are in fact the same as my OP) I'm aware of the legal aspects and the council process, and looking for anyone who's been through it. My gut feel is also that the council would defer to the tree owner as you say, although if you could see the trees in question (30 feet high, 10 yards long) you'd see it's not an insignificant 'hedge'.

So the request is really for any personal feedback from someone who has been through that process with the council.

[BrummieDave]

This may help those reading this thread:

What does the high hedges legislation do?

Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 allows local councils to deal with complaints about high hedges whose area contains the land on which the hedge is situated.

Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
When councils are determining a complaint they must first decide whether the height of the high hedge is having an adverse effect on a neighbour's enjoyment of their home and/or its garden or yard. If it is, then councils can order the owner of a high hedge to take action to put right the problem and stop it from happening again.

The legislation also allows councils to set and charge fees for handling these complaints (over £500 in the case of my local council).

[dealtn]

It's not obvious from your original post, but is the loss of light/sun/view an issue for other neighbours too, or you alone.

Were you to have a long thin garden, say, and the offending trees at the end of yours (but on the neighbour's property), the effect of their growth could also impinge on your neighbours to your left and right (and beyond). Or this might not be the case should your garden be long and wide, say.

Any "battle" against one person is easier to resolve if they, in turn, aren't battling with a single person.

(No experience in this field personally - which is what you were asking for.)

[GoSeigen]

When I needed to ensure stumps did not regrow I would drill some holes into them and pour a mixture of used sump oil and glyphosphate weedkiller into them. There is a vigorous discussion of whether that is more or less effective than copper nails, but it certainly used to work for me. If any roots penetrate your garden and are accessible to you then perhaps you could experiment.

Just to be clear, this is a suggestion to the OP to try criminal damage as a solution?

GS

[Lootman]

When I needed to ensure stumps did not regrow I would drill some holes into them and pour a mixture of used sump oil and glyphosphate weedkiller into them. There is a vigorous discussion of whether that is more or less effective than copper nails, but it certainly used to work for me. If any roots penetrate your garden and are accessible to you then perhaps you could experiment.

Just to be clear, this is a suggestion to the OP to try criminal damage as a solution?

Allegedly Larry Ellison tried that. He even offered to buy the property with the trees just so he could chop them down. He had his own "tree lawyer":

https://www.cnbc.com/id/43238280

[dspp]

When I needed to ensure stumps did not regrow I would drill some holes into them and pour a mixture of used sump oil and glyphosphate weedkiller into them. There is a vigorous discussion of whether that is more or less effective than copper nails, but it certainly used to work for me. If any roots penetrate your garden and are accessible to you then perhaps you could experiment.

Just to be clear, this is a suggestion to the OP to try criminal damage as a solution?

GS

I have to admit, I don't know what is the legal status of roots on ones own land. I know one can chop off overhanging branches, but I am unsure about roots.

(I have entirely legally dealt with quite a lot of leylandi over the years, including helping various overwhelmed elderly neighbours, with their permission. The approach above is one I have used on my own ash etc in the past, and it definitely works)

regards, dspp

[GoSeigen]

When I needed to ensure stumps did not regrow I would drill some holes into them and pour a mixture of used sump oil and glyphosphate weedkiller into them. There is a vigorous discussion of whether that is more or less effective than copper nails, but it certainly used to work for me. If any roots penetrate your garden and are accessible to you then perhaps you could experiment.

Just to be clear, this is a suggestion to the OP to try criminal damage as a solution?

GS

I have to admit, I don't know what is the legal status of roots on ones own land. I know one can chop off overhanging branches, but I am unsure about roots.

(I have entirely legally dealt with quite a lot of leylandi over the years, including helping various overwhelmed elderly neighbours, with their permission. The approach above is one I have used on my own ash etc in the past, and it definitely works)

regards, dspp

Probably I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting, subtly, that by poisoning the roots the OP could ensure the demise of the neighbour's trees -- presumably without their knowledge and agreement, else why go to the bother of doing it underground on your own side of the fence.

Now the killing of a few leylandii may not seem like a huge crime given that they could be replanted and grow back in a few years, but I think it may be hard for the OP to persuade a judge that it was the tree's fault for growing it's roots across the boundary!

For avoidance of doubt, I think this would be a very bad idea for the OP to try. Perfect for killing your own trees on your own land though...


GS

[BrummieDave]

Thanks for all the replies.

Rest assured, I'm very much looking to resolve this within the boundaries of the law, and was simply asking if anyone has used the national 'High hedges' approach, implemented locally by councils, and what was the outcome.

To answer dealtn, and to quote the Gov.Uk website, the coniferous trees in question are "having an adverse effect on a the enjoyment of their (our) home and/or its garden or yard". Plants closeby have died, the fence is being damaged, the trunks of the trees are actually on my side of the boundary (due to the prevailing wind), and the loss of sunshine has a very negative effect on our enjoyment of our garden.

So unless anyone has direct experience of involving their local council, thanks again, thread over.

[Lootman]

I think it may be hard for the OP to persuade a judge that it was the tree's fault for growing it's roots across the boundary!

That does raise an interesting question though. If you can legally chop down any branches of a neighbour's tree that overhang your property without consent or notice required, then can you also dig up any roots that intrude into and underneath your property?

I would have thought so, although perhaps not if your intent is specifically to harm the tree.

[BrummieDave]

I think it may be hard for the OP to persuade a judge that it was the tree's fault for growing it's roots across the boundary!

That does raise an interesting question though. If you can legally chop down any branches of a neighbour's tree that overhang your property without consent or notice required, then can you also dig up any roots that intrude into and underneath your property?

I would have thought so, although perhaps not if your intent is specifically to harm the tree.

Yes you can. As I said, I've read up on this for years. Roots are treated exactly the same as branches.

But like branches, you should tell the neighbour first and endeavour not to trespass, or cause damage to the tree.

[dspp]

I think it may be hard for the OP to persuade a judge that it was the tree's fault for growing it's roots across the boundary!

That does raise an interesting question though. If you can legally chop down any branches of a neighbour's tree that overhang your property without consent or notice required, then can you also dig up any roots that intrude into and underneath your property?

I would have thought so, although perhaps not if your intent is specifically to harm the tree.

I know from experience that digging up the roots of a leylandi on one side close-in to the trunk will often kill it. To be clear it wasn't on my land, I wasn't involved, and the owner hadn't given permission. But I had a very good view of the consequences which were mostly fatal (for the trees).

If the trunk crosses into your land then presumably you can cut that part of the trunk down/away in complete accordance with the law, giving back the wood of course. Am I right on this ?

As to the roots I really don't know. [edit, I see BD has said legally roots are fair game, though how one chops them out without damaging the tree is a bit perplexing]

regards, dspp

[johnhemming]

I have dealt with quite a few neighbour disputes over time. My first advice is to try to find a way which involves agreement. It is, for example, likely to be much easier if you agree to either pay for or contribute towards any work done rather than compel someone to do it. There do get points where neigbours are in such a mood with each other that rational solutions are actively avoided by one or both parties. However, it is the sort of thing that is likely to be more productive if at all possible.

[BrummieDave]

If the trunk crosses into your land then presumably you can cut that part of the trunk down/away in complete accordance with the law, giving back the wood of course. Am I right on this ?

regards, dspp

Yes, but in practice, no.

No tree surgeon would cut a trunk on your land if the owner of the tree was just over the boundary standing under it.

Again, that would be confrontational, and I do not wish to be so. Use the law, yes, act like a nutcase, no.

[dealtn]

Thanks for all the replies.

Rest assured, I'm very much looking to resolve this within the boundaries of the law, and was simply asking if anyone has used the national 'High hedges' approach, implemented locally by councils, and what was the outcome.

To answer dealtn, and to quote the Gov.Uk website, the coniferous trees in question are "having an adverse effect on a the enjoyment of their (our) home and/or its garden or yard". Plants closeby have died, the fence is being damaged, the trunks of the trees are actually on my side of the boundary (due to the prevailing wind), and the loss of sunshine has a very negative effect on our enjoyment of our garden.

So unless anyone has direct experience of involving their local council, thanks again, thread over.

To be fair that wasn't what I asked.

Put simply are there others similarly affected, or you alone?

Easier to win an argument if you have others on your side is what I tried to express.