Taking my neighbours tree down wqithout his consent

[Tony K]

1 minute ago, ProDave said:

Just how far away from your house is this tree?

 

I built 5 metres from a Willow tree.  I was surprised just how few tree roots we encountered digging the foundations.  Not surprising in my case as the tree is right next to a burn so that's where most of it's roots will be and where it gets most of it's water.

 

It's right next to it. As in ten inches!

[ProDave]

34 minutes ago, Tony K said:

 

It's right next to it. As in ten inches!

Then roots or no roots I would not build that close to a tree. It has to go and the only way for that is negotiate with the tree owner and you may need to pay him.

[Mr Punter]

As above, you need to make every effort to contact him with a view to removing the tree to enable your development.  Be very polite as you may need to rely on the correspondence later.  Point out that the tree may cause damage to your property.  Offer to remove it at you own expense and provide the details, insurance cover, risk assessments and method statements for your proposed contractor.  Offer reasonable compensation to cover replanting of a tree in a more suitable location plus an additional amount.

 

If you are unable to gain their consent, cut back the branches and roots to the boundary.

 

If the tree dies after pruning it would be down to the neighbour to prove it was because of the pruning.  You could offer to cover the cost of removal of the dead tree and replanting as above.  Court action would be cost prohibitive for them and any award in court would likely be small.

[joe90]

I agree with @Mr Punter above and it’s just occurred to me if you cut all the roots and branches your side it’s more likely to fall away from your property. I once cut  a tree down on our boundary (without the owners permission as he was a big PITA) and desperately tried to get it to fall his side, into a wood but despite straps, ropes etc they all snapped and it fell my side, the reason was the weight of all the foliage was my side as being up against other trees there was hardly any weight his side. Crack on sunshine ?

[Tony K]

1 hour ago, Mr Punter said:

As above, you need to make every effort to contact him with a view to removing the tree to enable your development.  Be very polite as you may need to rely on the correspondence later.  Point out that the tree may cause damage to your property.  Offer to remove it at you own expense and provide the details, insurance cover, risk assessments and method statements for your proposed contractor.  Offer reasonable compensation to cover replanting of a tree in a more suitable location plus an additional amount.

 

If you are unable to gain their consent, cut back the branches and roots to the boundary.

 

If the tree dies after pruning it would be down to the neighbour to prove it was because of the pruning.  You could offer to cover the cost of removal of the dead tree and replanting as above.  Court action would be cost prohibitive for them and any award in court would likely be small.

 

This is useful, thanks.

The only issue here is that until the tree actually dies I wouldn't be able to start building. I'd be playing the long game.

[Mr Punter]

1 hour ago, Tony K said:

The only issue here is that until the tree actually dies I wouldn't be able to start building

 

Why?  You are building on your own land.

[Jeremy Harris]

There are ways and means of bringing about it's premature end.  Not suggesting you do this or anything, just throwing it out there . . .

[Tony K]

9 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

 

Why?  You are building on your own land.

 

Because even once I've cut the roots the tree will remain, which means building control and the warranty provider will want to see that my new building can coexist with the tree. Either I tell them 'Don't worry I've killed it', in which case they will panic at the presence of a now dangerous tall tree right next to my new wall, or I don't tell them I've killed it in which case they will presume it is staying and require a highly engineered very expensive foundation solution to ensure tree and house can coexist. If I'm going to do that I may as well not cut the roots to begin with.

 

Cutting the roots is only helpful if I am prepared to wait for the tree to die. And thats without even considering the risk that while I'm waiting it could fall on someone.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Tony K

[Jilly]

Grand Designs have built some fancy houses in woodlands using tree sparing foundations. I don't recall the detail, but the are more options available than just killing the tree. 

[Mr Punter]

15 minutes ago, Tony K said:

 

Because even once I've cut the roots the tree will remain, which means building control and the warranty provider will want to see that my new building can coexist with the tree. Either I tell them 'Don't worry I've killed it', in which case they will panic at the presence of a now dangerous tall tree right next to my new wall, or I don't tell them I've killed it in which case they will presume it is staying and require a highly engineered very expensive foundation solution to ensure tree and house can coexist. If I'm going to do that I may as well not cut the roots to begin with.

 

Cutting the roots is only helpful if I am prepared to wait for the tree to die. And thats without even considering the risk that while I'm waiting it could fall on someone.

 

If that is the case you could fell it.  You won't hang for it, especially if you have attempted to constructively engage with him and he has not reciprocated.

[Tony K]

1 minute ago, Mr Punter said:

 

If that is the case you could fell it.  You won't hang for it, especially if you have attempted to constructively engage with him and he has not reciprocated.

 

Yeah that's occurred to me. I could liaise with the tenants directly and if they don't mind then just do it. 

None of this is in the textbooks.

[Mr Punter]

If you liaise with the tenants it may be better to do it on the basis that you would like access in order to fell the tree.  Do not ask their consent to fell as they would not be able to give it.  You can tell them that you have been in contact with the landlord and he is aware.

[bassanclan]

If you are on clay soil you will need to take precautions against heave even if you take the tree away, for a couple of years. This is because the clay then has to cope with the extra water not taken up by the missing tree.

[Big Jimbo]

I come back to my point. Two new trees, and £10k. Problem solved, and cheaper than your re-design and need for a new planning application.

[Tony K]

Thanks all for all the advice. I reckon I might just have come up with a foundation design that doesn't need piles, doesn't include ten metre deep trenches and also doesn't require the tree to be removed. 

 

Nevertheless, I've offered to pay for the tree to be removed and replaced 2 for 1 as it would simplify the foundations even more as well as eliminating any risk of future issues for either of us. That would be to both my benefit and my neighbours.

 

If he blanks me then so be it. I'll not be offering anyone 10k!

Edited April 28, 2020 by Tony K

[ProDave]

Have you ever considered the land owner might not be bothered about the tree?

 

We have plenty of trees. I have an ongoing gradual program of thinning them.  If my neighbour said to me can I take one down for some reason. the very last thing I would want is 2 more planted in it's place.

 

Perhaps a picture of the site and the tree might give the situation some more clarity.

[Simplysimon]

local 3 storey building, builder wanted to take frontage down and rebuild, planning said no, a bobcat ran into it and caused enough damage to warrant it coming down and  being rebuilt?

[Roundtuit]

33 minutes ago, Tony K said:

Thanks all for all the advice. I reckon I might just have come up with a foundation design that doesn't need piles, doesn't include ten metre deep trenches and also doesn't require the tree to be removed. 

 

Regardless of foundation design, if it's still only 10 inches from your build, I'd suggest it still needs to go.  You can trim the branches back to leave your neighbour half a tree before you start, but are you going to be able to do that a couple of times a year in perpetuity to stop it encroaching?  The landlord probably doesn't give a toss about the tree as long as it doesn't cost him anything, and he's possibly keeping his head down out of embarrassment at his parking-space deal duplicity being outed.  I'd persevere at making contact again and reaching an agreement to relieve him of the burden of tree ownership f.o.c

[Tony K]

15 minutes ago, Roundtuit said:

Regardless of foundation design, if it's still only 10 inches from your build, I'd suggest it still needs to go.  You can trim the branches back to leave your neighbour half a tree before you start, but are you going to be able to do that a couple of times a year in perpetuity to stop it encroaching?  The landlord probably doesn't give a toss about the tree as long as it doesn't cost him anything, and he's possibly keeping his head down out of embarrassment at his parking-space deal duplicity being outed.  I'd persevere at making contact again and reaching an agreement to relieve him of the burden of tree ownership f.o.c

 

Yes I think you're right. The key for me now is that I don't need to be held over a barrel by him. I'll persevere but only to a point. 

[Roundtuit]

10 minutes ago, Tony K said:

 The key for me now is that I don't need to be held over a barrel by him. I'll persevere but only to a point. 

 

Too right... he should be clear that if you assert your rights to trim back growth, there's a good chance the tree will become unviable and wil need removing.  Best shortcut that and take it out now! ?

[Mike]

21 hours ago, Jilly said:

Grand Designs have built some fancy houses in woodlands using tree sparing foundations.

 

That was the Dursley Tree House, which used these steel screw piles.

[Mike]

Might also be worth knowing about air spades.

[Big Jimbo]

This thread is making me laugh. Somebody bought a piece of land, and designed a house, which they put in for planning permission They did all of that knowing that the tree on neighbouring land was there, and would be a problem. They now expect somebody to be happy to remove, or have the tree removed.  Please answer me this One question. WHY SHOULD HE ? ........."I won't be giving him any £10k" ...........Fine then you crack on and move your house somewhere else. Why do you all think the owner of the tree needs, or should do anything ? The owner, and the tree were there a long time before matey came along, and designed a house that he is now going to struggle to build. Who is really at fault here ? My £10k offer now expires in 28days. It then becomes £12k for 28 days, etc, etc. And building that close to the Boundary.....Don't expect any access, scaffolding etc......which i can arrange.... for a fee.

[Jeremy Harris]

Trees can be a beautiful addition to the environment, or a complete PITA, in my view.  The right tree, in the right place, is magnificent, but we shouldn't really forget that trees can be destructive weeds, just like any other plant growing in the wrong place.  Our plot had two horse chestnut trees on it when we bought it, one right smack where the only possible entrance could go, the other growing inches from a pole with overhead power and telephone cables, with one branch growing around a power cable:

 

 

The pole and cable needed to be relocated as well, so there was no alternative but to take this tree down, quite apart from the problem where it was growing around the cable.  My approach was that it was far better to seek forgiveness than permission, so I took both trees down before we submitted our planning application.  It annoyed one or two people, but was quickly forgotten, and by doing this we pre-empted anyone deciding to try and block our PP by deciding to put a TPO on either of these trees.  We were also lucky in that, at the time we did this, the conservation area boundary ran along the lane, and missed where these trees were by a few feet.

 

We've since planted several replacement trees, anyway, plus our house is a "CO₂ sink" in effect, that is roughly equivalent to about 40 mature trees, in terms of the zero carbon energy we export to the grid, so I feel no guilt at all about having hacked down a couple of fairly tatty horse chestnut trees.  It's just irritating that the easiest way to do this was to be a bit sneaky and cut them down before putting in a planning application, as the pain and grief we'd have probably had to go though had we done things the "proper" way might have been a bit like the problem the OP of this thread is running into.

[Gone West]

2 hours ago, Big Jimbo said:

This thread is making me laugh. Somebody bought a piece of land, and designed a house, which they put in for planning permission They did all of that knowing that the tree on neighbouring land was there, and would be a problem. They now expect somebody to be happy to remove, or have the tree removed.  Please answer me this One question. WHY SHOULD HE ? ........."I won't be giving him any £10k" ...........Fine then you crack on and move your house somewhere else. Why do you all think the owner of the tree needs, or should do anything ? The owner, and the tree were there a long time before matey came along, and designed a house that he is now going to struggle to build. Who is really at fault here ? My £10k offer now expires in 28days. It then becomes £12k for 28 days, etc, etc. And building that close to the Boundary.....Don't expect any access, scaffolding etc......which i can arrange.... for a fee.

Another way of looking at this is, that the person who planted the Robinia was being selfish and inconsiderate. They would have known that the tree canopy and roots would be on neighbouring land. What right do they have to plant a tree knowing that to be the case. If you want a tree on your land then ensure all of it is on your land, if not then suffer the consequences of any work being done on the neighbouring land.