Jump to content

Taking my neighbours tree down wqithout his consent


Recommended Posts

4 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.

 

Good job you and I aren't neighbours then!

 

In all seriousness though, if you were my neighbour and it was your tree I'd respect your right to adopt that position....  if you always loved that tree, and cared a lot about it's vital role in your lovingly tendered garden. Even then, I'd also expect you to respect my right to develop my own land, and at least explore the issue with me. If it turned out you were an absent landlord using a tree that you actually didn't care about just to hold me over a barrel to line your pockets, I'd perhaps think a little less of you. If you were an absent landlord who wouldn't even respond to my polite enquiries, I'd probably start a thread on BuildHub asking how to force the issue!

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mike said:

 

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

 

Now this is extremely interesting. I had looked at this, but only found screw piles for garden buildings (in fact the websites are clear that they can't be used for houses). 

 

When I designed our house it was with the specific intention of happy coexistence with the neighbours tree, and as much as my head knows that trying to have it removed is the sensible option, my heart still wants it to stay. I always liked the idea of it as a backdrop to my house as viewed from my garden. Trying to make that happen has cost me about 3k in engineers fees and at least a year trying to get someone who is willing and able to do the piled foundations and raft slab I had designed, taking into account the difficuylt access to my plot. All to protect the tree. End result: It costs an awful lot of money, and stress, and time to get pretty close to nowhere. 

 

Turns out there may well be a method using trench foundations (with which I am far more comfortable in terms of experience, how forgiving they are, the cost, the logistics etc). This method doesn't involve the expense and risk to nearby property of piling, but should protect the tree, so that's what I'm set to do, though I will look at these ground screws. Thanks very much for the link.

 

5 hours ago, Mike said:

Might also be worth knowing about air spades.

 

 Yep. Hired one, used it to survey the roots. Its great, so long as you only want to know about the top 30 - 40 cm of root structure and nothing else. Beyond that I was into the clay, and the air spade didn't want to know. 

 

That said, if your not in clay these are amazing machines.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tony K said:

I'd also expect you to respect my right to develop my own land

Wouldn't it have been prudent to find the land owner  of the tree before you designed something you can't build?

 

You quote in your first post that you 'work in planning', so should we consider that to be a professional- that should have known the ropes?

 

Put the apprentice on a digger, make it a big one and swing the wrong way when taking the footings out, might cost a few fence panels as well, but you've got to make it look convincing.

 

Otherwise re-design or offer them some cash.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JFDIY said:

Wouldn't it have been prudent to find the land owner  of the tree before you designed something you can't build?

 

You quote in your first post that you 'work in planning', so should we consider that to be a professional- that should have known the ropes?

 

Put the apprentice on a digger, make it a big one and swing the wrong way when taking the footings out, might cost a few fence panels as well, but you've got to make it look convincing.

 

Otherwise re-design or offer them some cash.

 

 

 

 

In fairness the planning system doesn't assess whether something can be built. I did check though, and found that a piled raft would work. When I started this thread I had concluded that the cost and risk of this method made the preservation of the tree disproportionate. Since then I've made progress on a cheaper, safer, tree protecting method so its all a bit of a false alarm (sorry!), though very interesting to see peoples views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like to play the devil. However, i once had to pay on behalf of a client £45k for a strip of land 8 inches wide x 45 foot. It ment the client could build 2 houses instead of One. That's life. A professional planner would have either designed something suitable around the existing tree, or flagged it at the start and said, "Are you aware, that could cost you" whilst pointing at said tree. And come on Peter, how can somebody be considered selfish for planting a tree, years ago, in his own garden, when there was no building next door ! I did notice the wink, so i know you were not being serious. Would anybody on here let the builder next door, have free access over there drive, or join up to there sewage system. If there are people on here that would do that, then sorry, but that makes you a mug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Big Jimbo said:

A professional planner would have either designed something suitable around the existing tree, or flagged it at the start and said, "Are you aware, that could cost you" whilst pointing at said tree.


I completely agree. I doubt the current owner planted that tree if it’s that big, I have many trees on my borders been there fir years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/04/2020 at 15:18, Tony K said:

 

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.

send a letter recorded delivery and start keeping copies of everything 

If it goes to court  only things in writing will be considered as evidence

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine going to court. Please judge, can I remove a tree? Judge, I don't know. Do you own a chainsaw, and have any skills?...... Well that's not the issue judge. The problem is that I'm a bit of a muppet. I've designed a house, and to enable me to build it more cheaply, I need to chop down One of my neighbours trees.......The old judge would be dining out on that one for years.... And guess what. The judge would be confirming that you were indeed a muppet. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Big Jimbo said:

Imagine going to court. Please judge, can I remove a tree? Judge, I don't know. Do you own a chainsaw, and have any skills?...... Well that's not the issue judge. The problem is that I'm a bit of a muppet. I've designed a house, and to enable me to build it more cheaply, I need to chop down One of my neighbours trees.......The old judge would be dining out on that one for years.... And guess what. The judge would be confirming that you were indeed a muppet. 

 

 

Sometimes you just have to take a punt, though.  We bought our plot knowing we needed to take two trees down to have a hope of being able to build on it, so were taking the risk that someone would come along and just bang a TPO on them (very quick and easy to do - seems a favoured trick by some professional protestors).  We took the risk, and the day that we completed the purchase I instructed a tree chap to take both of them down, as quickly as possible, in order to try and pre-empt any objectors causing us pain and grief.

 

TBH, if I was faced with a tree problem like this, with a non-native tree right on the boundary, I'd probably still go ahead.  I think the main difference is that it would be an ex-tree before I ever mentioned it on a public forum, as it would have met with an unfortunate accident that necessitated it's removal.  Reminds me of a telephone pole that was at the end of the garden of a house I lived in, and prevented me being able to take out a section of fence and get a car into the back garden.  That pole developed severe rot around the base, and was reported to the GPO (as they were then).  When the chaps came around to replace it they were slipped a few quid to stick the replacement a couple of feet to one side, giving me enough room to get a car in.

 

(old battery acid poured into drilled holes just below ground level tends to cause very rapid "decay").

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Big Jimbo said:

Imagine going to court. Please judge, can I remove a tree? Judge, I don't know. Do you own a chainsaw, and have any skills?...... Well that's not the issue judge. The problem is that I'm a bit of a muppet. I've designed a house, and to enable me to build it more cheaply, I need to chop down One of my neighbours trees.......The old judge would be dining out on that one for years.... And guess what. The judge would be confirming that you were indeed a muppet. 

 


Excellent legal advice. Thanks. 

 

Interesting thing though, how much detail to get into before making a planning application?

 

Everyone from self builders to larger developers make a judgement call on what time, money and effort to spend fine detailing their proposals before they even know if they'll get permission. 

 

Some spend years, or tens of thousands, or both, ironing out every aspect, even appointing a contractor before applying for planning, almost like that bit is an afterthought. 

 

Others apply for planning before they even own the land, let alone employ an architect and engineer to actually check their idea can be built, all on the basis that if they don't get planning permission then all of that other stuff would have been a waste of time and money. 

 

What I did was design a house to avoid all the many possible reasons for planning refusal, use the simplest construction techniques, and work with the limited site access. 

 

I did a lot of research first, including assessing the tree. I found that a piled raft was viable and wouldn't require tree removal. I didn't get so far as to get an engineers design up front, or to get quotes for the groundworks.

 

I viewed the planning application as a 50/50 shot, but worth a try given I could do it myself. By keeping my planning application homemade I saved myself the risk of throwing thousands away in fees for nothing, but left myself some further learning to do post-permission. Ultimately I accepted there would be one or two (to borrow the phrase) 'known unknowns', but I have confidence in my ability to problem solve when needed.

 

Sure enough, it took more time and energy than I hoped to get me to where I was when I started this thread on Monday night. Now, a few days later, I've learned that my rights to cut roots on my land do have limits, that not everyone is comfortable with even a very nice tree close to their house, and that a fair few buildhub members are open to lighthearted skullduggery when overcoming obstacles!

 

I've also (having learned I can't compel my neighbour to even discuss the tree with me) been forced to explore alternative foundation designs, including an excellent tip from Mike about ground screws. 

 

Turns out I can use various combinations of trench and groundbeam footings, or ground screws instead of the piles I had come to dread so much. These options seem far safer and easier, do not require removal of the tree (which in fact I really rather like), and cost half what the piling was going to. 

 

So all in all, I feel less of a muppet than you might think. But thanks for your valued contribution. 
 

 

Edited by Tony K
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony fella. Sorry, but in my humble opinion you have been given a lot of irrelevant, and subsequently, rubbish advice on this post. It all very well telling you what they would do, or have done to trees that are on there own land. I dare, any of them on here to risk taking out a large established tree that is not. You will have done some research, and you will  know that you won't be ordered by the court to pay for the full cost of a sapling. You will be required to pay the full value of the tree ££££££. To take out the tree, without your neighbours permission, by accident or otherwise, would be a seriously big gamble, and could cost you so much more than an alternative foundation design. 

With regard screw piles, I did look into them, and there are a couple of companies that do the engineering calcs, installation, etc. You might find bco's a bit resistant, but it is more than possible to build a house on screw piles. Personally, I think they are a great eco product. Virtually no spoil. No concrete. 

I hope you don't think I singled you out for a bit of stick? You certainly don't come across as stupid, and I think that your post was more, searching for a devine Ray of light, than looking for some stupid comments like, take it out with a digger. 

Best of luck Tony. 

P. S. In the future, I believe that most new houses will be built using screw piles. Unfortunately, being a bit ahead of the curve means it may cost you a bit more than people in the future. 

Regards Jim

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Big Jimbo - No problem fella, cheers.

 

Out of interest, and to round off this thread which has been so helpful to me, these are the relative foundation costs based on the (very limited) quotes I've been able to get:

 

1. Auger Piles: 38k without muckaway costs.

 

2. Pre-drilled Driven Piles: 30.5k. 

 

3. Ground Screws / Steel Piles: 15.5k - 20.5k depending on soil test results. (Soil test is only £375 with one ground screw firm, or free from another as they are doing a job down the road anyway).

 

4. Creative (slightly fiddly) Trench Foundations with cross-ways groundbeams: 7-8k, including digger hire, muckaway costs and concrete. Might be more like 10k if I need to get a larger digger hiab-ed in to my site to excavate the bits of trench that are 2.2m deep.

 

 

All prices are for foundations only, so they don't include excavating the site down to required level, soakaway, pipes and of course the slab itself.

 

The temptation is to go for the cheapest of course, though a consequence of the trench method is that I'd end up with a ground beam set 10cm into my floorplan (like a big skirting board) to avoid the tree, and given the many benefits of the screws (as you say, great eco-credentials, but also quick, easy, tree-friendly and no threat to the nearby 120 year old cottages which, my neighbour and I know from experience having extended them, have very little by way of footings), they look the way to go. The ground screw firms feel certain they can appease the warranty provider and building control. It is new tech, but mine is far from the first house to use them, so I don't foresee too many issues (famous last words!).

 

I'll start a new topic elsewhere about forming the slab, but as far as the footings go, the options are as above.

 

Cheers all for the discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

My house has 4 metres between it and the boundary so I didn't impact next door's trees. I would rather it was 2m off the boundary and I had more garden on the other side.

 

At the price of land in this street I have lost the use of around 150sq metres which would be worth around £60,000.

 

It is not the same as a ransom strip, I own all the land. As someone said, if people plant a tree next to the boundary they should know that they risk losing it if the neighbour cuts it back to the boundary,

 

That would be a better law, your neighbour can cut a tree back to the boundary and if it dies tough, it was on their land. If this was the law people would be a lot more circumspect about planting trees right up against their neighbour's property which would help everyone out. Really you should be trying to stay around 5m away from the boundary.

 

As to the OP I would try v hard to contact the tree owner, however, if I couldn't get them I would cut the roots all the way back to the boundary. If the tree dies the only liability is likely to be for the value of the tree. This isn't America and it won't be worth the cost and expense of someone suing you as this is all they are likely to get, especially if it is not protected and anything special. They cannot really argue any loss of enjoyment when they don't live there. If you cut it back to the boundary would you have space to install root protection and a small fence  or brace to keep it away from your house whilst hoping it dies or falls over due to cutting away the roots.

Edited by AliG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Punter said:

I have recently bought a plot with an overhanging tree from a neighbour.  I will just pay to have the overhanging branches cut back to the boundary.

and don,t forget to give him the branches back 

 maybe thats the solution to the robina -

-if tennant is suddenly told your going to dump all the branches in his garden from the over hanging tree --maybe he will get hold of the landlord for you 

 or maybe just inject it with round up with a hypo needle at night 

Edited by scottishjohn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Punter said:

I have recently bought a plot with an overhanging tree from a neighbour.  I will just pay to have the overhanging branches cut back to the boundary.

As long as you check first that it isn’t covered by a TPO or conservation area, and that the work you do is not detrimental to the health of the tree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Russell griffiths said:

As long as you check first that it isn’t covered by a TPO or conservation area, and that the work you do is not detrimental to the health of the tree. 

 

Yes it is just outside the CA with no TPO.  The branches have to come off to enable construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...