Leaning trees near a Boundary - responsibility?
Discussion
A long long time ago I planted a mainly English mixed broadleaf with some Scot's pine wood, which is now mature.
Some years later a neighbour built a small barn very close to our boundary.
The barn is shortly to be converted into a dwelling (planning has been granted).
Some of my trees (the Scot's pine) are leaning towards the barn due to the prevailing wind.
If I were living in the barn conversion, I would be wary of those Scot's pine.
The owner of the barn has not in all this time raised any concern.
They are aware of the trees as planning required a tree survey with tick-box answers
asking if the development would effect any nearby trees (not if the trees would effect the development).
Bearing in mind that the trees were there before the barn (but less mature and straight)
whose responsibility would it be to fell them if if required?
Some years later a neighbour built a small barn very close to our boundary.
The barn is shortly to be converted into a dwelling (planning has been granted).
Some of my trees (the Scot's pine) are leaning towards the barn due to the prevailing wind.
If I were living in the barn conversion, I would be wary of those Scot's pine.
The owner of the barn has not in all this time raised any concern.
They are aware of the trees as planning required a tree survey with tick-box answers
asking if the development would effect any nearby trees (not if the trees would effect the development).
Bearing in mind that the trees were there before the barn (but less mature and straight)
whose responsibility would it be to fell them if if required?
Edited by Elderly on Wednesday 25th March 12:19
LooneyTunes said:
Elderly said:
whose responsibility would it be to fell them if if required?
Required for what reason?Because they are dangerous or to allow development?
I too would suggest that trees growing on your property that you know pose a risk are your liability.
While morally you can be frustrated that the barn will become a house, you are still responsible and always have been.
When the building was a barn you still had liability - but you chose to be comfortable with it because 'only a barn'.
While morally you can be frustrated that the barn will become a house, you are still responsible and always have been.
When the building was a barn you still had liability - but you chose to be comfortable with it because 'only a barn'.
Ensure you have legal cover on your home insurance policy. That will then cover you if the trees blow over and someone takes action against you for being negligent on not checking the trees were safe.
If the trees are perfectly healthy and just blow over due to exceptional weather you have no responsibility.
If you want belt and braces get a tree person in to inspect them.
Your tress you can do what you like with them - subject to TPOs
If the trees are perfectly healthy and just blow over due to exceptional weather you have no responsibility.
If you want belt and braces get a tree person in to inspect them.
Your tress you can do what you like with them - subject to TPOs
Elderly said:
LooneyTunes said:
Elderly said:
whose responsibility would it be to fell them if if required?
Required for what reason?Because they are dangerous or to allow development?
Elderly said:
Some years later a neighbour built a small barn very close to our boundary.
The barn is shortly to be converted into a dwelling (planning has been granted).
A tree can lean without it being dangerous. It might also need to be removed if it couldn't co-exist with the building being converted. Hence the question about why you think they need to be removed... the answer to which would completely change things.The barn is shortly to be converted into a dwelling (planning has been granted).
Dog Biscuit said:
Nobody is going to require you to fell a healthy tree.
At worst I'd maybe be prepared for the neighbour to request any overhanging branches be pruned.
I'd be more concerned about the roots long term if I were the neighbour
You are liable for root damage as well as damage caused by 'your' tree falling onto a neighbour's property.At worst I'd maybe be prepared for the neighbour to request any overhanging branches be pruned.
I'd be more concerned about the roots long term if I were the neighbour
So the last line of your post contradicts for first. You may be advised to get rid of a healthy tree, provided no TPO.
POIDH said:
I too would suggest that trees growing on your property that you know pose a risk are your liability.
While morally you can be frustrated that the barn will become a house, you are still responsible and always have been.
When the building was a barn you still had liability - but you chose to be comfortable with it because 'only a barn'.
I don't know if they are dangerous, I wrote that if I were living in the dwelling, I'd be wary.While morally you can be frustrated that the barn will become a house, you are still responsible and always have been.
When the building was a barn you still had liability - but you chose to be comfortable with it because 'only a barn'.
The trees were there before the barn itself, so no question of 'It's only a barn'.
A tree and ecology survey was carried out recently on the ,instructions of the developer in order to satisfy planning
and nothing has been said to me about the trees. They are aware that there are trees of a certain girth at a certain distance
from the dwelling.
Elderly said:
I don't know if they are dangerous, I wrote that if I were living in the dwelling, I'd be wary.
The trees were there before the barn itself, so no question of 'It's only a barn'.
A tree and ecology survey was carried out recently on the ,instructions of the developer in order to satisfy planning
and nothing has been said to me about the trees. They are aware that there are trees of a certain girth at a certain distance
from the dwelling.
Really you need to know if any trees on your boundary are dangerous or not. As if they are and you haven't done anything about it then you could be held liable.The trees were there before the barn itself, so no question of 'It's only a barn'.
A tree and ecology survey was carried out recently on the ,instructions of the developer in order to satisfy planning
and nothing has been said to me about the trees. They are aware that there are trees of a certain girth at a certain distance
from the dwelling.
If an otherwise healthy tree causes damage then you almost certainly won't be held liable for any subsequent damage.
Unless the tree is protected in anyway then the neighbour can lop any overhanging branches.
Ultimately the trees growing on your property irrespective of which direction they are growing in and how long they have been growing there for are still your responsibility and should something happen it is you that will be liable.
I’ve just had to shell out for a tree surgeon to thin out and reduce down 3 trees abutting the road which until now the Council were happy to claim the verge was theirs right until I suggested they needed to do said work.
They have been happy to put in writing that said verge and hence trees is actually mine so the cost and maintenance is versus the extra “ land “ just gained.
I’ve just had to shell out for a tree surgeon to thin out and reduce down 3 trees abutting the road which until now the Council were happy to claim the verge was theirs right until I suggested they needed to do said work.
They have been happy to put in writing that said verge and hence trees is actually mine so the cost and maintenance is versus the extra “ land “ just gained.
alscar said:
Ultimately the trees growing on your property irrespective of which direction they are growing in and how long they have been growing there for are still your responsibility and should something happen it is you that will be liable.
I ve just had to shell out for a tree surgeon to thin out and reduce down 3 trees abutting the road which until now the Council were happy to claim the verge was theirs right until I suggested they needed to do said work.
They have been happy to put in writing that said verge and hence trees is actually mine so the cost and maintenance is versus the extra land just gained.
That's not true for a domestic owner.I ve just had to shell out for a tree surgeon to thin out and reduce down 3 trees abutting the road which until now the Council were happy to claim the verge was theirs right until I suggested they needed to do said work.
They have been happy to put in writing that said verge and hence trees is actually mine so the cost and maintenance is versus the extra land just gained.
If a tree on your land falls onto somebody else's property (and you were not cutting it down or knew it was likely to fall down (and as a domestic person you are not expected to have a huge amount of knowledge about your trees) then it is the neighbour that has to claim from their insurance.
pghstochaj said:
alscar said:
Ultimately the trees growing on your property irrespective of which direction they are growing in and how long they have been growing there for are still your responsibility and should something happen it is you that will be liable.
I ve just had to shell out for a tree surgeon to thin out and reduce down 3 trees abutting the road which until now the Council were happy to claim the verge was theirs right until I suggested they needed to do said work.
They have been happy to put in writing that said verge and hence trees is actually mine so the cost and maintenance is versus the extra land just gained.
That's not true for a domestic owner.I ve just had to shell out for a tree surgeon to thin out and reduce down 3 trees abutting the road which until now the Council were happy to claim the verge was theirs right until I suggested they needed to do said work.
They have been happy to put in writing that said verge and hence trees is actually mine so the cost and maintenance is versus the extra land just gained.
If a tree on your land falls onto somebody else's property (and you were not cutting it down or knew it was likely to fall down (and as a domestic person you are not expected to have a huge amount of knowledge about your trees) then it is the neighbour that has to claim from their insurance.
Not saying the neighbour couldn’t deal with via their own Insurance but doesn’t mean you would want to risk that.
Just as in my tale previously I could have left the trees alone and told the car owners whose cars had been potentially damaged by a falling branch that it wasn’t my fault but again didn’t want to take the risk.
alscar said:
Even as a homeowner knowing nothing about trees you are still responsible though - it s your land.
Not saying the neighbour couldn t deal with via their own Insurance but doesn t mean you would want to risk that.
Just as in my tale previously I could have left the trees alone and told the car owners whose cars had been potentially damaged by a falling branch that it wasn t my fault but again didn t want to take the risk.
That's down to your attitude to risk.Not saying the neighbour couldn t deal with via their own Insurance but doesn t mean you would want to risk that.
Just as in my tale previously I could have left the trees alone and told the car owners whose cars had been potentially damaged by a falling branch that it wasn t my fault but again didn t want to take the risk.
You wouldn't be held liable if you had taken reasonable steps to ensure the tree was healthy.
Nicetobenice said:
alscar said:
Even as a homeowner knowing nothing about trees you are still responsible though - it s your land.
Not saying the neighbour couldn t deal with via their own Insurance but doesn t mean you would want to risk that.
Just as in my tale previously I could have left the trees alone and told the car owners whose cars had been potentially damaged by a falling branch that it wasn t my fault but again didn t want to take the risk.
That's down to your attitude to risk.Not saying the neighbour couldn t deal with via their own Insurance but doesn t mean you would want to risk that.
Just as in my tale previously I could have left the trees alone and told the car owners whose cars had been potentially damaged by a falling branch that it wasn t my fault but again didn t want to take the risk.
You wouldn't be held liable if you had taken reasonable steps to ensure the tree was healthy.
It’s not just my attitude to risk but considering others and also the potential hassle that might occur but either way I’m fine with having to pay.
The OP is aware that his trees are growing towards the barn and doing nothing is certainly a risk although only he can decide how large that risk actually is.
alscar said:
pghstochaj said:
alscar said:
Ultimately the trees growing on your property irrespective of which direction they are growing in and how long they have been growing there for are still your responsibility and should something happen it is you that will be liable.
I ve just had to shell out for a tree surgeon to thin out and reduce down 3 trees abutting the road which until now the Council were happy to claim the verge was theirs right until I suggested they needed to do said work.
They have been happy to put in writing that said verge and hence trees is actually mine so the cost and maintenance is versus the extra land just gained.
That's not true for a domestic owner.I ve just had to shell out for a tree surgeon to thin out and reduce down 3 trees abutting the road which until now the Council were happy to claim the verge was theirs right until I suggested they needed to do said work.
They have been happy to put in writing that said verge and hence trees is actually mine so the cost and maintenance is versus the extra land just gained.
If a tree on your land falls onto somebody else's property (and you were not cutting it down or knew it was likely to fall down (and as a domestic person you are not expected to have a huge amount of knowledge about your trees) then it is the neighbour that has to claim from their insurance.
Not saying the neighbour couldn t deal with via their own Insurance but doesn t mean you would want to risk that.
Just as in my tale previously I could have left the trees alone and told the car owners whose cars had been potentially damaged by a falling branch that it wasn t my fault but again didn t want to take the risk.
There is case law to the effect that the owner of a tree does not become "the insurer of nature".
Much turns on whether you knew there was an issue with the tree.
LooneyTunes said:
It's not even true for a non-domestic owner. It depends on the circumstances in which the tree/part thereof falls down/causes damage.
There is case law to the effect that the owner of a tree does not become "the insurer of nature".
Much turns on whether you knew there was an issue with the tree.
A clearer way of making my point.There is case law to the effect that the owner of a tree does not become "the insurer of nature".
Much turns on whether you knew there was an issue with the tree.
Trees roots grow and branches fall off. It's what trees do.
For anyone who wants to look, it's all laid out in Stagecoach South Western Trains v Hind [2014] EWHC 1891 (TCC) at para. 68.
said:
68 Accordingly, I consider that the principles relating to a landowner's duty in respect of trees can be summarised as follows:
(a) The owner of a tree owes a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent landowner (Caminer);
(b) Such a duty must not amount to an unreasonable burden (Lambourn) or force the landowner to act as the insurer of nature (Noble). But he has a duty to act where there is a danger which is apparent to him and which he can see with his own eyes (Brown);
(c) A reasonable and prudent landowner should carry out preliminary/informal inspections or observations on a regular basis (Micklewright and the first instance cases noted in paragraph 66 above);
(d) In certain circumstances, the landowner should arrange for fuller inspections by arboriculturalists (Caminer, Quinn). This will usually be because preliminary/informal inspections or observations have revealed a potential problem (Micklewright, Charlesworth and Percy), although it could also arise because of a lack of knowledge or capacity on the part of the landowner to carry out preliminary/informal inspections (Caminer). A general approach that requires a close/formal inspection only if there is some form of 'trigger' is also in accordance with the published guidance referred to in paragraphs 53-55 above.
(e) The resources available to the householder may have a relevance (Leakey) to the way in which the duty is discharged.
ETA: there may be more recent developments, but I did not encounter them when I had cause to look into this recently.(a) The owner of a tree owes a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent landowner (Caminer);
(b) Such a duty must not amount to an unreasonable burden (Lambourn) or force the landowner to act as the insurer of nature (Noble). But he has a duty to act where there is a danger which is apparent to him and which he can see with his own eyes (Brown);
(c) A reasonable and prudent landowner should carry out preliminary/informal inspections or observations on a regular basis (Micklewright and the first instance cases noted in paragraph 66 above);
(d) In certain circumstances, the landowner should arrange for fuller inspections by arboriculturalists (Caminer, Quinn). This will usually be because preliminary/informal inspections or observations have revealed a potential problem (Micklewright, Charlesworth and Percy), although it could also arise because of a lack of knowledge or capacity on the part of the landowner to carry out preliminary/informal inspections (Caminer). A general approach that requires a close/formal inspection only if there is some form of 'trigger' is also in accordance with the published guidance referred to in paragraphs 53-55 above.
(e) The resources available to the householder may have a relevance (Leakey) to the way in which the duty is discharged.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff