Want to build extension close to neighbour's tree
Discussion
JungleMonkey said:
I wonder 1) if the council can still prevent the build on the grounds of this tree being too close and 2) if building regulations can prevent.
1) Yes; that's the whole point of the neighbour consultation scheme. Of course, if your neighbour doesn't object, they can't refuse you.2) Yes; but only if you fail to design the foundations appropriately. It is not within the Remit of Building Regulations to protect trees - they are only allowed to impose conditions or control works which affect the safety, efficiency and function of buildings. They'll be worried about the damage the tree's roots could do to your building, not the damage your building will do to the tree's roots.
Equus said:
JungleMonkey said:
I wonder 1) if the council can still prevent the build on the grounds of this tree being too close and 2) if building regulations can prevent.
1) Yes; that's the whole point of the neighbour consultation scheme. Of course, if your neighbour doesn't object, they can't refuse you.2) Yes; but only if you fail to design the foundations appropriately. It is not within the Remit of Building Regulations to protect trees - they are only allowed to impose conditions or control works which affect the safety, efficiency and function of buildings. They'll be worried about the damage the tree's roots could do to your building, not the damage your building will do to the tree's roots.
Can I come in on this (all this time later)? Such intelligent responses. Can anyone help me on a similar point - but from the other side so to speak?
Neighbour has been granted planning consent for a massive single and two-storey extension on our south side which is going to shade our kitchen and sitting room completely for eight months of the year. All the neighbours and the local civic society objected but planning was still granted. These are Victorian terraced houses in a conservation area.
We have a 30-year-old cherry tree in our garden next to our boundary with him where the extension will go which the Planning Officer stated in his granting statement 'is of poor quality (ahem!) and can be removed'.
Do we actually HAVE to allow them to take down our tree to facilitate their building works?
I appreciate that leaving it in-situ would probably mean it would die as the roots will be badly cut on the neighbour's side, but surely they can't just demand that it comes down can they? Do we have any negotiation rights in this? Could this lovely old tree turn out to be the one bargaining tool we have?
Neighbour has been granted planning consent for a massive single and two-storey extension on our south side which is going to shade our kitchen and sitting room completely for eight months of the year. All the neighbours and the local civic society objected but planning was still granted. These are Victorian terraced houses in a conservation area.
We have a 30-year-old cherry tree in our garden next to our boundary with him where the extension will go which the Planning Officer stated in his granting statement 'is of poor quality (ahem!) and can be removed'.
Do we actually HAVE to allow them to take down our tree to facilitate their building works?
I appreciate that leaving it in-situ would probably mean it would die as the roots will be badly cut on the neighbour's side, but surely they can't just demand that it comes down can they? Do we have any negotiation rights in this? Could this lovely old tree turn out to be the one bargaining tool we have?
Devoid of Trouble said:
Can I come in on this (all this time later)? Such intelligent responses. Can anyone help me on a similar point - but from the other side so to speak?
Neighbour has been granted planning consent for a massive single and two-storey extension on our south side which is going to shade our kitchen and sitting room completely for eight months of the year. All the neighbours and the local civic society objected but planning was still granted. These are Victorian terraced houses in a conservation area.
We have a 30-year-old cherry tree in our garden next to our boundary with him where the extension will go which the Planning Officer stated in his granting statement 'is of poor quality (ahem!) and can be removed'.
Do we actually HAVE to allow them to take down our tree to facilitate their building works?
I appreciate that leaving it in-situ would probably mean it would die as the roots will be badly cut on the neighbour's side, but surely they can't just demand that it comes down can they? Do we have any negotiation rights in this? Could this lovely old tree turn out to be the one bargaining tool we have?
If I were your neighbour I would trench deeply, put in a deep foundation and neatly have all roots removed. And put in an I beam steel goal post frame, so when the tree comes down it will neatly deflect it back to your garden with extensive damage, after all you are trespassing into their garden and have the cheek to make their life so difficult. If the tree is so valuable why don’t people plant them in the middle of their garden? Neighbour has been granted planning consent for a massive single and two-storey extension on our south side which is going to shade our kitchen and sitting room completely for eight months of the year. All the neighbours and the local civic society objected but planning was still granted. These are Victorian terraced houses in a conservation area.
We have a 30-year-old cherry tree in our garden next to our boundary with him where the extension will go which the Planning Officer stated in his granting statement 'is of poor quality (ahem!) and can be removed'.
Do we actually HAVE to allow them to take down our tree to facilitate their building works?
I appreciate that leaving it in-situ would probably mean it would die as the roots will be badly cut on the neighbour's side, but surely they can't just demand that it comes down can they? Do we have any negotiation rights in this? Could this lovely old tree turn out to be the one bargaining tool we have?
An update: spoke to Tree Officer, and to a tree surgeon (the important bit here is that we're in a conservation area):
My understanding had always been that if we didn't allow the cherry to be removed, the work would kill it anyway and then we would have a dead tree and be liable if it then fell over and damaged their new extension. OR if it survived, that the roots being so close to their foundations could grow and cause damage, for which we would be liable.
Not so. Tree came first. They can cut back the branches on their side, but any damage they cause to its health is their liability, as is any damage the tree causes by falling over as a result of that loss of health. If the tree survived, they would be liable for any damage caused by root growth into their extension which they built with the tree in-situ. For this reason, any work done to or around the roots on their side will have to conform to a set of BS rules, which adds to the cost of the build.
Presumably they know this. They'll really need the tree to be removed, and they can't force us to allow it.
I think we sit tight. This may just give us something to negotiate with. Let's face it, we've had nothing thus far.
My understanding had always been that if we didn't allow the cherry to be removed, the work would kill it anyway and then we would have a dead tree and be liable if it then fell over and damaged their new extension. OR if it survived, that the roots being so close to their foundations could grow and cause damage, for which we would be liable.
Not so. Tree came first. They can cut back the branches on their side, but any damage they cause to its health is their liability, as is any damage the tree causes by falling over as a result of that loss of health. If the tree survived, they would be liable for any damage caused by root growth into their extension which they built with the tree in-situ. For this reason, any work done to or around the roots on their side will have to conform to a set of BS rules, which adds to the cost of the build.
Presumably they know this. They'll really need the tree to be removed, and they can't force us to allow it.
I think we sit tight. This may just give us something to negotiate with. Let's face it, we've had nothing thus far.
and build right up to Her boundary (semi detatched). She's a lovely old woman and we get on great. She and her daughter had no objection at all and said "just do it".Devoid of Trouble said:
An update: spoke to Tree Officer, and to a tree surgeon (the important bit here is that we're in a conservation area):
My understanding had always been that if we didn't allow the cherry to be removed, the work would kill it anyway and then we would have a dead tree and be liable if it then fell over and damaged their new extension. OR if it survived, that the roots being so close to their foundations could grow and cause damage, for which we would be liable.
Not so. Tree came first. They can cut back the branches on their side, but any damage they cause to its health is their liability, as is any damage the tree causes by falling over as a result of that loss of health. If the tree survived, they would be liable for any damage caused by root growth into their extension which they built with the tree in-situ. For this reason, any work done to or around the roots on their side will have to conform to a set of BS rules, which adds to the cost of the build.
Presumably they know this. They'll really need the tree to be removed, and they can't force us to allow it.
I think we sit tight. This may just give us something to negotiate with. Let's face it, we've had nothing thus far.
Oh dear, tree came first, perhaps if an environmentalist became a dictator they may eliminate you as the world came first? My understanding had always been that if we didn't allow the cherry to be removed, the work would kill it anyway and then we would have a dead tree and be liable if it then fell over and damaged their new extension. OR if it survived, that the roots being so close to their foundations could grow and cause damage, for which we would be liable.
Not so. Tree came first. They can cut back the branches on their side, but any damage they cause to its health is their liability, as is any damage the tree causes by falling over as a result of that loss of health. If the tree survived, they would be liable for any damage caused by root growth into their extension which they built with the tree in-situ. For this reason, any work done to or around the roots on their side will have to conform to a set of BS rules, which adds to the cost of the build.
Presumably they know this. They'll really need the tree to be removed, and they can't force us to allow it.
I think we sit tight. This may just give us something to negotiate with. Let's face it, we've had nothing thus far.
No wonder we have a housing crisis in England, a cherry tree is far more important than another families life. First world issues.
It’s really sad how vindictive people are , if cherry trees were so important, why not knock down their house and plant loads of cherry trees and live on them
DozyGit said:
Oh dear, tree came first, perhaps if an environmentalist became a dictator they may eliminate you as the world came first?
No wonder we have a housing crisis in England, a cherry tree is far more important than another families life. First world issues.
It’s really sad how vindictive people are , if cherry trees were so important, why not knock down their house and plant loads of cherry trees and live on them
Bit of an unfair position there mate. The issue isn’t that ‘the poor tree will be damaged’. The point is that the behemoth of an extension that his neighbours have decided to erect will rob the natural light from our fellow PHer’s home for a large chunk of the year a presumably curtail it for the rest. Have next door considered his life at all? If they need to gain space, either do it sympathetically to the local surroundings (including people) or move house. It’s not as though a huge extension as described above is going to be cheap is it? In short, he’s hoping to use the tree situation as leverage to stop some No wonder we have a housing crisis in England, a cherry tree is far more important than another families life. First world issues.
It’s really sad how vindictive people are , if cherry trees were so important, why not knock down their house and plant loads of cherry trees and live on them
ruining his enjoyment of his own home. 57Ford said:
Bit of an unfair position there mate. The issue isn’t that ‘the poor tree will be damaged’. The point is that the behemoth of an extension that his neighbours have decided to erect will rob the natural light from our fellow PHer’s home for a large chunk of the year a presumably curtail it for the rest. Have next door considered his life at all? If they need to gain space, either do it sympathetically to the local surroundings (including people) or move house. It’s not as though a huge extension as described above is going to be cheap is it? In short, he’s hoping to use the tree situation as leverage to stop some ruining his enjoyment of his own home.
I see your point mate but let’s be realistic; ruining his enjoyment of his own home. You asked have they considered cherry tree owners life?
Of course they have, it’s not illegally built is it? It has been approved after going through due process laid in law.
You say it’s ruining mr nimbys enjoyment, are you trying to suggest that the planners are corrupt? Or that the law only applies to certain people. What makes you think planners in this country allow unsympathetic extensions. In the eyes of the planning laws it certainly should not be. If so why haven’t links been postered and corrupt planners hashtags been posted. In the stark light of reality I highly doubt our local planners run some sort of mafia. I have had rejected applications and they won’t allow you to build light blocking megastructures. It’s just green with envy. I have zero regard for people like this.
In our area if someone gets planning to say convert a garage to a bathroom, someone objects from across the street, just envious low life.
Permitted development came so that these moaners can’t really do anything except moan
DozyGit said:
I see your point mate but let’s be realistic;
You asked have they considered cherry tree owners life?
Of course they have, it’s not illegally built is it? It has been approved after going through due process laid in law.
You say it’s ruining mr nimbys enjoyment, are you trying to suggest that the planners are corrupt? Or that the law only applies to certain people. What makes you think planners in this country allow unsympathetic extensions. In the eyes of the planning laws it certainly should not be. If so why haven’t links been postered and corrupt planners hashtags been posted. In the stark light of reality I highly doubt our local planners run some sort of mafia. I have had rejected applications and they won’t allow you to build light blocking megastructures. It’s just green with envy. I have zero regard for people like this.
In our area if someone gets planning to say convert a garage to a bathroom, someone objects from across the street, just envious low life.
Permitted development came so that these moaners can’t really do anything except moan
Now you’re just coming across as someone who likes ranting. First it was aimed at a ‘tree-hugging‘ type who placed too much emphasis on nature preservation and your latest performance suggests you’ve got a frustrated history of property development during which you’ve been hindered by such trivial things as the objections of people who live there. You asked have they considered cherry tree owners life?
Of course they have, it’s not illegally built is it? It has been approved after going through due process laid in law.
You say it’s ruining mr nimbys enjoyment, are you trying to suggest that the planners are corrupt? Or that the law only applies to certain people. What makes you think planners in this country allow unsympathetic extensions. In the eyes of the planning laws it certainly should not be. If so why haven’t links been postered and corrupt planners hashtags been posted. In the stark light of reality I highly doubt our local planners run some sort of mafia. I have had rejected applications and they won’t allow you to build light blocking megastructures. It’s just green with envy. I have zero regard for people like this.
In our area if someone gets planning to say convert a garage to a bathroom, someone objects from across the street, just envious low life.
Permitted development came so that these moaners can’t really do anything except moan
I didn’t suggest corruption, you brought that up. You then appear to go on to suggest that because the planning department agree to something, it clearly can’t have any negative impact whatsoever on anything or anyone around it. Really? If that’s the case, why bother with the public notifications and canvassing of opinion? After all, this all-powerful and wise planning department will know what’s best for the little folk won’t they? And I can’t see any danger of corruption further down the line from that sort of dictatorship... Hot Fuzz anyone?
DozyGit said:
57Ford said:
Bit of an unfair position there mate. The issue isn’t that ‘the poor tree will be damaged’. The point is that the behemoth of an extension that his neighbours have decided to erect will rob the natural light from our fellow PHer’s home for a large chunk of the year a presumably curtail it for the rest. Have next door considered his life at all? If they need to gain space, either do it sympathetically to the local surroundings (including people) or move house. It’s not as though a huge extension as described above is going to be cheap is it? In short, he’s hoping to use the tree situation as leverage to stop some ruining his enjoyment of his own home.
I see your point mate but let’s be realistic; ruining his enjoyment of his own home. You asked have they considered cherry tree owners life?
Of course they have, it’s not illegally built is it? It has been approved after going through due process laid in law.
You say it’s ruining mr nimbys enjoyment, are you trying to suggest that the planners are corrupt? Or that the law only applies to certain people. What makes you think planners in this country allow unsympathetic extensions. In the eyes of the planning laws it certainly should not be. If so why haven’t links been postered and corrupt planners hashtags been posted. In the stark light of reality I highly doubt our local planners run some sort of mafia. I have had rejected applications and they won’t allow you to build light blocking megastructures. It’s just green with envy. I have zero regard for people like this.
In our area if someone gets planning to say convert a garage to a bathroom, someone objects from across the street, just envious low life.
Permitted development came so that these moaners can’t really do anything except moan
Thankfully I live in a Conservation Area - winners of Wales In Bloom for 37 consecutive years. Winners of Britain in Bloom 4 times and several times representing the United Kingdom in European competitions.....................
http://www.monmouthshirebeacon.co.uk/article.cfm?i...
There is plenty of extensions and new builds going up and no sign of "envious low life" moaning!!
DozyGit said:
Oh dear, tree came first, perhaps if an environmentalist became a dictator they may eliminate you as the world came first?
No wonder we have a housing crisis in England, a cherry tree is far more important than another families life. First world issues.
It’s really sad how vindictive people are , if cherry trees were so important, why not knock down their house and plant loads of cherry trees and live on them
I would approach it from a slightly different angle.No wonder we have a housing crisis in England, a cherry tree is far more important than another families life. First world issues.
It’s really sad how vindictive people are , if cherry trees were so important, why not knock down their house and plant loads of cherry trees and live on them
Man lives in a nice house with a nice garden, probably half the reason he/they bought it ? Billy bags of money comes along and wants to build what amounts to a block of flats next door totally ruining mans view etc.
Who’s the w
ker in this scenario ( apart from you) I’d be pretty narked if my property was going to be affected in a similar way.
Well, that was an interesting reaction! Thank you all for the responses (for and against).
In conclusion, I should just clarify that the negotiation we're trying to facilitate is not to actually prevent these folks from extending their home.
We extended ours 22 years ago having bought a wreck with every last bean we had - the 1972 750 Commando had to go to pay the solicitor's fees, it was that tight (we gather said solicitor sold the bike a few years later to buy himself a f***** Aga... hey ho). The real kick in the teeth is that we shaped the entire build to come in under the neighbours' 'right to light' lines on both sides, which is why it is low down with skylights instead of vertical windows and therefore vulnerable now to the shading this build will cause.
These new folks next door planned an extension not too dissimilar to what we'd done all those years ago and put it to the LA for 'pre-planning assessment'. The newly qualified young planning officer responded with a recommendation (which was then quoted in the full planning application and therefore how we know this) that 'the two storey element should be enlarged in width and height to better breach the line of the host structure' - in short, he recommended that it should be made bigger. This makes the proposed structure much larger than anything else on the terrace, will cut out our light very badly and the bathroom which this new structure will house on the first floor will have 3.1m high bathroom ceiling.
We objected, as did the rest of the neighbours on the terrace and the local civic society. Even the local City Councillor got involved. I'm still getting emails from him citing other similar cases which have happened since, saying things like 'what a mess', which it is.
The neighbours hadn't consulted those around them before putting in the application, and I suspect the flurry of objections they witnessed will only have further entrenched their defensiveness. Not a good situation all round.
With nothing to negotiate with, we were facing the prospect of just trying to appeal to their better nature. At least now we have something to offer (removal of the tree) in return for perhaps adjusting the height of the bathroom roof down to match the others on the terrace.
It's got to be worth a try. I think people assume that what is granted planning consent HAS to then be built. But I think you can adjust downwards without jeopardising your permission. Let's hope so, and let's hope they're not really wedded to having a 3.1m high bathroom ceiling.
In conclusion, I should just clarify that the negotiation we're trying to facilitate is not to actually prevent these folks from extending their home.
We extended ours 22 years ago having bought a wreck with every last bean we had - the 1972 750 Commando had to go to pay the solicitor's fees, it was that tight (we gather said solicitor sold the bike a few years later to buy himself a f***** Aga... hey ho). The real kick in the teeth is that we shaped the entire build to come in under the neighbours' 'right to light' lines on both sides, which is why it is low down with skylights instead of vertical windows and therefore vulnerable now to the shading this build will cause.
These new folks next door planned an extension not too dissimilar to what we'd done all those years ago and put it to the LA for 'pre-planning assessment'. The newly qualified young planning officer responded with a recommendation (which was then quoted in the full planning application and therefore how we know this) that 'the two storey element should be enlarged in width and height to better breach the line of the host structure' - in short, he recommended that it should be made bigger. This makes the proposed structure much larger than anything else on the terrace, will cut out our light very badly and the bathroom which this new structure will house on the first floor will have 3.1m high bathroom ceiling.
We objected, as did the rest of the neighbours on the terrace and the local civic society. Even the local City Councillor got involved. I'm still getting emails from him citing other similar cases which have happened since, saying things like 'what a mess', which it is.
The neighbours hadn't consulted those around them before putting in the application, and I suspect the flurry of objections they witnessed will only have further entrenched their defensiveness. Not a good situation all round.
With nothing to negotiate with, we were facing the prospect of just trying to appeal to their better nature. At least now we have something to offer (removal of the tree) in return for perhaps adjusting the height of the bathroom roof down to match the others on the terrace.
It's got to be worth a try. I think people assume that what is granted planning consent HAS to then be built. But I think you can adjust downwards without jeopardising your permission. Let's hope so, and let's hope they're not really wedded to having a 3.1m high bathroom ceiling.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff