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.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff