Neighbours 50ft tree/conifer 2m away from property. Advice gratefully recieved!

[Dman77]

Hi Friendly tree experts.

 

Ive already checked in this section of the forum to see if my problem can be solved. There are similar threads but not exactly the same. Id appreciate some advice.

 

We are buying a house (early stages) and we are really worried that the neighbours 50ft ish tree/conifer which is 2m (trunk) away from our potential property (kitchen corner of the house) has roots all around our foundations waiting to cause untold destruction/subsidence.

No obvious cracks in exterior walls (no survey yet) but father inlaw has said to pull out the sale immediately as subsidence is a real possibility in ?years.

 

First of all - can anyone tell me what this is? This is a view from a neighbour (next to tree owner). Thats my potential house side wall.

 

 

 

(Never uploaded so hope that worked)

 

Based on that tree, what roots are likely? Shallow/deep, known for damage?

This is deep surrey near M25 and told clay is likely. House built mid 50,s.

 

I really dont want to start a long process unnecessarly if you kind folk think id be nuts to touch a property with this massive thing 2 meters away

Ps the neighnour also has 4 smaller ones half height of this 1 m each away along the boundary so probably root city down there

 

Any comments welcome. We really are stressing over this.

Cheers all

Dave

[Dman77]

Thanks everyone. Really appreciate everyones thoughts

 

Well i drove down to the property owners house (hour drive) to chance a conversation with them as it is bound to happen at some point. Be good to see if they would be sympathetic and helpful. Nobody was in and their nice neighbours explained the owner was very elderly and the house is now vacated but they will call the owners neice to explain situation and whether i can cut/remove. See if i get a call who knows.

 

Rang the estate agent agent and he has a surveyor colleague who will look this morning to give a good idea of whats what.

 

Guess i cant do much more atm.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Dman77

[Dman77]

There are 4 of them in a row. That one is twice the size for some reason. So i guess it classes as a hedge row.

 

Who wants to walk straight in to an argument/ court battle though?

[stihlmadasever]

There are 4 of them in a row. That one is twice the size for some reason. So i guess it classes as a hedge row.

 

Who wants to walk straight in to an argument/ court battle though?

 

I would think it would be in the interests of the estate agents to get some sort of definitive answers from the neighbour regarding the tree and there intent.

I wager you wouldnt be the only client viewing the property to voice concern,after all these things can have serious ramifications for those involved.

[treequip]

there is also the right to light issue, if the kitchen is too dark because of the tree, it is possible to legally have it reduced.

 

The right to light is covered under the prescriptions act and rather than a right to light it would be better seen as a right to compensation. It is usually applied to the built environment, I know of no case law that applied it to trees or hedges and there were plenty of the latter before the HH law "simplified" things.

 

Interesting that you mention the kitchen because the right is taken to apply to "habitable" rooms and that then excludes rooms of transient use so the kitchen and bathroom don't count.

 

The act also fails to say what reduced level of light would be acceptable and while the owners of property with a high value may be able to engage in a litigatious bun fight in the name of compensation, Mrs Miggins probably can't afford it.

 

In short its a non starter where trees are concerned.

[Gary Prentice]

The right to light is covered under the prescriptions act and rather than a right to light it would be better seen as a right to compensation. It is usually applied to the built environment, I know of no case law that applied it to trees or hedges and there were plenty of the latter before the HH law "simplified" things.

 

Interesting that you mention the kitchen because the right is taken to apply to "habitable" rooms and that then excludes rooms of transient use so the kitchen and bathroom don't count.

 

The act also fails to say what reduced level of light would be acceptable and while the owners of property with a high value may be able to engage in a litigatious bun fight in the name of compensation, Mrs Miggins probably can't afford it.

 

In short its a non starter where trees are concerned.

 

It's been a while since I read that act, but I'm pretty sure that the plaintiff must have enjoyed the light for a considerable number of years to start with.

[Gary Prentice]

Part 8 of the ASB act only applies to hedges, ie. rows of, not single, trees. That blooming great thing (assuming it's not TPOd or in a conservation area) could be cut back to your boundary, if that helps.

Your lender or building insurers may insist on a survey, but to be honest no one can say that tree will cause subsidence, even on heavy clay soils, only that it is highly likely. Your (potential) neighbour may not have the financial means to fell it, even if they want to, and offering to pay might be in both of your best interests should you decide you really want the property.

 

How very true! And, the foremost authorities on tree-related subsidence will honestly admit it.

[treequip]

It's been a while since I read that act, but I'm pretty sure that the plaintiff must have enjoyed the light for a considerable number of years to start with.

 

From memory its 8 years but I think the right goes with the property rather than the person

[Gary Prentice]

It may do, I can't remember.

 

I think the sticking point is that the act was written to prevent having light one day and not the next - figuratively, say by the erection of a hoarding or a new building.

 

The difficulty with trees is they grow up slowly, with light levels reducing each year, so the 'uninterrupted' is actually a diminishing level of light over a period of time.

 

Mynors states something along the lines of he believes that that act is unlikely ever to used successfully when the case revolves around trees IIRC

 

Posted for the OP and not trying to inform the 'already informed'

[Arborist]

I thought it was uninterrupted for 20 years.

[Gary Prentice]

I thought it was uninterrupted for 20 years.

 

And for the win:biggrin:

http://www.rics.org/Global/RICS-Right-to-Light.pdf

 

 

A right to light may be acquired by

‘anyone who has had uninterrupted

use of something over someone

else’s land for 20 years without

consent, openly and without

threat, and without interruption for

more than a year.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Gary Prentice