unclaimed tree

[Stubby]

35 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

I’ve a very recent example of altered fence lines, and the consequences, which I’ll post later. 

I see what you did there Gary .......fence lines and post later

[Rough Hewn]

I’ve a very recent example of altered fence lines, and the consequences, which I’ll post later. 

Loads of gardens (in Brighton backing onto national trust woodland) have been growing like this.
It's wrong

[Kenty]

I’ll throw this one in for debate.

Is the removal of the tree to abate a nuisance?

ie: is the tree leaning over the clients garden, preventing them from enjoying their outside space?

Thoughts?

[Gary Prentice]

15 minutes ago, Kenty said:

I’ll throw this one in for debate.

Is the removal of the tree to abate a nuisance?

ie: is the tree leaning over the clients garden, preventing them from enjoying their outside space?

Thoughts?

You couldn't remove it under the common law right of abatement, only that part that was actually over the boundary. Nice try 

[Gary Prentice]

7 hours ago, Stubby said:

I see what you did there Gary .......fence lines and post later

Purely unintentional Stubby.

 

I visited a property a few weeks ago and quoted to fell a sycamore, small hawthorn and a leyland cypress along the rear boundary (inside the boundary fence). 

 

Lads rang up after starting to say that the neighbour, to the bottom of the garden, had come out to say they were his trees and that he wanted the cypress to stay (screening) but he didn't care about the other two. He claimed that he'd erected the fence previously and had relocated it because it was easier to fence his trees out (and into some-one else's garden) than to fence around them, being right on the boundary.

 

The client was at work and unreachable. Her mother, in the house, was all for carrying on and felling the lot, but did admit that she knew the fence had been relocated. 

 

My position in this situation, was that the trees still belonged to the neighbour and we'd be on the wrong side of the law to fell anything he wanted to keep. Someone argued that he'd lost ownership by fencing them out - I can't see that that can ever be possible until the owner of the adjacent land had used the 'found' land for twelve years without contest and then she'd have to claim it through Land Registry as well as accepting all responsibilities and liabilities that that entailed. 

 

Anyway, we only ended up doing the work the legitimate owner/tree planter agreed to and not all of the work we'd been originally instructed to do. 

 

I also spoke to our TO about a group of beech that a homeowner wanted to cut in half . They're situated next to boundary of the householder on a small area of land leading to a public open space. Land registry shows no ownership of the plot, but the LA maintain the pathway leading into the POS. 

 

Our potential client has enquired for several years to the LA about the trees and they've denied responsibility. Talking to the TO it seems that the small 'unowned' plot probably should have been included within the registration with LR when the LA took over the POS when the original mill there was demolished by a developer and the entire site was split into individual building plots and POS that the LA then took responsibility for.

 

The LA are now doing a land-grab and taking responsibility for the trees, so they can explain to the homeowner why they won't 'reduce' these mature beech