Leylandii issue with Network Rail

[JenniG]

Hi

 

My house and those of my neighbours back on to the main Kings Cross to Kings Lynn railway line. At the bottom of all our gardens are Leylandii trees which vary in height, depending on whether we've had work done, which we believe were planted in the 1970s when the houses were built. My next door neighbour's tallest tree is estimated to be 70' tall but those which have been worked on previously in other gardens may be only 40'. 

 

Just before Christmas, a divided trunk on my neighbour's tree split and fell onto a train (luckily no one was hurt). Obviously the potential for damage is something we have always been aware of, hence why most of us have had them cut back and/or topped out in the past. I checked the position with my household insurers and they confirmed that they provided cover for any damage done by the trees as long as they were maintained Network Rail have also come along with chainsaws and chopped bits off at lower levels without consulting us and were even caught climbing the trees in one garden a few years ago to remove branches. We therefore believed they took responsibility for the growth on their side of our fence. Because the trees are right on our fencelines (and NR have installed safety fencing) we have no way of getting to the other side of the trees to check for overhang.

 

We subsequently all received letters from NR to advise that they have identified our trees as a "cause for concern". They suggested we contact their approved contractors for advice - of the three they recommended, 2 won't do private work and the third company want to take all the branches off the railway side of the trees and reduce the height by well over 50%. NR themselves haven't actually specified the work required but have suggested the same reduction (to the height of the return conductor wire, whatever that is!) but not removing all the branches on the railway side (I'd have thought that if we did that it would make them potentially very unbalanced!). 

 

We have sought advice from other contractors but two have already told us it is too close to the railway for them to work (the embankment up to the rails literally starts just the other side of the boundary fence). 

 

Network Rail's contractor has quoted us almost £4k per property. Most of us are retired or only working part-time and that is simply beyond our finances. I presume that now we have been told that something needs to be done, if something should happen my household insurance would not cover it because NR consider the trees have not been safely maintained.

 

I and my neighbours are therefore wondering what advice your collective experience can give us? We obviously don't want to lose the trees completely because they give us noise protection and privacy, particularly as flats have recently been built on the other side of the tracks. I don't doubt that we have a legal obligation to maintain our trees, but is there any obligation on Network Rail to maintain them on their side of the tracks, particularly as they have done so in the past without consulting us? Is it worth consulting a solicitor or would we just be incurring additional costs unnecessarily? Would it be worth trying to negotiate with Network Rail or do they have us over a barrel? 

 

I can't seem to insert a picture so I've attached a file with Googlemaps view - this was taken several years ago but not much has changed! I have highlighted the trees involved (the ones lower down the track were removed when an underpass was built)

 

Many thanks in anticipation of your assistance. 

trees.docx

Edited January 30, 2019 by JenniG
add picture

[woody paul]

One company you could try is Town & Country land Management Ltd if they have not looked already they are based near me but do work on London rail ways. 

[Mick Dempsey]

I can understand why private firms are reluctant to get involved in a retopping/siding up on the rail side scenario, it’s bloody awkward and dangerous, they are ridiculously high.

 

Letting them get to that height means they are more liable to breaking out.

 

If I was a contractor in the area I would quote to remove them, as that’s a lot easier (and safer) than trimming. But if your dead set on keeping them then you’ll need to dig deep.

 

 

[slasherscot]

looks doable from houseside..hard to tell without seeing them..goodluck

[openspaceman]

34 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

If I was a contractor in the area I would quote to remove them, as that’s a lot easier (and safer) than trimming. But if your dead set on keeping them then you’ll need to dig deep.

Jenni Mick is right. Bear in mind also those overhead power lines are at 25000 Volts.

 

The only way round some of the expense is if there are going to be engineering works  and the line is to be closed with the electricity switched off. known as a possession, when a railway competent company may be able to do the work. It's swings and roundabouts though as it will entail weekend or night working.

 

It's too far out of my area for me to be able to recommend any companies.

[Ian C]

I don't think you will get many contractors to touch that job and if they will I would check there PL insurance v closely as any cock ups will come back to you and them and the consequences will be serious! BR can trim back there side with out asking you just the same as you can on a neighbours tree but that doesn't mean there under any obligation in regards to maintenance, your the owner and there your property so you are responsible for them. Not sure what you can do to be honest, whatever the out come its going to cost you plenty, they shouldn't of been allowed to get so big in the first place and now they have you stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Khriss]

Hmmm.  Do you really want the bother of retaining those trees against the liability ? Your land your trees. Frankly I would have the lot out so I could sleep at night. On average a failure of a tree that struck the carriage and overhead HV lines will have a few noughts after it, of which yr liable if duty of care is not fulfilled. K

Edited January 30, 2019 by Khriss
I do tree inspection for Network Rail / LU

[Mark Bolam]

Anything other than removals will involve ongoing maintenance and reliving this nightmare again.

 

I’d suggest getting rid of them and replanting with a hedge further back from the boundary than can be maintained safely and cheaply in the future.

 

Whatever happens the bill will be costly.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

[Conor Wright]

Removal and replanting with something more suitable (anything else basically) is a much better long term solution, as Mark says.
The cost of regular maintenance over the years will seem small in comparison to what it will cost to make them a hedge now. They should not have been allowed to become so overgrown and will never make a manageable hedge now.
Not what you want to hear, but removal is the safest, most efficient and cheapest route to go down.
The cost of revisiting them in 3-5 years to trim up again would more than cover replanting the area with a semi mature hedge. Better long term plan imo.
Make sure you use a competent company for the removal, if things go wrong there it's gonna make the news.

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Mark Bolam said:

Anything other than removals will involve ongoing maintenance and reliving this nightmare again.

 

I’d suggest getting rid of them and replanting with a hedge further back from the boundary than can be maintained safely and cheaply in the future.

 

Whatever happens the bill will be costly.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

Nut shell basically.

[Squaredy]

5 hours ago, JenniG said:

Hi

 

My house and those of my neighbours back on to the main Kings Cross to Kings Lynn railway line. At the bottom of all our gardens are Leylandii trees which vary in height, depending on whether we've had work done, which we believe were planted in the 1970s when the houses were built. My next door neighbour's tallest tree is estimated to be 70' tall but those which have been worked on previously in other gardens may be only 40'. 

 

Just before Christmas, a divided trunk on my neighbour's tree split and fell onto a train (luckily no one was hurt). Obviously the potential for damage is something we have always been aware of, hence why most of us have had them cut back and/or topped out in the past. I checked the position with my household insurers and they confirmed that they provided cover for any damage done by the trees as long as they were maintained Network Rail have also come along with chainsaws and chopped bits off at lower levels without consulting us and were even caught climbing the trees in one garden a few years ago to remove branches. We therefore believed they took responsibility for the growth on their side of our fence. Because the trees are right on our fencelines (and NR have installed safety fencing) we have no way of getting to the other side of the trees to check for overhang.

 

We subsequently all received letters from NR to advise that they have identified our trees as a "cause for concern". They suggested we contact their approved contractors for advice - of the three they recommended, 2 won't do private work and the third company want to take all the branches off the railway side of the trees and reduce the height by well over 50%. NR themselves haven't actually specified the work required but have suggested the same reduction (to the height of the return conductor wire, whatever that is!) but not removing all the branches on the railway side (I'd have thought that if we did that it would make them potentially very unbalanced!). 

 

We have sought advice from other contractors but two have already told us it is too close to the railway for them to work (the embankment up to the rails literally starts just the other side of the boundary fence). 

 

Network Rail's contractor has quoted us almost £4k per property. Most of us are retired or only working part-time and that is simply beyond our finances. I presume that now we have been told that something needs to be done, if something should happen my household insurance would not cover it because NR consider the trees have not been safely maintained.

 

I and my neighbours are therefore wondering what advice your collective experience can give us? We obviously don't want to lose the trees completely because they give us noise protection and privacy, particularly as flats have recently been built on the other side of the tracks. I don't doubt that we have a legal obligation to maintain our trees, but is there any obligation on Network Rail to maintain them on their side of the tracks, particularly as they have done so in the past without consulting us? Is it worth consulting a solicitor or would we just be incurring additional costs unnecessarily? Would it be worth trying to negotiate with Network Rail or do they have us over a barrel? 

 

I can't seem to insert a picture so I've attached a file with Googlemaps view - this was taken several years ago but not much has changed! I have highlighted the trees involved (the ones lower down the track were removed when an underpass was built)

 

Many thanks in anticipation of your assistance. 

trees.docx

I feel for your situation.  NR are perhaps acting like bullies.  They know they can scare you as the tree owners, but I am sure when it suits them they will just go ahead and reduce the trees.  If it was impossible to trace the owner what then?  Of course you and your neighbours are responsible if the trees are unsafe, but are they really unsafe?  It is NR who operate a railway with high voltage overhead wires, perhaps they should come and sort the trees out.

 

I have high voltage overhead power lines on my sawmill site.  The owners send a helicopter on a regular basis to inspect them and then send out a tree team to trim all the trees within a certain distance.  Have NR really got the right to force you to reduce these trees or are they just taking advantage of their large size and your small size?

 

I am no lawyer but if I were in your shoes I would be doing some serious research.  There are other threads on Arbtalk dealing with this - might be worth a read.