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

[Eddie Eco]

As other have said, this will be costly but I would go to remove all day long. You mention a limb has already fallen onto a train; the fact this has happened without consequences is your get out of jail card well and truly used up. Again probably not what you want to hear but best to relieve the potential liability. 

[Mark Bolam]

That's all well and good Edward, but is it really worth going through all this fuckonery again and again?

 

We all know once you've lost control of the sides (which they have), every subsequent topping makes the trees ever wider with less and less middle. Essentially, maintenance becomes more, not less difficult.

 

You could just set fire to them and blame Brexit.

[petercb]

Sorry but as others have said it's down to you. Network Rail have a legal duty to maintain the railway in a safe condition. If a further accident occurred and people killed or injured they would be vilified and probably charged with corporate manslaughter amongst other things not to mention repair costs and disruption if they chose to ignore the situation.

Why should they pay to remove/reduce your trees on your land which have been mismanaged? They have acted responsibly in cutting back on their side. 

You may not only have to deal with the financial and legal side but also the moral side if anything goes wrong.

Additionally you don't really want it to get to the stage of Network Rail obtaining permission through the courts to access your property to carry out the work and possibly entering a ccj or legal charge against your property if you don't pay them. Also anybody wishing to sell and move may have a problem with the particulars of sale and 'known problems with the neighbours'.

If your neighbours choose to ignore the problem that's their lookout but you need to cover yourself.

 

Western Distribution trim back trees in my wood underneath power cables at their expense but that is because their lines cross my wood under a wayleave which is different to your case.

 

Not easy for you but needs dealing with and a long term solution implementing.

[Gary Prentice]

Not sure that a charge of corporate manslaughter would be applicable to a private householder. 

 

But that's beside the point. The network have effectively given notice of their concerns with regard to the trees, opening the doors that in the event of another incident the owner has no excuse that they didn't know something might need to be done.

 

The wording of their correspondence is noteworthy, omitting any specification for reduction of the trees, presumably to prevent any liability themselves if the trees were reduced and even then still failed and disrupted services or caused damage.

[Mark Bolam]

Peter was referring to NR about the corporate manslaughter Gary.

 

The rest of your post is spot on.

[Gary Prentice]

31 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

Peter was referring to NR about the corporate manslaughter Gary.

 

The rest of your post is spot on.

My bad, I misread that

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

22 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 know it's delaying the inevitable, seemingly (as per the good collective advice thus far,) but it may be worth considering phasing the works and doing the "height reduction" first, ideally all trees/hedge, and thereby reducing the 'risk' of failure (as described) significantly. Trimming / cutting of the side growth to be undertaken at some later date (you may find NR actually choose to do this on their side in due course.) This may reduce the cost of the initial phase of management and if you can get all neighbours / owners to act together you may get better value from a contractor (also, it may be that non-rail contractors are prepared to undertake / quote for this type of work as they hopefully shouldn't need to work on, or over, NR land...albeit they may be within vicinity zones  .)

I wouldn't bother with solicitors as your duty / responsibility / obligation is quite obvious, respectfully (and becoz £4k will likely very quickly become £5k, or more, with no transfer of duty / obligation.) 

A challenging / costly situation unfortunately.

Good luck with it all,

Paul

[Mark Bolam]

I would disagree with that Paul.

 

It's a popular misconception that a 50% reduction with connies will be 50% of the price!

 

Especially with good drop zones....

 

There is no way you can top the NR side without being over their land, and you haven't got any scope to rig stuff back like you would have with removals.

 

Whoever does the work will have enough hoops to jump through without repeating the exercise.

 

My sympathy level in these situations is admittedly low.

'I'll just plant these trees RIGHT up to my boundary, let them grow to 70', then expect my neighbour to take responsibility for their side....'

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

35 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

I would disagree with that Paul...

Mark, I completely understand your being disagreeable, however I was working on the basis of tree / hedge retention as appears to be the OPs intention / desire for screening etc.

 

I wholly acknowledge your comments here, and your previous ones, and in an ideal world removal and replacement, with a suitable maintenance regime of course, would be best...but cost is clearly an issue and it was a suggestion to phase the work and spread the cost.

 

Not an ideal solution but..  

[Mark Bolam]

My God Paul we can't simply go round doing what the customer wants!

 

That way lies anarchy!