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

[JenniG]

Thank you for all your comments, guys. I'm now looking at alternative options and getting some further quotes next week.

[Mark Bolam]

Hi Jenni,

 

Please let us know the eventual outcome.

Not an easy situation to resolve, for sure.

[drinksloe]

Been a long time since i worked on the railway (and even then just a grunt on a saw/harness, so never knew who paid for wot)

So things may hav very possibly changed and things are far tighter money wise.

 

But i know we have limbed and felled hardwoods (never done much work on cony's on railways as more for leaf drop) in private gardens sometime well of the tracks abd definately well outside the 5m clearance zone we cut as standard.

I was of the impression that we were cutting the tree as a freebie to home owner and NR was footing the bill, as i'm pretty certain they won't have any legal right to make u fell/top them IF trees not actually unsafe.

I know i also looked at quite a dodgy decayed beech for a family friend inbetween 2 powerlines (but not over hanging) and the power boys cut the tree down for free and by rights didn't have too, and it was a real pig.

Yet other times i've asked the elec arb boys to fell trees rather than side them and they haven't, (fell would of been easier and i said i'd tidy up the tree) when they were cutting the lines throu my wood, so it depends on who u speak to.

 

To me it seems a bit of a bullying approach by the ralilway trying to get private folk to pay for works in the past they would off paid for themselves (with owners permission)

Possibly get an idependant survey done if any trees really are looking dangerous, generally cony's aren't that bad for blowing over or snapping out if single stemmed.

I might imagine independant surveyors might be scared of giving many assurances thou with the railway so close,

it might give u an idea wot sort of timescale u have to wiegh up ur options as long as no imminent threat of the trees falling down immediately.

If u all contacted a solicitor/CAB etc as 1 any costs would be shared equally  so might be worth a punt, at least u know then where u stand.

 

I bet if u could speak to the right person at either NR or a there deveg squads u might get a lot more sense out of them rather than some corperate/legal stoge.

 

 

But as has been said by most if u have to pay the simpliest and cheapest option (might not even need railway contractors) would be to straight fell al the trees into the gardens even if it meant taking the odd garden fence down for access or room for felling the trees.

But u all will have to make some sort of joint decision, if someone in the middle decides to fell there trees suddenly it will put the trees to either side in a far higherr risk of windblow than they were originally.

 

 

Ps. NR have said tres are a 'cause for concern' i'd imagine they class almost any tree withing 1 tree length of track a concern, they haven't declared them dangerous. Does that mean anything legally?

Esp if u got a reputable independant in who said the trees were safe enough/not dangerous immediately?

[maybelateron]

On 31/01/2019 at 11:50, Mark Bolam said:

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.

I do so like common sense. This sounds like a comment from someone who has been up enough previously topped conifers to dull the excitement of the next ones!

[Mark Bolam]

More than enough for this lifetime, I can assure you.....

[woody paul]

If you and your neighbours decide to remove looking at  picture/map supplied by you all arising could be removed out of end on to road so little disruption to gardens.  

[maybelateron]

3 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

More than enough for this lifetime, I can assure you.....

I know that feeling so well, you get up into the "hedge" and see the width of it and think oh f--k, why did I quote for this one. One day I'll learn.