Nuisance Trees Owned by the Council

[Tree monkey 1682]

On 06/11/2025 at 08:55, Mark Bolam said:

 

That’s a fairly simplistic view, but one I totally agree with.

It is simplistic,or maybe to the point , but waffling on people don't always seem to 'get it' .

[daltontrees]

On 06/11/2025 at 07:06, Ledburyjosh said:

Meaning that there may be a legal argument for the council to prune or remove trees?

 

How would you assess or quantify what level of deprivation warrants action?

There are situations where the Council could be compelled to prune or remove, either by court order or expectation of losing a court case. Dr. Mynors observes that these rarely occur because of the cost of litigation. But not because of the absence of a right.

Proving the right of self-abatement is easier than proving the case for an injunction. Mere encroachment is abatable, full stop. Forcing the tree owner to do it and pay for it appears to have a higher threshold of 'actionable nuisance'. If it is based on dampness to the building a causative link would have to be proven.

I am convinced that if case law continues to dribble out until the end of time there will never be a simple rule that predicts success in litigation. The Tate Modern case recently went on for pages trying to pin down the modern law of nuisance, going far beyond what was needed for the case in hand. It alsways comes down to fact and degree, and the behaviour and depth of pockets of the combatants.

Put simply,the trees have no right to be there. If they are causing damage, even indirectly, they should be removed. It is probably easier and cheaper (however galling it might feel) to take matters into you own hands than to face the expense, delays and uncertainty of forcing the tree owner to do it. But the right exists to be enforced.

Have a look at Delaware Mansions v Westminster (appeal) for more on rights to injunctions and damages.

Edited 17 hours ago by daltontrees

[Ledburyjosh]

5 hours ago, daltontrees said:

There are situations where the Council could be compelled to prune or remove, either by court order or expectation of losing a court case. Dr. Mynors observes that these rarely occur because of the cost of litigation. But not because of the absence of a right.

Proving the right of self-abatement is easier than proving the case for an injunction. Mere encroachment is abatable, full stop. Forcing the tree owner to do it and pay for it appears to have a higher threshold of 'actionable nuisance'. If it is based on dampness to the building a causative link would have to be proven.

I am convinced that if case law continues to dribble out until the end of time there will never be a simple rule that predicts success in litigation. The Tate Modern case recently went on for pages trying to pin down the modern law of nuisance, going far beyond what was needed for the case in hand. It alsways comes down to fact and degree, and the behaviour and depth of pockets of the combatants.

Put simply,the trees have no right to be there. If they are causing damage, even indirectly, they should be removed. It is probably easier and cheaper (however galling it might feel) to take matters into you own hands than to face the expense, delays and uncertainty of forcing the tree owner to do it. But the right exists to be enforced.

Have a look at Delaware Mansions v Westminster (appeal) for more on rights to injunctions and damages.

Thanks.

 

So I should change that last sentence to 'it can be the councils problem if you have deep pockets and a stubborn attitude.'

[Tree monkey 1682]

49 minutes ago, Ledburyjosh said:

Thanks.

 

So I should change that last sentence to 'it can be the councils problem if you have deep pockets and a stubborn attitude.'

Hmm ,look how precious the people around hadrians wall are about a sycamore tree! Im surprised a listed /protected wall didnt override the tree.

Nether the less deep pockets or knobbing an arboricultural solicitor. 

But most times council are stubborn and my original comment is quite true , that you brought the house knowing the tree was there !

[Ledburyjosh]

10 hours ago, Tree monkey 1682 said:

Hmm ,look how precious the people around hadrians wall are about a sycamore tree! Im surprised a listed /protected wall didnt override the tree.

Nether the less deep pockets or knobbing an arboricultural solicitor. 

But most times council are stubborn and my original comment is quite true , that you brought the house knowing the tree was there !

I would typically agree with the knowing the tree was there statement. But Daltontree post seems legally more accurate, suggesting things can be done but the expense would appear to be the limiting factor, hence little ever does get done by tree owners in this situation as its not affordable to pursue it, for most anyway.