Height of neighbour trees

[rubikviz]

They haven’t enforced it have they? If they have reported it the way it happened, it sounds like someone has been bluffed.

 

The enforcement you cite with the invoice sum becoming a land charge is to the best of my knowledge only possible if the works were done under the miscellaneous provisions act. Misc prov requires the tree to be imminently dangerous and couldn’t be used for “intrusion”.

 

The laws on trespass are common law and are civil. The LA has no powers to act on that issue and normally run a mile.

 

The only other option for enforcement is under the HH laws and a single Beech tree isn’t a candidate for the HH laws.

 

 

Andy

 

 

Section 154 of the Highways Act 1980 - Mystery solved?!

[chaffey]

Might not be relevant or possibly outdated, but we were told on the RFS cert 7 or 8 years ago about the Prescription Act which states something along the lines of: while you have no right to a view you do have a right to light.

 

Anyone know anything about this? Was a long time ago and details are a bit fuzzy.

 

Am glad you posted that. I also learnt that in the RFS Cert a few years ago. From memory i think it was the prescription act 1832 which i believe states something along the lines of ' you have a right to light if you have had unintterupted light for 20 years'.

[Frank]

Ye want to go to a builder te see if the wall is in good fettle. if it isnt, jeees, id hve a few worries about the integrity of these trees.

 

i have no idea what any of this means.................

[Blakes 7]

Am glad you posted that. I also learnt that in the RFS Cert a few years ago. From memory i think it was the prescription act 1832 which i believe states something along the lines of ' you have a right to light if you have had unintterupted light for 20 years'.

 

You wouldn't have had uninterrupted light for 20 years unless the trees grow very quickly!

[treequip]

Right to light applies to structures not open spaces.

 

The right covers artificial structures and makes provision for compensation for diminished light levels. You don’t have a case against natural objects like trees.

[chaffey]

You wouldn't have had uninterrupted light for 20 years unless the trees grow very quickly!

 

You would have uninterrupted light if there was no tree there and then someone planted one after say 25 years!! That then would be uninterrupted light for 20 years would it not?

[chaffey]

Right to light applies to structures not open spaces.

 

The right covers artificial structures and makes provision for compensation for diminished light levels. You don’t have a case against natural objects like trees.

 

Can't see why ther is no argument against trees. Surely a structure whether man made or natural is a structure and your right to light is just that. As i said before if you had light coming into your house for 25 years and then someone planted a 'wall' of conifers surely you would have the argument over a right to light. Does it actually say in the act it only covers structures?

[ferdinand2000]

Right to light applies to structures not open spaces.

 

... and to "habitable" rooms.

 

F

[Amelanchier]

An indication of the relevance of the prescription act is that no successful actions have been brought regarding trees since it was passed into law...

[scottythepinetree]

An indication of the relevance of the prescription act is that no successful actions have been brought regarding trees since it was passed into law...

 

Not taking the mick here or anything, genuinely interested, as it seems odd that they'd bother teaching it on the RFS if there wasn't some relevance to trees. Do you know if there has been many unsuccessful actions taken?

 

You could easily have uninterrupted light for 20 years and then have your light blocked by someone's leylandiis at the rate they grow.

 

Either way unless they have a huge garden the trees will eventually become a problem for the owner as well. At which point there will be a queue of tree surgeons all under cutting each other to take them down.