Tree covenant and irate neighour

[benedmonds]

realistically he could only sue for the trees value as determined by one of the recognised rating systems,

.

 

But he doesn't own the tree! You can't have to pay a neighbour for damaging your own property, surely....

[RobRainford]

But he doesn't own the tree! You can't have to pay a neighbour for damaging your own property, surely....

 

I see what you mean. But as mentioned if he sold the land with a covenant of some sort that protected the tree, which was then sold with no mention, who's liability is it then, it must fall under the developer. But if he can't produce any paperwork then id say carry on, he sold ownership of the land and the things included in it. Not his choice anymore?

[Pedroski]

From Tree protections brief guidance

"5. Restrictive Covenants

General

 

Covenants or other restrictions in the title of a property or conditions in a lease may require the consent of a third party prior to carrying out some sorts of tree work, including removing trees and hedges. This may be the case even if TPO, CA and felling licence regulations do not apply. It may be advisable to consult a solicitor.

 

Restrictive covenants are in effect a form of private planning control: they are restrictions on the development or use of land, enforceable by one landowner against another. Subject to various rules (in particular, they must be negative or “restrictive” in their effect) they will still apply after changes in land ownership.

 

For example, an estate of houses may be subjected to restrictive covenants, designed to protect the look and amenity of the estate – e.g. that front gardens remain unfenced, or that the parking of caravans is not allowed."

[benedmonds]

From Tree protections brief guidance

"5. Restrictive Covenants

General

 

Covenants or other restrictions in the title of a property or conditions in a lease may require the consent of a third party prior to carrying out some sorts of tree work, including removing trees and hedges. This may be the case even if TPO, CA and felling licence regulations do not apply. It may be advisable to consult a solicitor.

 

Restrictive covenants are in effect a form of private planning control: they are restrictions on the development or use of land, enforceable by one landowner against another. Subject to various rules (in particular, they must be negative or “restrictive” in their effect) they will still apply after changes in land ownership.

 

For example, an estate of houses may be subjected to restrictive covenants, designed to protect the look and amenity of the estate – e.g. that front gardens remain unfenced, or that the parking of caravans is not allowed."

 

This is what I thought, but if you sell the land, stick a covenant on a tree then what for damages are you claiming? You no longer own the tree can't claim your property has been damaged... visual amenity..? As it does not confer any financial advantage or disadvantage to either party I don't see how it would work.

 

A solicitor may write you can't do this, that or the other but if you go ahead and do it ,what is the neighbour going to sue for, would it stand up in court? I know farmers do it all the time to restrict biulding on plots of land, but that has a financial implication/can be reversed so it would be straight forward to assign a figure to it/remove the biulding.

 

Has anyone heard of it happening?

[Pedroski]

I don't know what damages would be able to be claimed. There are cases of people paying large sums to have restrictive covenants lifted, and there are cases of people taking others to court for breach of restrictive covenants. I get the impression that claiming amounts for damages doesn't often come into it, and also that restrictive covenants of also often unenforceable. BUT, I also know what some people are like, with bottomless pits of money to drag someone through courts and make their lives hell!

[Andy Collins]

Well first off If yiure standing around waiting for two parties to sort themselves out, charge standing time, or go to another job. The client should have all the legal stuff in order. Although Ive never had to fell anything with a covenant on it, Ive worked on woodlands and new builds with them in place. On both occasions they showed us the paperwork, and we were able to work in accordance.Not much help Im afraid. Another case I heard of was a new build development where the frontages werent allowed to fence or hedge in the boundaries, about 8homes, all the residents did it and then told the developer to tKe them to court. He didnt,fences and hedges are still there now, several years on.

in your case, walk away til the issue is resolved. PS surely the site was given a planning notice for all concerned parties to appeal within the 6week period for whatever reason, why did the person who put the covenant on the tree not appeal and sort it earlier? Its listed in local papers, internet, and notice to front of property, so ample opportunity.

[treequip]

Cover your own backside and don't do it. Go back to tpo with this information and see what they can dig up on it. If it does have a covenant it will be on there paperwork.

 

No,it won't, a covenant is essentially a promise between two parties under civil law, it has nothing to do with statutory protection.

 

Anyone at the LA will be unable to help, it's way outside their remit.

 

Any covenants will be registered on the property deeds, you can download the deeds for any registered property for a few quid from the land registry.

[TRADITIONAL LOGGERS]

Land Registry - Land Registry - UK Government Department

 

Some woodlands sold in Australia do have a clause preventing felling of trees but uncommon in the UK.

[Charlieh]

I have a covenant in place on part of my woodland, it allows thinning for management but not clearfell, the covenant is clearly worded in the deeds for the woodland from land registery, and as such any previous copies of the deeds should still be available by the selling party or land registery if its changed hands recently.

 

I personally would walk away for the time being as it sounds like the sort of things that will take months to sort with lots of solicitors letters

[Andy Collins]

Right answer Charlie A deed of convenant is attached to the property and land. Once again it is a case of ignorance is no defence in law. A covenant is passed from owner to successive owner to protect in this case the trees. Let the client sort this out with his solicitor, its beyond your remit and tbh more than the job is probably worth in hassle. i checked this with a solicitor while discussing a planning issue, so I think its pretty sound advice.