Curious one

[DN22 Gardening]

Went to look at a job today which looked straight forward to start with.

A lady with a large Conny hedge, approx. 30 years old, about 25' high wanted some advice and a price for 50% reduction.

A new housing estate was built on the other side of the hedge about 4 1/2 to 5 years ago. The house directly behind the hedge is that close that the tips of the nearest Conny are touching the guttering.

The owner of this property is complaining that the roots of the Connys are lifting the slabs in his garden.

Ive explained to my client that as she's the owner of the offending roots that she's legally responsible.

My clients response was that as the house was built so recently, surely the builder should have made allowances for the existing hedge.

Anyone had experience of this ?

 

 

 

Sent from bed using Arbtalk Mobile App

[Gary Prentice]

Your clients roots are encroaching on his property period. Neighbour should have a claim on the developer, but the roots are committing an actionable nuisance

[easy-lift guy]

Non sence. That statement makes about as much sence as someone farting out side and the person next to the farther should of made allowances for Freddy Flatulant gas attack, as in not being down wind!

Seems to be someone's else's fault more and more all the time.

easy-lift guy

[Goaty]

Not like this, but you do see the problems of everyone making there buck and off they go.

The original land owner sold the land didnt care

The builder bunged in maximum houses for maximum return.

Paving gang laid pavers took their money and left.

 

Now you have your client who doesn't want to look at new houses. And the neighbour with the extensive shading and moving hard sufaces, looks bad and leads to trip hazards.

 

Selfish greedy and lack of foresight. Makes more problems for the world. Like the burying of rubble/rubbish on new builds. Its going to annoy someone at some point.

[difflock]

wot e^ said.

in spades.

greed

greed

greed

prevails

[felixthelogchopper]

Is there not some regulation about planting conifers too close to new builds in the original landscaping? Could that not be reverse engineered to show that the builder should not have built that close to an existing conifer hedge?

[DN22 Gardening]

i wasnt sure whether the owner of the new house would have a valid claim off of NHBC.

 

Also, don't root protection zones apply to paved areas ?

[Gary Prentice]

I believe that the NHBC act more as an umbrella organization, in the event that the developer goes bust. A claim by the complainant, would initially be against the builder along the lines of non-compliance with the NHBC guidelines and faulty workmanship. ie the patio was built in proximity to the hedge with no root barrier. The main usage of the NHBC is to ensure that the foundation depths and construction are suitable for the locale, with regard to nearby trees (Current and past) but I don't I know how far that would extend to light structures.

 

It's all fairly irrelevant anyway, the hedge or tree owner has a duty of care that there actions on their own property does not infringe on others property. The complaining party could get an injunction to force your client to stop her roots affecting his property. He could also pursue the developer for the foreseeable damage to his paving, in that the design and construction hasn't presented damage. The developer could also pursue your client for the damages to the paving. ie that its an actionable nuisance.

 

In an ideal world, all these problems wouldn't occur. What's happening now was foreseeable, by the designers and architects, the planning departments, building control officers and the bloke who goes on site from the LA to check that everything is done to regulation and code. The site manager, QS and digger driver can all see what's going to occur. The groundworkers see the roots but carry on regardless. No one truly gives a flying(insert a well known french designer brand name) as long as the jobs completed, they get paid and onto the next site. It's some-one elses problem after.

 

The apathy and ignorance of the construction industry never fails to amaze and demoralise me. The client has to get the tree report, planning considers it within the framework of the design, protective fencing is agreed with all the TPZ/CEZ sorted and once the official bods are out the way, stuff it. Five years on the trees are dying, problems such as yours are occurring and the client hasn't got what they paid for. Then everyone is wondering why all the green infrastructure that made the site attractive in the first place is on the way out.

 

Now you need to explain to your client that she may be forced to lose her hedge, if the neighbour wishes to pursue root removal, because no-one else did what they could or should have done. Sucks.