Oak Tree on Boundary therefore 2 owners

[Milli0973]

Hi, I am new but have read info on here prior to joining!!

 

I am looking at constructing a bungalow on a piece of land where there is an oak in the boundary hedge.

 

There is no TPO

 

In simple terms the RPA has the formula of trunk diameter at 1.5m x 12m = the RPA, I believe.

 

Can a building (bungalow or garage) be constructed within the RPA subject to a suitable design solution, for example raft foundation?

 

As regards felling the tree, without TPO, located on the boundary line in the hedge (obviously with limbs/branches hanging over both sides) who can decide?

 

Is the ownership 50/50 regardless of the trunk being 90% mine and 10% adjoining landowner.

 

Look forward to your feedback.

[FatherJack]

Tree ownership: Who owns the boundary hedge? You may have to track through old titles deeds to establish this. If you've not bought the sited, then get this sorted as part of the conveyancing.

Proximity of build to tree: If you were a developer, then IMHO you can go as close as you like; they get away with it!

Dilemma: Do you speak to your Local Authority Tree Officer, or not? If you do, he may apply for a TPO on said tree.

Tree condition: you don't state this. Is it a good specimen, or not worth keeping?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi, I am new but have read info on here prior to joining!!

 

I am looking at constructing a bungalow on a piece of land where there is an oak in the boundary hedge.

 

There is no TPO

 

In simple terms the RPA has the formula of trunk diameter at 1.5m x 12m = the RPA, I believe.

 

Can a building (bungalow or garage) be constructed within the RPA subject to a suitable design solution, for example raft foundation?

 

As regards felling the tree, without TPO, located on the boundary line in the hedge (obviously with limbs/branches hanging over both sides) who can decide?

 

Is the ownership 50/50 regardless of the trunk being 90% mine and 10% adjoining landowner.

 

Look forward to your feedback.

 

Hi there,

 

Whilst you will undoubtedly get some good general guidance / information posted here, I would strongly recommend you engage a 'suitably competent' professional, e.g. an arboricultural consultant, to best advise on the specifics of your particular case. Not least as collectively it would appear not to be a straight forward matter.

 

I can help to direct you to a list of accredited arb consultants if you so wish but this is not to infer there aren't many others who can assist you ('pm' me if so.)

 

Regards..

Paul

[oslac]

I should imagine that the bungalow requires planning permission in which case, as soon as the planning application is registered, the tree will become a material consideration and the council will almost certainly require a BS5837 report and suitable methodology and tree protection measures. This will require a survey by a competent/experienced person.

 

If the proposed building or any of its associated infrastructure is proposed within the RPA, you may need to show the council that the works can go ahead without any negative impact on the tree.

 

There are always special engineering solutions available but the more special the engineering solution, the more costly it is likely to be for you. I am not sure I would call a raft a special engineering solution.

 

My view would be to identify what you want and where you want it and then speak with the local authority tree officer for guidance. If you speak with him/her now, you may save a lot of wasted time and money later.

 

If the tree is not protected and you are not in a Conservation Area, you may want to remove the tree prior to application but as you are probably aware from reading this forum, there is a debate as to whether this is ethical or not.

 

My view would be to speak to an arb consultant who has knowledge of the planning system and engineering solutions before you go too far along the journey.

 

You must sort out the ownership of the tree, if for no other reason than liability. What happens if a branch falls off and causes injury or damage. From your description, it sounds like you may own the tree but remember, boundary lines may wobble around over time.

[arb culture]

Hello,

 

I'd strongly advise that you sort out ownership of the tree before going any further.

 

Obviously I also recommend that you obtain advice from a suitable professional, but they will be limited in what advice they can give until the ownership of the tree is confirmed.

 

As for your query as to whether a building can be constructed within the RPA? The answer to this depends on many factors, but it might be possible.

[10 Bears]

Is the ownership 50/50 regardless of the trunk being 90% mine and 10% adjoining landowner.

 

Ill answer this point as most of your others have been looked at in one way or another.

 

In simple terms, ownership is proportionate to the percentage within each boundary. In your example, the ownership would be 90:10, so if remedial work was required, the bill would be split proportionately the same. Trees are considered as land in terms of property and ownership, so the owner of the soil around the trees roots is also the owner of the tree - this is how the proportional ownership is decided, however you must consider the following 2 points:

 

- 1. Although the tree/hedgerow lies in its current position, and you could assume that the mid-point of this is the boundary, however, this may not be the case.

 

- 2. You *must* refer to the deeds to the property to confirm the lie of the boundary as indicated by the planning records. Only this will confirm the exact proportion of ownership in this case.

[Milli0973]

Ill answer this point as most of your others have been looked at in one way or another.

 

In simple terms, ownership is proportionate to the percentage within each boundary. In your example, the ownership would be 90:10, so if remedial work was required, the bill would be split proportionately the same. Trees are considered as land in terms of property and ownership, so the owner of the soil around the trees roots is also the owner of the tree - this is how the proportional ownership is decided, however you must consider the following 2 points:

 

- 1. Although the tree/hedgerow lies in its current position, and you could assume that the mid-point of this is the boundary, however, this may not be the case.

 

- 2. You *must* refer to the deeds to the property to confirm the lie of the boundary as indicated by the planning records. Only this will confirm the exact proportion of ownership in this case.

 

Hi 10 Bears,

 

If the tree 90/10% then does Mr 90% have the right to fell the tree, similarly (and I am exagerating to proof a point) it the tree is 51/49% with no queries as to the correct boundary position status then does Mr 51% have the right to fell the tree.

[FatherJack]

Going back to the original query. If looking at one's home, surely one should avoid any boundary which includes trees, hedges, etc. which have shared ownership. It will be a nightmare. From personal experience, and owning mature hawthorn/field maple hedges, it can sometimes be hardwork to prevent neightbours from hacking awy (even those parts which do not infringe on their propery.

[treequip]

Ill answer this point as most of your others have been looked at in one way or another.

 

In simple terms, ownership is proportionate to the percentage within each boundary. In your example, the ownership would be 90:10, so if remedial work was required, the bill would be split proportionately the same. Trees are considered as land in terms of property and ownership, so the owner of the soil around the trees roots is also the owner of the tree - this is how the proportional ownership is decided, however you must consider the following 2 points:

 

- 1. Although the tree/hedgerow lies in its current position, and you could assume that the mid-point of this is the boundary, however, this may not be the case.

 

- 2. You *must* refer to the deeds to the property to confirm the lie of the boundary as indicated by the planning records. Only this will confirm the exact proportion of ownership in this case.

 

 

This depends on establishing the position of the boundary to a degree of accuracy, which is not always that simple

 

You can also look at the tree from a trespass point of view, the tree belongs to the majority owner and is trespassing on the neighbour.

[kev7937]

I was taught that ownership lies with wherever that acorn landed and started sprouting from and that shared ownership was almost non existent, if 90% of the tree is on your land it's most likely 100% yours