overhung branches - legal obligation

[exdos]

That's fine if the hedge owner doesn't play ball, but what if the hedge owner is willing to trim the trees but are not being allowed onto the 3rd party's property to do so (as in this case)?

Surely a court would see how unreasonable the 3rd party had been and decide against the 3rd party claim?

Tony,

The OP hasn't said the neighbour has refused access, so the neighbour doesn't appear to have been unreasonable, as yet.

I think this is a problem of the OP's own making. He planted the hedge, which it appears that he has never bothered to maintain on the side furthest from his view. Now that the the Leylandii are 28 years old, he now finds that he can't easily access the backside of his own hedge which has considerably overgrown across the boundary, which he acknowledges. From what the OP writes, it appears he thinks that the neighbour is just being cussed and so the OP is wanting to be equally cussed by dragging his feet. This is how costly neighbour disputes start and eventually neither side will want to give in. My advice is don't even dream of taking the neighbour on in a dispute, even if the OP feels that this lets the neighbour win. He should write to the neighbour and agree to cut back his hedge but request that she gives him access to do the work and for a tractor and trailer to remove all the debris. If the OP cannot do this job himself over a weekend, then I'd pay for someone to do the job for me. It might just be easiest to fell the hedge from the OP's own garden and start again with a new hedge.

 

[mmm-five]

Tony,

The OP hasn't said the neighbour has refused access, so the neighbour doesn't appear to have been unreasonable, as yet.

Sorry, I misunderstood when he said he'd need access to trim them and she wasn't being friendly.

 

[Stark]

I get this a lot in planning. She did right to ask you to do the work, as it's your obligation, but she is not able to do it herself without serving you notice first.

It's a civil matter.

 

[Anonymous]

I get this a lot in planning. She did right to ask you to do the work, as it's your obligation, but she is not able to do it herself without serving you notice first.

It's a civil matter.

This is where the biatch behing me went wrong....she just did it, without consulting us, cos we would've defo said no, cos these trees were our only privacy.

I didn't think they needed to give notice to cut up to the boundary though.

 

[mac27040]

See this
http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/problems-with-neighbouring-trees-action-guide.html

 

[JGP56]

You could always sit on the fence and hedge your bets :?

 

[markeg]

I don't know if its your responsibility to cut them back, but as far as her cutting them back, then she is allowed to do so.

However, she cant just throw the cuttings back. She has to offer them to you. If you want them, she gives them back, if not, then she must dispose of them. To throw them back without you wanting them, is littering.

As far as access is concerned, then if she wont allow you access, and its no reasonably feasible for you to access that side of the trees in any other way, then I would put that in writing to her, saying you are willing to do the work if she will grant access. You are showing that you are willing to help and it is not you being obstructive.

This is a useful site : http://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/ with a forum on it with experienced people. I used it when the biatch at the back of my property just cut down over 5 Oak trees that were easily 60+ years old, that were on my property.

+1 we have borders where the neighbour has leylandii. We cut them where they overhang and they don't want the cuttings back so we dispose. They do not have to reimburse us for the costs of cutting them

Of course, if the trees die because of some over zealous pruning then we are liable (burden if proof comes into play)

 

[gov]

It's certainly not worth all the hassle - I've been in contact with a local farmer who has the machinery to do the job - out of interest here are are a few pictures of said hedge and my back garden as it is - I am thinking of reducing the back and side hedges down to a manageable 8 ft ( they're about 12 ft at the mo' ) To any keen gardeners out there by doing this clearly it will be brown along the top but hopefully will green over in a couple of years ?

Nice and neat from my side




Bloody awful from the back




Garden view as a whole

 

[Ewazix]

Yep, the main trunk will never grow again but side branches will push up all around in half a season. I have some 40 footers which have been reduced in stages over several years to 12 foot which helps them thicken up underneath. Give them two years they run away again, bloody devils creation

 

[Dewi]

Gallon of petrol, box of matches. Job done

 

[domsz4]

so do the trees sit directly on the boundary or is there a fence in there somewhere? they dont look all that bad to me for a tree line at the bottom of a field (ive assumed this rather than it being some one's garden for some reason)

id cut them lower, the garden seems very overbearing with them in your pic. its a nice space but feels a bit enclosed, wish i had a garden

 

[cj10jeeper]

Spoke to my legal beagle and she's not able to give definitive as it's such a complex area depending on all sorts of variables, including covenants.

Simple advise is to at all costs avoid a dispute and ensure that both parties work together to get a reasonable solution. Sounds like you've done that already.

Although you mention height, but not that the neighbour has objected you should be aware that 2m is the max on the boundary and if the neighbour can show loss of amenity they can force you (but not do it themselves) to lower the height. If you refuse then the local authority can step in. If they cannot demonstrate loss then you can go as high as you like.

From a personal perspective I'm amazed you crowd in your garden with such high hedges, unless shielding an eyesore.

 

[gov]

There is a wire fence on the outside of the back row of trees denoting the boundary so all my trees are within my property - there is no loss of amenity / light as it is just a field - I'm not disputing the boundary line - the farmer simply does not like the fact that the overhanging branches extend in to the field - she wants to return the field in to pasture - but with my line of 50 ft of trees means that four or five feet of land for 50 ft ( in a field measuring several acres ) is not accessible to her. I think it's petty but is not worth getting in to a dispute about . As regarding height of existing side hedges both my neigbours on each side love the privacy - if someone complains then I would reduce the height.

Thanks for imput.

 

[exdos]

but with my line of 50 ft of trees means that four or five feet of land for 50 ft ( in a field measuring several acres ) is not accessible to her.

contradicts this:

there is no loss of amenity / light as it is just a field

Why do you think it's petty of the neighbouring landowner to lose any amenity to her land from the foreseeable consequences of encroachment of your property over the boundary? Robert Frost wrote the truism: good fences make good neighbours.

 

[gov]

Do I still think it's petty ? Yes I do but I fully appreciate that it is not my land and I shouldn't encroach on it which is why I'm arranging to chop it all back to the fence. If I wanted to make a point I could argue that one of her trees is beginning to spread over my airspace in the corner so I would like her to arrange to have it cut back . This is the sort of scenario that could lead to a full scale dispute .

 

[Drac]

We had this with a neighbour a few years ago. Our trees overhung the boundary. The legal position is that the neighbour can cut the trees back to the boundary and must offer the off cuts back to you - which you can then refuse. The neighbour can't tell you to do it and then pay someone else to do it when you refuse or don't comply. They would most likely lose in court and be left with the costs of their contractors.

In the OPs case if you don't want to cut them back then don't. The farmer will have to do it.

The moral high ground might be different to the above, but legally and morally are not always compatible!

 

[domsz4]

There is a wire fence on the outside of the back row of trees denoting the boundary so all my trees are within my property - there is no loss of amenity / light as it is just a field - I'm not disputing the boundary line - the farmer simply does not like the fact that the overhanging branches extend in to the field - she wants to return the field in to pasture - but with my line of 50 ft of trees means that four or five feet of land for 50 ft ( in a field measuring several acres ) is not accessible to her. I think it's petty but is not worth getting in to a dispute about . As regarding height of existing side hedges both my neigbours on each side love the privacy - if someone complains then I would reduce the height.

Thanks for imput.

does sound a little pedantic doesn't it... daft thing is that if she is going to put cows into pasture doesnt she have to put an internal wire fence in a few feet from the boundary? i know the farmer behind my sis said he had to.

 

[exdos]

does sound a little pedantic doesn't it... daft thing is that if she is going to put cows into pasture doesnt she have to put an internal wire fence in a few feet from the boundary? i know the farmer behind my sis said he had to.

It appears to me that some domestic landowners seem to think that they can use every square inch of their property and that it is reasonable to encroach across the boundary into their neighbours property, yet it is unreasonable for the neighbouring landowner to be able to use all their land right up to the same boundary. I cannot see how the agricultural landowner is acting pedantically or being petty, by expecting to have full access and use of her own property. As it is, the unmaintained overhanging conifer will have dropped resinous detritus onto the agricultural land, which will now prevent grass from growing right up to the boundary fence so the OP has caused damage to the neighbour's land.

 

[inkey$]

We have a collective flats cherry tree that's overhanging the public footpath. Lewisham Council sent us a letter saying we must cut it back or face the consequences. As we love in a conservation area we first have to get planning permission...from Lewisham Council.

You couldn't make it up.

 

[gov]

does sound a little pedantic doesn't it... daft thing is that if she is going to put cows into pasture doesnt she have to put an internal wire fence in a few feet from the boundary? i know the farmer behind my sis said he had to.

It appears to me that some domestic landowners seem to think that they can use every square inch of their property and that it is reasonable to encroach across the boundary into their neighbours property, yet it is unreasonable for the neighbouring landowner to be able to use all their land right up to the same boundary. I cannot see how the agricultural landowner is acting pedantically or being petty, by expecting to have full access and use of her own property. As it is, the unmaintained overhanging conifer will have dropped resinous detritus onto the agricultural land, which will now prevent grass from growing right up to the boundary fence so the OP has caused damage to the neighbour's land.

Lighten up exdos - We all have to live together - I never set out intentionally to encroach on her property - if everyone took an absolute stance as you suggest we would all be warring with each other - I may be a " domestic landowner " as you put it but I do come from a farming background. You talk of damage I am causing - what about the damage when farmers cut their road hedges and spray bits of hedge all over the road causing punctures , coat the road with thick mud when they're ploughing and never bother to clean it up - my point is we all have to be reasonable to live in harmony with each other - I could tell her to cut it back herself but I'm not because it will just escalate.