Neighbour wants tree cut down

[HimalyanSilverBirch]

Hello,

I'd appreciate some thoughts on a dispute with my neighbour.

I have a silver birch in my garden that is next to the boundary.

My neighbour wants us to cut this down because they don't like the mess caused by falling seeds/leaves and because of the risk the roots may cause their newly laid (and presumably very expensive) patio which is right next to the boundary.

For reference we are in a conservation area and the removal of the tree would require planning permission as the diameter is over 7.5cm at a height of 1.5m (though only just). The tree trunk is thus relatively slender and the height is roughly that of a two story house but the canopy is not large.

Unfortunately, the conversion got quite heated/ugly (and ended up with them throwing their sweepings over the fence).

I'll admit I don't want to lose the tree as it is really lovely, but having a look on google birches do have shallow roots that can cause problems to patios.

So where I am at is that I'm loathe to cut down the tree but equally I'm conscious about potential damage to the neighbours property that I might become liable for (the fact you have to sweep up leaves I don't believe to be relevant).

It's also probably worth mentioning that if the roots were a problem I'm unsure why this wasn't raised by the professionals who installed the patio.

As a final point they said they had to declare the tree on their house insurance so potentially the motivation here is the impact on the premium (the tree was in situ when they bought the property).

I don't want to fall out with neighbours (though that ship might have sailed) so what next?

I looked at the council website and they don't engage re: private tree disputes.

So I'm a bit unsure of what to do next and am I BU by not agreeing to cut down the tree.

Has anybody been in a similar situation?

"Sorry please see earlier post about 7.5cm at 1.5 metres"
"That is not the size of the tree"

I understood what you had said earlier it was the ratio of trunk size to height to canary that sounded odd but I guess it's just got a slim canopy

I would still not want it 3m from my house. It's still way too close. It's the roots I'd be worried about. Either damage directly from the roots or damage caused by the roots slurping up all the water in the ground.

They don't have any grass.

Their whole garden is patio (it's like a small courtyard).

To be fair they must have spent £££ on the patio - it's a really nice job.

I'm sure it is a nice patio. Strikes me they don't really understand much about y'know...gardening. Or nature. I bet they have it all sterile neat and tidy expecting outdoors and nature to somehow be like their house.

To be pragmatic and give you peace of mind, you could decide either to move the tree or remove it altogether and plant a replacement further away from the boundary and the neighbour's property.

Alternatively, based on my experience of years-long dealing with a neighbour's tree causing subsidence, and fear of potential risk from the growth and proximity of my own TPO tree (involving more than one firm of structural engineers, insurance companies and loss assessors, the council Tree Officer, the planning inspector, uncle Tom Cobbley and all) the best course would be to commission a report from an arboriculturalist, that is a specialist with knowledge of trees and their interactions with ground and buildings based on the science and latest research findings; assessment of risk from and to the tree, and the correct techniques available for managing or minimising growth and invasive roots to your neighbour's property. Armed with this expert knowledge and report giving you confidence in your position vis a vis the neighbours and your obligations and potential liabilities, you can make an informed decision as to the best course of action and approach the council accordingly for any necessary permission.

In my case, at the end of this long and gruelling process - three years of trial and error during which I wrote countless letters, underwent lengthy monitoring and inspections, wrangled with and changed loss assessors and structural engineers until I found the right ones, I learnt that the Tree Officer at my council didn't actually have much knowledge and recommended the wrong technique which would have caused more growth, not less. In the end, finding the right engineers and arboriculturalist solved everything: I succeeded in winning a planning appeal against the council's decision and was subsequently able to carry out repairs and manage the tree correctly using the proper techniques and ultimately have peace of mind and be able to sell the house without a problem.

Yes this is the dilemma.

They have 3 issues.

2 of which I think are invalid re: sweeping up seeds and home insurance given the tree was there when they moved in.

The issue of proximity re: potential damage I'm much more sympathetic to and I'm trying not to let how they approached the issue lead me to make poor decisions in response.

Hence posting for some perspective.

The tree is very slim but looks healthy to me.

I simply don't think it's roots are going to be of sufficient heft to cause any damage given the size of the tree.

But I'm not an expert.

It just seems very sad to cut down a healthy tree if it's not causing any issues (which currently it's not and given its maturity it's not going to grow significantly bigger).

Re: the patio as this is new if the roots were a problem surely it's installation would have literally uncovered the issue. Which leaves me to think that isn't the driver here.

They were very annoyed about the seeds and sweeping and if that's the main concern them cutting down a tree to save them time for a few weeks a year doesn't seem reasonable.

So getting an independent view (council) seems like the best route to follow.

I don't want this to escalate but neither do I want to be bullied nor do I want to be unreasonable.

How do they even know it’s there? 1.5 meters is tiny.

As posted previously this is not the size of the tree. This is referring to the requirement for planning permission to fell.

The tree is the height of a 2 story house but with a slim canopy of circa 1.5m.

I find my birch trees quite messy trees but mine have bigger canopy's than yours. They shed lots of twigs and catkins and, in autumn shed leaves like you would expect. I wouldn't expect your small canopy tree to have shed much at this time of year.

It's definitely shedding catkins but given the size of the tree it's not a huge amount (as I posted earlier the amount thrown over the fence you could put in a crisp packet).

One option that I don't think anyone has suggested is to tell them that yes you'll get the tree cut down but first you'll have to apply for permission from the council. And then don't do it. Just be always about to get around to it.

Or you could apply to the council for permission to cut it down and if they approve, ignore it and go on prevaricating, and if they don't – which they may well not, if there's no good reason, which there isn't – than that also solves the problem.

The tree is protected for a reason: the laws recognise the value of trees in our environment, and protect them from being cut down for stupid reasons, like seeds falling on people's nasty patios.

Good idea.
But when they ask what's happening you can say you thought they were doing the application, and in fact what you need is an aboraculturalist ( sorry can't spell that!) report. Which you commission but they pay for. Money upfront. Then you can get the report, (it would be helpful to have professional advice), and consider whether you want to abide by it's findings. You may find you agree to move the tree ( at their expense, obviously).

I think the problem with that idea (though I thank you for it) is that they are relatively new to the property and not moving any time soon (neither are we).

I'm not sure I can legitimately prevaricate for 10/20 years 😀.

Honestly, what happened to being adults making adult choices?

It's as though people are arm-twisted into choosing a particular house, spending their money on it and waiting a year to move in. Then they set about bullying and hectoring the people around them to change how they live. And don't get me started on the 'not in my back yard nor a kilometre radius of it' selfishness of wanting to replace anything green with concrete.

Bottom line is that you can't placate bullies OP, and you don't have to be on good terms with them. It's good you tried.

I really don’t think the roots will be a problem. Yours isn’t a huge variety and I specifically asked my surveyor about my massive silver birch and he said the roots weren’t a problem at all. I just measured how far mine is from the house and it’s exactly 3m. It’s much much taller than my house and yes it does shed but tough luck. We all put up with inconveniences caused by neighbours and shedding trees is really not a big one!

My neighbours behind me asked me to cut down my trees at the back as their branches were intertwining with their (newly planted ) trees.

In my experience it’s best to be firm but pleasant with neighbours, they’ll just move onto the next thing they want you to change if you give into this.

if you’re really worried maybe asked a surveyor to have a look and write a report and give it to them to shut them up.

Your neighbours sound unpleasant however they have probably been stewing about the tree for quite a while getting themselves more and more riled up about it. I do have some sympathy…our neighbour has 3 silver birch planted right on the boundary, one of which is probably only about 1.5 meters from our garage. The leaves and falling (small) branches are a total nuisance and I rage inwardly every time I walk past them! We’ve not fallen out about it though but I do think it is very selfish to plant trees so close to boundary like that. It limits what we can do in our own garden. Yes the trees were there when we bought, but the house is perfect in every other way and in an hard to buy area and so we can live with it. But it does wind me up something awful.

I wouldn't remove it, it's madness. It's normal to have leaves outside yet some people take such offence at this!! They just sound very unreasonable/not possible to placate.

That parting comment about "that tree is coming down" think it needs to be made clear that if they cut your tree down without permission this clear act of criminal damage would not be ignored and it'll be a court order to pay costs and install a new one of the same size to be planted (which legally they could be made to since to do) and install a camera over the area so it's an open and shut case.

The petty part of me would want to plant a load of ferns along the whole boundary to block them off and never see them in the garden again.

so you’re angry at the selfishness of planting trees in the boundary when you bought the house knowing there were trees there originally and potentially trees there before the house/garage?

This seems so bizarre to me. So many people think they have a right to demand trees and hedges get taken down directly they move in regardless of what was happening previously. Our neighbour to the right decided he was just going to remove the fence even though there was nothing on the deeds saying whose fence it was. Just marched up to us and told us what he was planning, we said no and he did it anyway. The fence was there minding its own business, much like many trees, and new owners move in and suddenly everything gets ripped out.

I know we are wildly unpopular because we won’t acquiesce to our neighbours generally, but it intrigues me the level of entitlement so many people how. Where does the arrogance come from?

Yes I am a bit pissed off about it but 1. We haven’t asked for the trees to come down and don’t intend to so I’m not sure why you are insinuating I am demanding they come down and 2. We wouldn’t not buy the otherwise perfect house because of it. It doesn’t stop me getting pissed off about it. If it were the other way, I’d like to think I’d be more thoughtful of the impact of something that I am responsible for on the enjoyment of someone else’s garden. There is no question the trees should not have been planted there…but they are. I don’t judge the neighbours for planting them there (I think they predated them) but I do judge them a bit for not caring the impact they have on others.

WRT damage and liability, this is our experience.

We had extensive damage in our house caused by a tradesman and it affected neighbours too (our claim eventually came to over £100k, theirs was around £15k)

When it first happened they were adamant it was our fault and we should pay to sort it out. We had legal expenses in our insurance but they quickly advised us of the process anyway before it escalated.

We claimed on our insurance and they had to claim on theirs. Their insurance then tried to recoup their costs from our insurers. Our insurers tried to recoup their money by suing the tradesman.

My main point is that insurance and legal cover will cover this.

HOWEVER along the way there were some stressful days while our insurers were getting to the bottom of what had happened and there was a brief shadow over us in case we could have done more to prevent the incident. The insurers had 3 different possibilities for who to pursue and they didn't care as long as they got their money. Fortunately we could defend ourselves.

So in your situation I think it might be worth getting a survey so if anything develops in future you can prove that you listened to neighbour's concern and had professional advice that there was no risk.

That is a fair point but nothing has actually happened bar the neighbour has said they are cross with the tree debris and the potential for a future issue.

If (as has happened in our situation) you were made aware of an actual issue and failed to inform your insurance company of the potential for legal action then yep, I’d agree you could leave yourself liable. But if you are reasonable, enter dialogue and inform your insurance company immediately then you have fulfilled your contract within the agreed T&Cs. Its similar to councils being made aware of potholes and if they choose to do nothing then they may be liable for any claims that occur.

In your situation nothing has actually happened. That are threatening you that should something occur they are gunning for you and you could certainly mitigate this potential by assuring your trees are maintained every three years by a qualified tree surgeon. Other than that they are just blowing hot air in your direction.

I'd tell your NDN flat out that the tree is staying. If you move somewhere you have to take in to consideration any existing problems and they have no right to demand you take a tree down in a protected area. It annoys me how people feel they can move in and complain, oh the pub's too noisy _ it's been there 50 years, there's no parking spots, there never have been. If something turns up later fair enough but your NDN's must have seen your tree

My response would be that no is a complete sentence.

I would seek legal advice if house insurance covers it.

Neighbours clearly want a low or no maintenance back yard, hence their paving it all over, so I can see why having to do maintenance caused by @HimalyanSilverBirch's tree would annoy them. But that's just life, I'm afraid – you don't get to tell other people what they can grow in their own gardens unless it's dangerous, and I don't think a few seeds would meet that threshold.

OP, no way in hell would I be removing a tree that I liked, that was on my property, and which had been there for a number of years purely because my neighbours wanted me to.

I agree, don't rely on crappy MN "legal" advice like the above ^