Are my neighbours being unreasonable?

[PawsAndReflection]

Hello!

We've recently bought a new house and our neighbours at the end of our garden are looking to redo the outside of their house.

They came by today to ask for permission as the work would require scaffolding in our garden, and were surprised to find seating and an olive tree in the area.

They've asked if we can move the olive tree and seating in order for them to have the work done, but I'm a little concerned about moving such a big tree. Does anyone have experience with this?

They were making out that it really wasn't a big deal but I've been researching it and it seems not quite as simple as they're making out.

OP says the white wall is the neighbour's.

No you don't

And did you read the OP's updates of what they are now expecting the OP to pay for?

It's a bit surprising that so many posts here don't appreciate this is a legal matter.

There is very likely something in the house deeds that prohibit planting or building anything so close to a neighbour's house wall.

OP could be in the wrong for planting something in a permanent fixture that hinders access to maintain the property.

The tree doesn't need the wall to grow against and the neighbours don't need to come into the OP's garden to maintain the wall (if it's not painted it's not their problem)

The tree is impeding maintenance of their wall. It's irrelevant that it's in a pot and doesn't 'need' a wall for support.

And I think you will find that they DO have a right to access via the OP's garden to maintain it.

We have a house close to a neighbour and they have to allow access via their garden for a ladder so our rendering can be done. (There is no other way as the angle is too steep to get a ladder on our side of the boundary.)

I think the OP is in for a shock because if this becomes legal, she will be told to move her tree. She ought to have considered growing a tree so close to the boundary in a permanent fixture where the wall needs to be painted.

I know it's not a popular view on this thread but it's about the law, not an emotional reaction.

Personally, regardless of your cf ndn I would move the olive tree away from the wall at least 2 feet. It’s been badly pruned at the bottom, presumably so people could sit on the bench.
It would look so much nicer unhindered. Olive trees are beautiful and imo always look best when free on all sides.

I expect that Olive has grown through that box and into the ground so probably not easy to move, however on that basis roots could maybe start doing damage if it isn’t moved soon.

No you can't move the tree, it will die.
I wouldn't agree, if they had an accident on your property, they could claim off your insurance.
There would be machiney on your property, they would have to have access to through your property.
The mess and dust would be over your garden and home.
Ask them to find a better solution, to protect you and your home.
And if you agree, you should have a legal agreement to ensure your property would be left like it was originally with no damage to yours.
Your tree is beautiful, enjoy it.

Hard no from me, then.

They're taking the absolute piss with that message!

As it’s their wall I would allow access.

Of course you can.
You just have to do it properly.
So not until late winter/ early spring and make the new spot slightly bigger and deeper.

@PawsAndReflection you couldn’t move the tree until February anyway and they would damage it with scaffolding so it’s a no.

Sorry but you're making things up.

If they employ a decorator they will be insured.

I think you will find that legally, there is already a case for access to the wall for maintenance.

The fault is with the OP for putting something so close to the wall, and can't be removed for maintenance.

The neighbours are the ones with the rights here, not the OP.

OP needs to consult a boundary solicitor, but she's likely to be told to move her tree and seating.

Yes, I agree.

I will be very happy to be proved wrong, but if I were the OP I would be digging out my deeds to find out what they say, and also going back to the conveyancing solicitor who she used to purchase the property, as I would have thought this is something that should have raised during the purchase proceedings.

My gut reaction is that if the wooden structure is attached to that white wall, and there is no written permission for it to be attached then OP is on dodgy ground.

If it's written into the deeds or any other covenants that access should be granted for repair and maintenance, then nothing should impede that. So the additional cost could fall on to OP.

It's not a popular point of view judging by the way this thread is going, but OP needs to find out what her rights and obligations actually are, and what she effectively agreed to when she bought the property.

I would say no. And if they want legal advice then they can look and pay for it, to see where they stand. You don't have to do anything. It's on them to pay and find out ad they are the ones who want to undertake work.

Block their calls too.

Please say no.

The fault is with the OP for putting something so close to the wall

OP only recently moved in. They have been there longer.

We have a wall which borders someone else’s land.
We we’re told at purchase that the landowners couldn’t refuse reasonable access for maintenance but we would have to agree dates etc and we couldn’t just demand access whenever it suited us.

While you are quite correct that access can be gained for the purposes of maintenance, repair or renewal, the OP has already said that this is not the case in this situation and it is just cosmetic.

"I also finally had clarification on the work they need doing and it's 100% cosmetic."

A person has no right to access neighbouring land just to undertake cosmetic work on their own property.

"...if this becomes legal, she will be told to move her tree."

I'm not so sure about that. If anything, I suspect it is more likely that the OP will be able to claim compensation from her neighbour for substantial loss of privacy or other substantial inconvenience.

The law allows access for essential maintenance. But it needs your agreement otherwise it's trespass.

If there is any damage to your property the neighbour may be made to pay you to cover that.

It's a moot point if the tree was grown knowing or ignoring the fact it could prevent access.

If you refuse to allow access, they can apply to the courts and ask for permission to access your garden.

This would be recorded as a dispute and you'd find it could negatively affect the sale of your house in the future.

I suspect that the neighbours had the same situation with the previous owners re access and thought they would be able to get agreement more easily with the new owners. If that is a blank wall and they are in a flat above, depending on the size and angle of windows, if any, on their side, the seating and tree may well have come as a surprise.

At first I was all 'oh hell no' but after seeing that picture I'm kind of aghast that anyone would attach benches to and plant a tree so close to someone else's house 😂Look at your deeds and ask your surveyor to advise.

When does 'cosmetic' become more than that? Eventually, buildings need painting and maintenance.

The OP needs to check her deeds because there may be something in there already about being able to grow something so close.

Why would the ndn spend on cosmetic work that they can’t see?
It makes no sense.

To put it in the market and get it sold.

Cosmetic or maintenance, the quote uptrend said access can be refused.
Are there any limitations to obtaining access under ANLA 1992?
Access may be denied if the proposed work interferes with the neighbour’s enjoyment of their property or if it causes hardship to the neighbour