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.

They need to provide you with a party wall notice. Under the party wall act you are obligated to provide reasonable access for maintenance of a party wall. Whoever built that bench and put that tree there has been a bit silly.

Unfortunately, (although it is a very nice picture) that doesn't really help too much.

The main issue is, what work are they doing on their property that requires them to put scaffolding on your property?

If they are building an extension, for example, then, yes, you can tell them to get lost.

However, if they are doing any "basic preservation works", that is to say "the maintenance, repair or renewal of any part of a building or other structure" then they can apply to the court for an order granting them access to your land in order to allow them to do this.

What counts as "maintenance, repair or renewal" seems to be quite broadly interpreted.

If they need to repair their roof, or replace render that has come away from the wall then that would almost certainly be allowed. In contrast, if they just wanted to repaint that white wall to pink or some other colour because of their preference for a different colour, then a purely cosmetic change would not be allowed.

But it is not just a case of them being allowed on to your property in this situation. You would also expect compensation as well.

There was a case in the High Court a couple of years ago (Prime London Holdings 11 Ltd v. Thurloe Lodge Ltd [2022] EWHC 303 (Ch) ). This case involved two houses in a really posh part of London (literally opposite the V&A).

This case, which no doubt cost a load in lawyers fees, was all about repairing some render on the wall of one of the houses.

The court held that they should be allowed access to do this but that the other property should receive compensation under various different headings.

Most of these were more relevant to property developers, but there was one head of compensatable loss that was relevant to most ordinary people who are contemplating having neighbour's scaffolding in their garden, and this was:

"Substantial loss of privacy or other substantial inconvenience"

At paras 158 to 160 the court said:

[158] ... They will also be inconvenienced by the presence of the Claimant's workers on the site and the Scaffolding and there would be a period of weeks during which noisy building works will be held on the property.

[159] Mr Adams-Cairns has found that there would be a number of items which would be relevant to inconvenience of any resident of Thurloe Lodge, including the access of workers and materials on the property; what he considered to be limited noise from the works; an unsightly structure in the form of scaffolding in the Passageway; a very small reduction in light to three windows; concerns about security; and concerns about damage to Thurloe Lodge by the works.

[160] I think it is reasonable under these circumstances to regard both the loss of privacy and inconvenience that would necessarily be involved as being sufficiently substantial to warrant compensation. During the entire period of the Claimant's occupation of the site, the residents would need to suffer having workmen in their garden with the noise and loss of privacy that that involves.

(emphasis added)

The court went on to say at [161] that since this was an expensive property that "it is possible that a high price could be put on this by an occupant"

So, is the work being done by your neighbours an extension or is it "maintenance, repair or renewal"?

There is a whole world of difference in your response depending on what the answer to that question is.

By the way, the case I referenced above is an interesting read (although it is 264 paragraphs).

Prime London Holdings 11 Ltd v Thurloe Lodge Ltd [2022] EWHC 303 (Ch)

It does cover a lot of the nuance around the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992, as this was the first time that a claim under the Act had ever gone to the High Court.

I think the judge's final paragraph sums things up very well:

[264] To the extent that they were unable to agree because of differing views on how ANLA is to be applied, I hope that the detailed analysis of the Act that has been provided in this judgment will assist future potential litigants in resolving their differences without going to court and that it will be another 30 years or more before the Act needs to be considered again in the High Court.

By this, it sounds as though they want to build some sort of extension?

If that is the case then, yes, just tell them to get lost.

My previous comment a few minutes ago centred mainly on what the case would be if they were seeking to do repairs.

Total CF's!
Entitled much? Cheeky fucks!

I'm not so sure that is the case. From what the OP has said, this does not appear to be a situation of maintenance.

In any event, this doesn't look like a party wall anyway but is likely a wall entirely on the other side of the boundary line.

"Whoever built that bench and put that tree there has been a bit silly."

Why do you say that? Even when it comes to maintenance or repair the OP would still expect compensation for any damage to her property and also the loss of privacy and inconvenience with having scaffolding and workmen on her property.

If that tree isn't in a pot it would concern me - it is too close to the wall. And the seating could also cause issues.

Because op will be liable for any damage the tree roots or the benches do to the neighbour's property. The benches appear to be attached to the wall.

My first thought was absolutely not. But looking at the picture. If that wall is their house someone has attached benches to their house and planted a tree inches from their foundations. I actually don't think that's OK at all. I'm certain they have a legal right to maintain their property and that's been blocked and the tree roots are likely to damage the house over time.

I'm curious to what they're 're doing' if they're on the top floor and the rendered wall is in your garden?
Are they re doing the render for the whole building, because that's very kind of them!

Gosh, isn't it unlucky that they couldn't have discussed this with the previous owners and this all done and dusted.

Instead they waited until had to ask the new people who moved in and made their batsh1t crazy disruptive CFery completely normal and reasonable demands requests.

Olive trees don’t have deep invasive roots. Roots usually shallow to catch rainwater. Dont worry that it’s impacting them, because its not - it’s young, quite small.

I think that’s not as simple as you think op; that tree is still small so currently fine but it is planted way to close to their house. I think you face a bigger issue, as if I was them, and whomever owns the bottom half, basically, whoever is the lease holder, I’d want that tree removed. Permanently.

a standard olive, which that looks like, should be 20 foot away from any building as it could impact foundations, water and sewage lines. A dwarf one, 10 feet away,

all they need to do is call their insurers. Who will review then call your insurers and have that moved, you cannot plant trees right up next to someone’s property.

You do know trees grow?

Well quite!

OP, I do think your picture rather changes things. Regardless of the particulars of what they’re doing or wanting to do right now (maybe changing windows? But you should find out) if that wall needs any attention at all in future e.g. re-rendering then a scaffold would have to go on your land, and therefore the seating + tree would need to move. And it is a big tree in an unwise place. I was imagining more smallish olive tree on a patio with a fence and space between properties, not a building wall as the boundary.

It might be that their issue can be sorted without scaffold this time, depending what it is needs attention, but you’ll need to consider sorting that tree & seating for the future.

I would get a tree specialist to have a look at it because of where it is, but I would think that moving it now is the wrong time. Moving a tree at any time of year is not risk free.

Tell them to sod off

The scaffolding firm will have to do a work around moving a tree is a ridiculous request

They're not being unreasonable to ask, but you're also well within your rights to say no.

Don't contact your neighbours.
If they ask again, tell them to put their request in writing and you'll consider it.
Personally I'd just say no as there's too many downsides for you. If you are thinking about letting them use your land, do so with a proper contract in place. You can charge for the inconvenience and stipulate rules about access etc.

Why can't thy have the scaffolding at the back and front of their property

NO NO
there’s ways around everything
no need to move your tree

No. No. No.
Do not move an olive tree.
They very rarely survive the move.

You absolutely cannot move the tree unless it's a small one in pot from costco or something. It will die. But scaffolding can be placed round it. Scaffolders are used to working around an object

The scaffolders could easily work around that seating but you would not be able to enjoy sitting there for many months. You can just say no or ask for compensation money for the inconvenience.