I nearly posted this in AIBU, but then decided it was probably too niche.
We are fighting a planning application proposed for a rear garden housing development bordering onto to our own property, which is bounded by a wire fence and there are trees immediately each side of the border. The trees aren't great specimens, but they are tall and provide us with screening from the other garden/proposed site of development.
The Tree Survey commissioned by the developers has identified three trees in particular to be removed along this boundary, which are in fact trees on our side of the boundary. The SUDS Report, which deals with drainage issues, proposes that the soak away pits are to be dug 1.5m deep at the boundary of the property, where their site meets our garden.
Even if the Tree Survey has incorrectly identified our trees rather than their own as the ones to be removed, it appears that legally they are allowed to cut our tree roots which are probably growing across the border in order to dig down and put in their soak away pits.
But cutting through the tree roots is likely to substantially weaken our trees and may well cause them to completely uproot. So they would effectively have removed our trees along with what remained of our privacy. And I believe I am correct in saying that a developer cannot remove a tree from somebody else's land? There is no money that would compensate us for this, as it would take years for any replacement trees to bush out and grow to a similar height.
AIBU to conclude that in fact developers can remove trees from neighbouring gardens by such underhand tactics? Or is this just a case of badly prepared documents which have been rushed out before the Council elections in May?