Tree removal - deeds

[FeatherPillowFight]

I'm currently looking at purchasing a property that has very large conifers in the garden - twice the size of the property property in height.
If we go ahead, I would like to remove these ASAP but there is a clause in the deeds saying we cannot remove trees that were planted when the house was built. The house is currently empty but the vendors say they do not know when the conifers were planted. The house builder closed in 2010 so they cannot be contacted.
My solicitor thinks this would be low risk but does anyone have any experience?

Conifer roots can extend up to 3 times the height of the tree, so definitely look into expanding and shrinkage as this will affect the foundations depending on how far away the trees are from the house.

If there aren’t any TPOs then you should be fine.

When we were buying our house there was a ridiculous clause in the deeds (from over 100 years ago) which meant we would have had difficulty accessing our property. Our solicitor advised us that ours was extremely low risk too, but we did purchase some kind of insurance - I think that it may have been indemnity insurance (?) that protects against any problems from deeds. I think that it was only a couple of hundred pounds. We were advised that the reality of a descendant of the previous owner suing us for ignoring the deeds was miniscule and would be laughed out of court anyway.

It seems a bonkers condition on the house.
Large-growing conifers are unsuitable for most gardens. When we moved here, there was a massive hedge of them that was blocking all the light out for neighbours at the back whose gardens are small and downslope from us. We had the lot out, and the neighbours were absolutely delighted- lockdown started almost immediately and they were able to enjoy sunshine in their houses and gardens for the first time in years. We had some close to the house at the front too, right by the drains, we had them out. In fact, every large shrub in the garden had been planted along the line of one drain or other- a rhododendron was one, and our surveyor said they were even worse for damaging drains than some trees. We cleared the lot out. We're replanting a front side hedge that was overgrown conifer with native hornbeam, much better for birds etc. Elsewhere, we're growing things like apple and pear cordons and smaller shrubs, chosen to be good for bees and birds etc. instead of the old ones, and placed away from the drains. We're also now having the drains relaid, but there was no point doing that before the conifers were out.

When I bought a new build, the existing trees were shown on the original documentation as little clouds - if it was built in 1998, existing trees, not just in your garden but in your neighbours (eg an oak) may be shown so it could be worthwhile getting the deeds to a house with a known older tree in the garden.
A colleague had a hell of a job getting a Scots Pine removed from his garden (non-native to the area) when he wanted to do an extension so good luck.

I would suggest that as the LPA us referred to in the deeds, the trees were planted as part of the landscaping scheme required by way of condition on the original planning permission on the housing development.

Such conditions usually require the retention of anything planted as part of that scheme (sometimes only for a specified period). I suggest you check the original approval notice for your house and see what it says.

Technically, if the trees are required to be retained by condition, you would need to make a planning application to relax that condition. The Council may require replacement planting.

'except in the course of good husbandry'

Maybe the tree surgeon can write a report advising their removal before they get too large/cause too much damage?

That’s a great idea. From what pp have said a huge conifer twice the height of the house would probably have roots approaching the house itself. Sounds like they are a bane. Of course trees are lovely but not non-native species that plunge a whole street into darkness and wreck foundations 😯

If it's in the deeds then you have a covenant, so need to check who is the owner of that covenant. Probably the person who sold the land the house was built on.

A starting point might be to see if you can find the original planning permission for the house, and who applied for it. Also the plans might show existing trees or council-required landscaping. Even though it's 25 years ago you might still find them online.

If the wording really is "consent of the transferor" don't you just need to ask the people who sold/are selling the house. The council is unlikely to be interested if there isn't a TPO, but to accelerate the query you could try phoning the Tree Officer and see if he will come and inspect and give you a verbal view.

If the trees are twice the size of the house, you need to also look at how far they are from the house. If one fell in a storm could it fall onto the house? Then I'd be thinking that "good husbandry" could enable you to at least halve the height of the trees. But I have to say, I have two trees also higher than my house but with TPOs and the council will not let me take very much off them at all.

Given that the Transferor has gone out of business, I’d say you’re fine.
Getting the tree surgeon to confirm it comes under good husbandry is a good backup.

I agree with @Seeline - it looks as though retention of certain existing trees and those planted as part of the development planting scheme was a planning condition.

Not all trees are good trees. You are no doubt the sort of person who gets angry when forestry workers cut down trees.

Remove the trees after bird nesting season is over and replace them with slower growing, hard wood, deciduous trees.

Thanks for all of your constructive advice - I'm very grateful.

To clarify, if a tree fell towards the house, it would probably reach the front drive! They are within 15m of the property. It could of course fall the other way and I would be responsible for blocking a very busy road at the very least...

I have contacted the LPA but I'm not sure how long it will take for them to respond.

The only negative to removing them would be a loss of privacy, but that would have no impact on any of the neighbouring properties at all.

By way of update, the LA acted very quickly after I explained the house purchase was dependent on it. They have confirmed (in writing) that as there is no TPO, they aren't interested - HOORAY!

Yay! Good news.

Result! Good luck with the rest of the move.

@FeatherPillowFight
I didn’t think for one minute they would be interested in nuisance conifers. If they are that big after 25 years, they are probably leylandii. Most sane people would want them down. TPO? Not unless the council was mad! You could plant more attractive trees. The Amangowa cherry is very upright and has attractive blossom. Or plant a beech hedge. Birds love ours. They are a haven for wildlife.