Our trees blocking neighbour's light

[Toastoftheton]

Interested in hearing people’s thoughts on this, I really want to do what’s right. We’ve just taken on an old family property. It’s the kind of place that looks really nice from the outside, it’s over 250 years old with a big and beautiful garden but needs lots of tlc (and cold hard cash) to be liveable and I’m on maternity.

Next door to us is a block of flats built maybe 20 years ago. In between us and the flats is a small private road that leads to parking for a different development. While I was away a neighbour from the flats came to the door and spoke to my sister who was housesitting. She asked if we ever cut back our trees as they are blocking light to her garden. My sister said she sympathised, but she didn’t own the property so couldn’t answer. Apparently, the neighbour stated something about going to the council, but she was perfectly pleasant, polite and reasonable.

The trees in question pre-date the flats. When the developer applied for planning permission their original designs wanted the trees chopped down because light would be an issue. My family objected to this as they can’t chop down our trees and we needed them for privacy (it previously was a bungalow). This was upheld and the designs changed with the trees included. Consequently, those flats and gardens have always been in the shade.

I went out and had a look and, in fairness, the trees have gotten bigger, and branches are overhanging the private road but don’t go as far as to overhang the flats gardens. We love it as the size of them mean we can barely see the flats and they are beautiful, established trees. However, I totally understand the frustration of not having any sun and I do want to respond to her. Cutting back the trees would increase the light a little but the only way to get full sunlight would be to remove them which we aren’t prepared to do.

Because the garden has a lot of trees, we generally get a tree surgeon out every 2-3 years, but it varies. At the moment we have no need and the call out fee is very expensive but if we are having other bits done, to cut the overhanging branches will only be a hundred or so extra as part of the full package.
I want to propose the following:

The next time we have the tree surgeon out we will ask them to cut the branches overhanging the private road and cut them back a little. We will cover the full cost for this, but it could be years before we have them onsite again.

Or

She is very welcome to pay for a tree surgeon to come and do it and we will grant them access but again only the overhanging branches and we wouldn’t be able to contribute at this time.

I feel guilty as neither proposal is a real solution, she will still have limited light. Do those proposals, limited though they are, sound reasonable? Any tips on how to approach the situation and phrase things as we can’t do much which I’m sure is very frustrating. Is there any hope for good neighbourly relations?

You could cut back a few bits because it’s the kind thing to do but whoever built and subsequently bought the flats knew this was going to be an issue. If they didn’t want to live next to trees, they should have built elsewhere! And the cheek of the developer to want you to cut down established trees when they first wanted to build - the mind boggles!

Tell her she can cut back the overhanging branches to her boundary (which is her right if the trees are not TPO’d). Up to you if you want to contribute to the cost but be aware that if you do, you’ll be setting the expectation that you contribute for ever.

As the owner, you have a responsibility to ensure the trees are safe so just ensure you keep them maintained. There is no right to light.

There is a lot of people pleasing going on here OP, so don’t feel bad about the people saying you are being mean or awful.

there is no right to light in law, and baring the application of the high hedges laws, which from what you’ve said won’t apply here, she has no rights to object to your trees.

id be minded to say you have a tree surgeon out every couple of years as part of managing the trees, and that you will ask him to look at what can be done in line with the health of the trees and maintaining your privacy to help improve the situation. If she gets arsey I would calmly say the trees have been there for a long time and specifically preserved as part of the planning application and are very important to you ( put her on notice you will take any messing around seriously) so this is the best that can be done and you don’t want to engage further on the issue.

Don’t let her tree surgeon do the work, it’s a sad fact people can’t be trusted in this way. Frankly we need trees more than people, so if she wants to be a dick she can fuck off, doesn’t affect your life.

Yes, I would definitely not allow someone else’s tree surgeon to do the work. There are a huge number of cowboys who go door to door offering to do tree work and they’re mostly unqualified, uninsured and just hack away at the tree before returning to demand ££££.

Your council’s planning team will likely have a list of reputable tree surgeons, or you can go on the Arboricultural Association website and find one.

We have an ongoing issue with a neighbour and a tree in our garden. He has repeatedly demanded we cut it down because he claims it shades his patio for an hour every afternoon in the summer. We have made it clear to him that we will maintain the tree appropriately but will not entertain being badgered to cut it back/down to suit him.

So sorry for the delay in coming back to you all. A good range of opinions which is exactly why I posted so thank you everyone for taking the time to post replies, I do appreciate it! I haven’t spoken to her yet but my sister said she seemed reasonable and nice so I do want to come to a solution that balances her understandable desire for light with my desire for privacy.

We don’t have any leylandii. The tree that is blocking the light is a Sycamore so doing a quick google it doesn’t recommend cutting it back until late autumn but I will call up our tree surgeon to talk to him about it as I am very new to all of this. Just to clarify the trees are generally maintained but it has been a while and they have really flourished. The trees are completely safe and the branches that overhang the private road are high enough up not to impede any cars, vans etc that need access and would need a professional to get them down.

The problem is to make a meaningful difference to her light it would need quite a radical transformation. There isn’t a TPO on it, we do have them on some of our other trees, but it would need taken back to smaller than it was when the flats were built and would allow flats on the upper floor a full view of our garden.

After reading through all your fantastic advice, we will prioritise getting a tree surgeon next year when I am back at work after maternity leave. He’s exceptional and knows the garden well so will do what he can to strike a balance and we will make sure to stay on top it like we do with the rest of the garden. I’d even be happy to invite her round when he’s evaluating the job to discuss options while still being clear that we will maintain the privacy provided by the tree, sometimes having an expert explain makes all the difference. If she’s unhappy, well at that point we’ve done what we can but I’m hopeful if we approach it with good faith and do what we can then it will be ok.

I can’t get him in earlier than next year as we only took over the house in June and honestly don’t have the money. You can shake me by the ankles all you want there’s only a button in there. If she wants to move faster than that I really liked @Thethingswedoforlove story, we will say she can use our tree surgeon as a one off but make it clear he would be instructed by us. We would then keep on top of them as part of general maintenance at our cost on our timescale but as stated it would be a lot of money for not a huge benefit, hopefully he can explain that to her, he isn't a cowboy at all.

Honestly, I do blame the developers who went ahead with the original plans despite knowing that the flats would be in shade.

Once again thank you for taking the time to reply. This was really helpful.

That sounds pretty reasonable, @Toastoftheton.

Im slightly mystified as to why and how developers on a completely separate site decided that trees on someone else’s private land had to be removed though.

@Inklingpot my grandparents were thrown too. Luckily they just had to point out to the council that the trees didn't actually belong to the developers and the plans were swiftly changed so there was never a chance of being made to remove them. Not sure if they were willfully ignorant, chancing their arm or what. It was a shame that when it was clear there wouldnt be light they didn't care and pushed ahead.

I agree with this.
If she’s only just moved in she may not be aware of the back story.
Shes bought a flat that is permanently in the shade… surely you check this sort of thing?

@Toastoftheton
A sycamore is a field tree. They are not suitable for urban environments and can grow to be huge!!!! It was a poor choice of tree.

Personally I would get rid as it’s the equivalent of a tree weed. A much better idea is to have smaller ornamental garden trees. Don’t forget this tree night also topple into the flats. Or a branch fall off. A branch of our neighbours oak tree missed our house by 1m last spring. Neighbour removed the tree after a Tree Surgeon declared it vulnerable to high winds. I would think a bit more about whether this tree is worth saving. It’s not got a TPO. That tells you something. At least get it trimmed so it’s not susceptible to wind and don’t let it get to 30m plus in height. There’s a reason why these are field trees! It’s not in a suitable location.

Sycamore is much better than leylandii but it's still a stupid tree to have in a garden. They are fast growing and have big roots. How close is yours to your house and how close is it to the flats?

They are forgiving to a heavy prune or even pollarding (maybe) in early winter. There are so many nicer trees to have.

I actually have one at the end of my garden. It's huge but we have large gardens as we are semi rural so I think it's ok.

I'm amazed at how many posters would not care about how it's impacting the neighbour. Is being a good neighbour now sneerily dismissed as being a 'people pleaser'. If so I'm glad me and my neighbours are all people pleasers 🫤

Legally your trees shouldn't obstruct light to any of your neighbours WINDOWS but there is nothing legally they can do about it causing shade to their garden. Providing it isn't reducing light to any windows keep your tree but cut the overhang. Surely if the tree is that old the garden was full shade when they moved in so they knew this would be an issue already and could have chosen somewhere else to live.

If she was daft enough to buy a flat with a big tree outside then complain about the shade I absolutely wouldn't do any more than what you're doing, which is to make sure the tree is safe, and not causing obstruction to the road.

We had sycamores in our garden - the tree surgeon described them as the weeds of the tree world. They are a nightmare to live with, they will seed and grow anywhere. They also have a huge root system which can interfere with nearby structures, so that’s something to be aware of too. Ours were diseased (a particular fungi) and had to be removed for safety, but we would have considered removing / replacing anyway as they’re best suited to wide, open spaces and not gardens according to the surgeon we used.

The tree is well over a hundred years old, we have several ancient trees in the garden 200 years plus. Its totally fair to say it's a field tree because the whole area was a field. This is very outing but the property used to be rural, right on the edge of town and next door to farmland. Then just after the war the town boomed and a road was built alongside the property and nice houses began to be built around it. This place just stayed the same in the middle of all the development. The property itself is held together with gaffa tape and good will but the garden is everything.

I do agree that some of the trees are very, very large and wouldn't be chosen for a suburban area now but it wasn't suburban when they were planted. They've been around well before any of us and many of the properties and are all in great health so may well be around after. They are safe and we have specific insurance for them. The garden is big enough for them as well.

That's the problem I guess. I agree with the posters who say it's very frustrating not to have light and that the trees aren't ideal for a suburban garden and I totally get where she is coming from. It would annoy me if I were her, it's one tree, there are lots of others and it would make a big difference. That's why I posted to see if I was being unreasonable and selfish. Ideally I don't want to give up my privacy and the tree was there before the flats were built let alone bought and lived in. It would pretty much have to go to make a meaningful impact.

I've taken on board comments and will prioritize trimming next year but I'm not sure it will be what she hopes for but as I've said she was reportedly lovely so I'm hoping a face to face conversation will help matters.

It seems in general the advice is to ensure the trees are well maintained and cut back any overhang as soon as possible but I am not being unreasonable in wanting to keep them as they are as they were there first and provide privacy. I really wasn't sure so I'm so glad I posted and very, very grateful to you all for responding.

They can go to the council but I think they will find there isnt much that they can do.

There is something called a The Rights of Light Act (1959). The other property must have received light for at least the last 20 years in order for them to force the issue, but this only really applies to rooms in a house and not outdoor spaces. I think they would only be able to force the situation if the tree posed a safety risk.

If any of your tree is overhanging their boundary they are legally entitled to cut this back and "return" the trimmings - essentially throw them into your garden. If they take it on themselves to trim the tree and it isnt within their boundary, this is criminal damage and they can be prosecuted.

Additionally it's worth checking if there is a covenant/ tree preservation order in place for the tree. With the previous legal issue and age of the tree I suspect there may be.

OP - it might be worth asking the tree surgeon whether crown lifting is an option here, or if they can do some judicial branch removal in the crown to let in more light but keep the overall shape.

If large trees are 100+ years old and were there long before any development, then they jolly well have every right to stay there. They are living organisms that support a huge ecosystem within them, they act as a windbreak and cut down urban noise, they give shade, and they clean the air. And they look beautiful.

I am truly so sick and tired of so many people wanting to cut large forest trees down purely for their own convenience.

No wonder this planet is fucked. 😟

I'm on the other side of this as I have a very tiny garden and there's a tree currently blocking out a lot of the light. It was ok before but has grown in the last few years. Difference is it's in the grounds of a public building.

I'm going to ask them to cut it back quite a bit. They don't have to but I'm really hoping they will be reasonable as it's making a big negative difference to my enjoyment of my garden.

It's good you're being helpful about it.

The good news with sycamores is that they withstand a good, hard trim and come back into beautiful shape when it’s done properly. I was reluctant to let mine go as they were old, but the trunks were soggy rotten. I have an ash that is defying the laws of gravity and almost got taken down at the same time but it is now giving us privacy from a new housing estate development. The developers have offered to remove and replace with an ornamental but I’m not so sure!

Certainly not true regarding a legal entitlement to "return the trimmings" and "throw them into your garden". They are however obliged to offer the overhanging trimmings back, but the tree owner needn't accept.

We live next door to a massive sycamore tree (2 x as tall as the house) and love it. In the summer it keeps the house nice and cool and in the winter when it looses its leaves the light comes through. It is also a haven for wildlife.

Given your tree predates the flats it is very fair that you keep it as it is providing it is properly maintained. I think your pruning suggestion is reasonable.

I was nearly in your neighbours predicament last year. A house I was buying had a massive sycamore tree at the side of the fence and one at the back. Both planted by the neighbours. They shaded the garden entirely. When I asked about them the sellers told me they had permission to cut them but didn’t have the money. Was only when I did my research that I found they both had TPOs on. The house is still up for sale now.

I think you should cut as much as you can off. Yes we don’t have a right to light but it’s pretty selfish to let a humongous tree like that grow and block everyone’s light.

I've read the whole thread and have been pondering what to say because I do understand both sides of this.

In my mind, the flats were built when the tree(s) were smaller. The trees have been in situ for 100 years or more, so I don't think OP needs to remove them at all. However, I do think that the trees should have been kept at the same height as when the flats were built. It would be the neighbourly thing to do, then you wouldn't have the neighbour raising this as in issue, neither would there be any risk of subsidence/heave or stability in strong winds.

I do understand that the owners of the flats must have been aware that trees were outside their properties, but it is not fair of OP to let them grow and grow year on year.

These trees form part of what sounds a very large garden, so I doubt they affect your enjoyment of your property, but the flats are very close to the trees and are now finding that they are in shade, merely because they've been allowed to grow. How would you feel if your flat had some trees outside but they were not so big as to cause shading or a blocked view, but now some years later they do.

Out of interest which way do the flats face? Do they get any sun at all?

The flats face east so there is certainly morning sun that is blocked by the tree. I completely accept that and really do sympathise which is why I'm grateful for everyone's input.

Just to be clear we took over the property in June of this year but the trees hadn't be left to grow unchecked since the flats were built 20 years ago. They were trimmed probably every 2-3 years. It has probably been closer to 4-5 years due to ill health of my grandparents but could be longer and I accept this is something I need to get on top off.

The problem is the tree is very big and established. The private road is only a cars width then it's her garden. From what I can see, I'm no expert, it would need quite a drastic reduction to make a meaningful impact. I've had a look at old photos and it really isn't that much bigger than it was when the flats were built hence why the developers wanted them down. The garden has always been in shade.

I know legally all I have to do is keep them safe and trimmed but I do agree with those that say morally I should do everything I can to grant light. Im not going to remove the tree as it provides privacy, was there first and supports wildlife. However, I have been seeing there are lots of clever things a good tree surgeon can do including great ideas from this thread. I'm assuming, but I haven't spoken to the tree surgeon so I don't know, that those clever things will cost a fair bit more than just trimming the overhang. I do need to talk to the expert but do you think it would be unreasonable of me to ask her for a contribution towards additional works?

To be clear we would cover the trimming and general maintenance, that's on us, but if we're were going to look at crown lifting etc? Having had a good look I do think I would be ok with actually taking the tree down to smaller than it was when the flats were built as it would still give us privacy but hopefully would let through more light but that would be a very big job that would only be for her benefit, we wouldn't do it for ourselves if you know what I mean.

I've no idea of numbers and if people think it's unreasonable then I won't pursue it but if people think it's an ok idea, I'll mention it to her and get my guy out to have a look to get a feel for numbers and options. Do you think it's fair to ask her to cover the whole cost difference between trimming and crowning?

I know I sound very tight and I would cover it if I could but I'm being totally honest when I say there is not the money for it at the moment. We only have this place as we inherited it, I'm on maternity from being an admin assistant and we have to do a fair bit to make it safe but we're very grateful. I'm trying my best to strike a balance.

Also, just to say all my posts seem to be bloody essays so thank you all for reading through my waffling.

Before this house we were in a flat with no natural light. So I know legally we are in the right and the tree is similar to what it was when the place was built but equally I totally get her frustration. Its tricky.

I think it's totally reasonable to tell her that you will take on x, and y at your cost, but that z can also be done at p cost and will be done if and only if she pays that cost.