I am fed up with neighbours hassling me about our tree

[Silosy]

We live in a terrace and there are a row of mature - as in 100+ year old trees - along all of our back gardens. They’re a mixture of sycamore and plane, all healthy all well kept.

The people living directly behind us and adjacent have moaned incessantly about our tree for the last 15 years.

‘It’s pushing our paving up.’
’It shades our patio between 4 and 5 in the summer.’
’Pigeons roost in it and shit on our garden.’
’Leaves fall in our garden.’
’It makes the ground level uneven.’

All of these are frankly nonsense arguments and I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions that the tree has been there longer than all of our houses, we ensure it’s maintained and if it was felled, the heave would cause more issues for them then its presence but no. I’ve had another whingeing message today telling me we ‘have to do something’ about the tree because the paving stones at the end of their garden which they laid over the roots of the tree are being pushed up.

What do you want me to do, exactly? Go back in time and advise you not to lay paving stones where tree roots are?

Before anyone posts it, the tree is not TPO’d and no, we can’t just get a TPO on it.

And no, I’m not going to fell it. I’m just ranting really.

How so? The tree isn’t causing an issue to something that was already there. They have chosen to lay paving slabs over the roots of an established, large tree. Why is the OP responsible for their stupidity?

So am I, sounds like the roots are disturbing their stones and you need to so something about it. Would it not just be easier to come to some arrangement with your neighbours rather than argue with them and piss them off?

The camera is meant to be visible to them to act as a deterrent for sneaky chopping behaviour. As long as its not overlooking their house or garden. They're less likely to do something if you know it was them that done it.

It's making them miserable, why not chop a third off and give it a good trim? It won't harm the tree but will improve their lives.

We have trees at the bottom of our garden that totally block our shade but are owned by the council and we can't trim. Council budgets mean that it's been ten years since they trimmed them. It really makes our garden shady and my plants don't grow!

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas#amenity-value

I'd definitely ask again and address as many of the "amenity value" points in this link.

Key points being:

• how visible is it from public spaces
• why is it important - size and form of the tree - also type of tree - is it a type that is of importance or current decline, like the ash trees?
• "contribution to, and relationship with, the landscape"
• as it's such a large tree, the potential issues with land collapsing if the tree was felled (because I'm sure the neighbours will also moan if a giant hole appears under their patio, as well as the field of mushrooms that would appear as the roots rot!)

Otherwise I'd end up having to be blunt with the neighbours and say "The tree is healthy and well maintained and, as previously mentioned, was here long before either of our houses and patios were built. Trees grow, so to lay a patio over where its roots grow was rather foolhardy of you. We will not be taking down a tree that is over 100 years old but do commit to keeping it safe and healthy, pollarded and trimmed on the professional advice of our tree surgeon, as necessary, to maintain it's health and to minimise the impact of any shading on that part of your garden. We will not engage further on the topic."

"Also the right does not extend t roots"

You are mistaken about this. There was a case that went to the House of Lords in 2001 that confirms that roots do also cause a nuisance (Delaware Mansions v City of Westminster).
.

"...if they damage the tree they may be responsible for losses arising from their actions ( subject to various factors)"

This is certainly true, but there are very many reputable tree surgeons who have experience of combining root pruning with tree surgery to ensure that the tree is not damaged.

I don't think that anyone would suggest to the other person that they just go out and start hacking bits off the tree themself.

Sorry why do you not understand, the OPS tree and and its roots are affecting the property and land of an adjacent land owner. If this affecting land she does not own and there for it is the OPS issue legally as its still growing.

What they do with their own property and lay there is non of the OPS business, but in legal terms her tree roots are legally forming trespass on land not owned by the OP. You can call them stupid or what ever but the law is quite clear, her actions by not controlling a tree that is her property is interfering with property and land she does now own.

Arguing the OP is not responsible for her property is the stupid one. When the law is pretty clear 🙄

Not sure it could legally be argued that a tree is 'trespassing' tbh. Sounds odd to me.

Presumably these neighbours weren't forced at the point of a gun to move into a property with very old, large trees just over the fence of the back garden. I am no gardener or landscaper or builder, but even I know that if you lay paving stones you need to be sure that ground is level. Nobody but an utter fool would expect paving stones laid over the roots of a large tree to stay put. The obvious thing to do would surely be to lay decking there or to cover the area with gravel or bark chippings if they can't cope with a bit of muddy ground in wet periods. Also, newsflash - trees grow! And a good thing for all of us that they do, or the environment would be even more fucked up than it already is. If they don't like it they can move.

Wrong. They have to OFFER them. If refused the person who cut them has to dispose of them. Tossing them over the fence wouldl be fly tipping and could result in prosecution.

Dad has similar complaining neighbours, they send letters every now and then and moan about a mature birch that I planted about 50 years ago, long before they moved in and say it shades their garden but it is perfectly obvious that the shade in their garden is cast by the roofline of Dad's house. But still they complain.

Every complaining letter contains the phrase "we who have no trees" and that is how we refer to them, I can't actually remember what they are called. They also complain about the fence needing replaced (it's old but sound). I feel that complaining is the common denominator with these people and nothing to do with the tree in fact.

Completely agree with this. Of course we need and love trees. But just because they are beautiful and beneficial does not mean they are sacred. There are so many inappropriately planted/cared for trees in domestic settings and it is antisocial not to maintain them in a way that doesn't impact on others.

I say this as someone who deliberately planted a small silver birch tree, but only after careful research about what would be suitable for the size of our garden. I am however very frustrated by our neighbours who are letting a self seeded ash grow unchecked into it.

It's often called "encroachment". This is where a physical object (including branches and roots) extend from one property to another.

Encroachment is a type of trespass.

There was a court case back in 1894 that said that you could cut down any branches or roots that were encroaching your property.

Just one example of trespass being used legally.

www.jonathanlea.net/blog/how-to-resolve-a-neighbour-dispute-regarding-roots-and-overhanging-trees/

"The conditions may not be satisfied for a claim in negligence, although your neighbour may instead be liable to you in private nuisance (i.e., where the roots or branches have caused physical damage to your land, or if they have interfered with your enjoyment of the land). You could also have a claim in trespass to land, merely if any part of the tree is encroaching onto your land (i.e., the roots or branches)."

Huh, fascinating! Good to learn about, thank you.

Thanks, another poster corrected me too.

I'm finding trespassing trees highly entertaining in my 12 yo brain now :)

😊Don't get me wrong by the way, I would love to see more trees in peoples gardens ect, but they do need to consider the life cycle of a tree. Most short age trees only last around 100 years generally going up to 300-400 years on average for longer growing species.

Even then you have to look at the veteranisation of trees and standing dead wood as part of their life cycle. So I would hazard a guess the OPS tree is still a teenager in tree years and so they have a duty of care to ensure it does not become a nuisance.

Mind you Councils are the worst at this, planting trees on pavements and then cutting them down really early in their lives as they are ripping up the road and pavements before they even reach any sort of maturity.

We had a similar issue, as your neighbours. The house behind our garden had a very long garden, along with other houses they sold off some of their gardens. On the land that was sold, houses were built, and we lived in one of them. The house behind planted trees, at the end of their still long garden, along the border with our house. Our garden was a quarter of the size of our neighbours, the trees were just allowed to grow out of control, but because the trees were at the end of their garden, and they didn't effect them, they refused to do anything. On the other hand in our garden, our light was significantly restricted, roots grew into our garden, destroying our lawn, area where our shed stood etc. Trees if not maintained are a pain in the arse.

We have mature 150+ year old trees (limes, sycamore, chestnut) bordering the entire length of our back garden on the neighbour's side. There's tons of leaves every autumn and debris after every storm, loads of bird shit and the roots will probably bring down our dry stone wall boundary at some point.

But there is no way in hell I would want anyone to touch them other than for regular maintenance - they're a precious natural resource and we are so privileged to have them. If people paid attention for more than a second they'd realize these 'annoying' trees provide a much needed habitat for our massively threatened natural biodiversity - we've got so many different nesting birds, insects and small mammals that all live in this relatively small, green space it would feel like sacrilege to destroy it just because we get a bit pissed off with the 'mess' or annoyed it's too shady.

Blimey, people need to wake up to what's actually happening in our local environment - our neighbourhoods are becoming biodiversity deserts with all the astro turfing, paved front gardens, ripped up hedge rows. And when the temperature increase really does hit (we're heading for at least a 1.5°C increase by mid 2030s) we're all really going to miss these 'annoying' trees that have this amazing ability to provide a huge cooling effect through their shade and evapotranspiration.

Defend your trees, OP!
Joni Mitchell was so bloody right!

But leaves are just part of the outside 😂 you might as well complain about the soil.

We walked down a suburban street in Outer London recently. Dozens and dozens of houses had all paved over their front gardens for parking. In the event of a flash flood the street drainage would be insufficient so there would be standing water in those gardens and the risk of houses being flooded. It was also very dull aesthetically. I hope the back gardens had some exposed earth and plants.

Here's what I would do as the neighbour in this situ, assuming the tree was causing me genuine issues and I was battling a belligerent tree owner, who thinks just because her badly planted tree is 100 years old, it absolves her of any responsibility to abate any nuisance it may be causing to someone else's property / enjoyment of their property.

First, take advice from an arborist regarding heave, which is rare and only occurs in very specific circumstances. Then-

Write to the OP via Royal Mail Special Delivery, stating that the tree roots are encroaching onto my property and causing damage (enclose images).

Advise OP that I would be hiring a contractor to remove the offending roots at the boundary to abate further damage.

Advise OP that I would instruct the contractor to remove all overhanging branches at the same time (I would remove branches on my side because if the tree falls, I want to minimise the risk of it falling in my direction-though I wouldn't write that down).

Advise OP that the actions above, which I have no option to avoid in order to abate the damage occuring to my property, may destabilise the tree; as she has been put on notice and given fair warning, she needs to ensure the tree remains safe following the work.

I would ask her to forward a copy of my letter to her home insurance company.
I would advise her that this an official neighbour dispute, and that she is obligated to forward my letter onto any future purchasers of her home.
I would cc in all neighbours whose property may be affected in the unlikely event the tree fell, to ensure there were no objections.

If there is a chance of the tree landing on someone's house (excluding the OPs), I would reconsider. But otherwise, that's what I would crack on with.

'Badly planted tree' that was there before any of the houses were built?

The post above mine sounds like a manual for annoying all your neighbours and sabotaging your own house price all in one go.

The tree wasn't badly planted. The slabs were badly placed in relation to an existing tree.

I didn't spot any mention by the OP of the tree being older than the houses. I may have missed it.

The complaints come from more than 1 household.

Re patio- people can use every inch of their land how they wish and should not be curtailed by their neighbour's planting. If that means laying a patio in a sun-trap corner that may -down the line- have issues with tree roots, the liability for the damage is still the OPs regardless, because the roots of her tree do not have a right to be on any land other than her own.