Should the owner of trees be required to prune them in this case?

[richard7102]

Hi. I rent from the local council. A row of trees running along the back of my back garden, belonging to a private residence, have never been pruned and they reduce the light that's coming into the kitchen. They must be about thirty foot high. The council has never done anything when we (three tenants in a row of three houses) have asked the council to do something to better our lighting situation. Well, a few weeks ago a branch from one of the trees fell into my back garden and damaged a shed. The council and the owner of the trees will owe me a duty of care. Given that an incident of damage has actually occured, is the council obliged to command the tree owner to prune the height of the row of trees? Also, is there a body that deals with what is effectively a health & safety issue? Should I see a solicitor if the council do nothing? Thank you. Rich

[richard7102]

If the land where the branch of a tree that fell was the public highway, I think the council would be obliged to command the owner of trees to prune them. And I surmise, since the land is council property (I rent from council) the same applies. However, if the land was private property I personally would have to bring an action to require a pruning of the trees. I think this is the legal situation. Rich

[Sam101]

If in private ownership, the owner may have property insurance which covers the damage. Have you asked the person where the tree is planted if they are covered by insurance?

Quite possibly your own property insurance company could take action for the damage against the owners of the tree in question

[jaguarsuk]

Legally speaking you are entitled to prune any plant that over hangs your property to the boundary of your property, but you must return the off cuts to the land owner of where they are planted.

In other words you can cut the branches up to the fence line, but you need to chuck what you cut off over the fence. If they chuck them back then you can dispose of them.

Regards the damaged shed, the owner of the land the tree is planted on is responsible for the damage.

As for the height you could use the Right to Light Act 1959. This acts states that a property has a right to light if it has had light for 20 years or more. This can work for items such as big fences as you could apply to the courts for a Restore Light Order as you most likely can pinpoint when the fence went up and when the light was lost. But it is not so easy with trees as they grow slowly so the dates might be inaccurate. Also if the tree has a tree preservation order then it will not come under this act.

Another option would be the High Hedges Act with the local council but it would need to fit into this criteria:

• Made up of a line of 2 or more trees or shrubs
• Evergreen or semi-evergreen
• More than 2 metres tall
• A barrier to light or access (even if there are gaps)

The local council will also want to see that you have at least attempted to resolve the issue before they will get involved. They offer a guide called 'Over the garden hedge' to help resolve issues, it is best to follow this guide and document your efforts before approaching the council.

If you can't solve the solution these ways then I'm afraid there is nothing more can be done.

[richard7102]

I think my best option would be to use the Light Act. I can tick off on all of the criteria. I surmise that if the land where the tree landed was on a council pathhway, the council could order the pruning of the trees, because they owe a duty of care towards the public. Why then, if the council owns the land where the tree fell (my garden), would the council not owe a duty of care? Or do they?

[jaguarsuk]

It's not that the council owes you a duty of care, you need to complain to the council pursuant to the Light Act who will then ask the land owner to do something about the trees and if they don't then seek an order to force them to do it.

[dslippy]

There needs to be some sort of quantification here. By how much is the light interfered with? This might be answered by the LA on inspection.

Until you have this there is no possibility of arguing for negligence on the part of anybody.

[des8]

Nine month old thread resuurected by spammer