Tweet
I've lived in my property since 1980 and it originally backed onto fields, a cricket pitch and orchards. In around 2002 a planning application was made for a large development, including a new main road. During negotiations between the Council, the Developers and residents, we were told that there would be a 5 metre buffer zone or corridor of trees in perpetuity separating us from the development and not only affording us privacy, but to act as a noise and traffic pollution barrier. It would also compensate for the fact that the majority of existing properties were bungalows and all of the new development that backed on to us were large houses. Shortly before the new owner of the house whose garden backs on to mine moved in, the Council and developers asked if I had any preference of native British trees that they should plant and these were duly planted approx 5 metres within the boundary fence of the new house. This was in 2003.
In 2006 the property changed ownership. Unbeknown to me, because of established trees in my garden, the new couple trimmed the trees regularly and when I had to remove quite a few of my trees many years later I was aware how little the native trees had grown in their garden and how overlooked my property was. There is a 6ft wooden fence on the boundary and even after 20 years the trees are barely above the fence with huge empty gaps in between. From my window I can not only see in their living room, but can see the weekly refuse collectors driving down the road opposite their property! I had planted a conifer near the boundary when my mother died in 1982 and my first encounter with the couple came when the wife suggested it would have to be reduced in size because they had had a tree surgeon look at it and it was dangerous, but that they would pay because it would possibly fall on their new conservatory and they wanted it done quickly. It was bird nesting season so I explained that nothing could be done, but she insisted I show her evidence of nesting birds and also information from the internet to show that this was the law and then said that at the end of the season I should arrange for their tree surgeon to visit me and arrange the work. I had numerous texts from her during this time reminding me to call him, but I had queried with her the lack of trees of any height, but her response was to tell me how long they had lived there and an assumption that they were under no obligation.
I assumed that the land must have had a change of use and was pretty angry that the Council hadn't informed me, so I contacted them. I told the owner and said why I was contacting them but she said that it wouldn't make any difference if the barrier of trees had been there or not, However, during another conversation with her I had asked if she could look at her deeds to see if they could throw any light on what had happened. She did more than that. She actually sent me a copy of the relevant part of her deeds where it stated that it was her responsibility to maintain the barrier in perpetuity. The reason they have been trimmed every year is because she does not like tall trees. Aside from mine, she has had the trees in the next garden to mine - and nowhere near her property- reduced in height while the property is empty and for sale as the previous owners had not entertained her demand that they trimmed their trees..With that I contacted the Council and they actually suggested it could be a breach of planning and that they would investigate and visit their property. However, when they went they told her their was no breach. It appears that the barrier was approved in 2003, but not implemented and because of the passage of time it was no longer enforceable.
At the time this was going on, I contacted the tree surgeon and asked why my tree was dangerous, to which he replied that it wasn't. He advised me there was no legal height or width of a tree and that any tree could fall down, by roads, in parks or other public places, but that doesn't mean that any and every tall tree will fall down and there was more chance that if cutting it introduced a disease, then that could be dangerous. Consequently, I told her the deal was off. Since then I have felt quite intimidated. I'm in my mid seventies and live alone. I have now had a letter from a legal firm acting on their behalf saying that a tree that has seeded itself behind a shed in my garden has broken their fence and I have to replace the panel and anything else that may have been damaged by the tree. I'm happy to do this because it's obviously my fault., I've been advised though that even though the Council washed their hands of the matter of the buffer zone enforcement, this is quite common, but the original promise of the trees should still stand and the height they should have reached after 23 years would be similar to my tree and afford me privacy and peace of mind at last. I
t was suggested to me that this is a civil case and the buffer trees should be immediately left to grow now as it is definitely her responsibility to carry out the original terms, but that I should be entitled to any expense to make my garden as protected and private as originally promised by buying taller trees or screens to enable me to have the benefits while the original trees gain height . However, this would have to be a civil case. I can't afford to gamble on losing any money, but have too much in savings to qualify for legal aid. I would so much appreciate any advise or suggestions from anyone with similar experiences.
In 2006 the property changed ownership. Unbeknown to me, because of established trees in my garden, the new couple trimmed the trees regularly and when I had to remove quite a few of my trees many years later I was aware how little the native trees had grown in their garden and how overlooked my property was. There is a 6ft wooden fence on the boundary and even after 20 years the trees are barely above the fence with huge empty gaps in between. From my window I can not only see in their living room, but can see the weekly refuse collectors driving down the road opposite their property! I had planted a conifer near the boundary when my mother died in 1982 and my first encounter with the couple came when the wife suggested it would have to be reduced in size because they had had a tree surgeon look at it and it was dangerous, but that they would pay because it would possibly fall on their new conservatory and they wanted it done quickly. It was bird nesting season so I explained that nothing could be done, but she insisted I show her evidence of nesting birds and also information from the internet to show that this was the law and then said that at the end of the season I should arrange for their tree surgeon to visit me and arrange the work. I had numerous texts from her during this time reminding me to call him, but I had queried with her the lack of trees of any height, but her response was to tell me how long they had lived there and an assumption that they were under no obligation.
I assumed that the land must have had a change of use and was pretty angry that the Council hadn't informed me, so I contacted them. I told the owner and said why I was contacting them but she said that it wouldn't make any difference if the barrier of trees had been there or not, However, during another conversation with her I had asked if she could look at her deeds to see if they could throw any light on what had happened. She did more than that. She actually sent me a copy of the relevant part of her deeds where it stated that it was her responsibility to maintain the barrier in perpetuity. The reason they have been trimmed every year is because she does not like tall trees. Aside from mine, she has had the trees in the next garden to mine - and nowhere near her property- reduced in height while the property is empty and for sale as the previous owners had not entertained her demand that they trimmed their trees..With that I contacted the Council and they actually suggested it could be a breach of planning and that they would investigate and visit their property. However, when they went they told her their was no breach. It appears that the barrier was approved in 2003, but not implemented and because of the passage of time it was no longer enforceable.
At the time this was going on, I contacted the tree surgeon and asked why my tree was dangerous, to which he replied that it wasn't. He advised me there was no legal height or width of a tree and that any tree could fall down, by roads, in parks or other public places, but that doesn't mean that any and every tall tree will fall down and there was more chance that if cutting it introduced a disease, then that could be dangerous. Consequently, I told her the deal was off. Since then I have felt quite intimidated. I'm in my mid seventies and live alone. I have now had a letter from a legal firm acting on their behalf saying that a tree that has seeded itself behind a shed in my garden has broken their fence and I have to replace the panel and anything else that may have been damaged by the tree. I'm happy to do this because it's obviously my fault., I've been advised though that even though the Council washed their hands of the matter of the buffer zone enforcement, this is quite common, but the original promise of the trees should still stand and the height they should have reached after 23 years would be similar to my tree and afford me privacy and peace of mind at last. I
t was suggested to me that this is a civil case and the buffer trees should be immediately left to grow now as it is definitely her responsibility to carry out the original terms, but that I should be entitled to any expense to make my garden as protected and private as originally promised by buying taller trees or screens to enable me to have the benefits while the original trees gain height . However, this would have to be a civil case. I can't afford to gamble on losing any money, but have too much in savings to qualify for legal aid. I would so much appreciate any advise or suggestions from anyone with similar experiences.
Comment