neighbours tree is starting to block the view of the valley from my house

Davesnave

gwapenut wrote: »

I can't believe people are inciting criminal damage / poisoning trees for a tree that is on somebody else's private property.

I can understand why people might feel driven to take such measures, but not for blocking a view, which is just an aesthetic matter.

There are far worse situations, where gardens are deprived of sunlight and their owners then restricted in what they can grow or do there.

Idiophreak

rustyboy21 wrote: »

You paid ,say £100k for the house.
25 years later, the tree is 20 foot high and is blocking maybe a view of a valley. Only you know that you used to have a view of the valley, no prospective buyer does. With inflation/price increases, you sell your house for £200k. That is not a 25% reduction in house price.

It's generally best not to assume house prices will go up.

In any case, if someone paid £100k for this house with a lovely view, it's fair to assume that comparable houses without the view will have sold for 90/95.

So, over your period of 100% growth, your house should be worth £200k, as you say...But, actually, people are going to look and go..."hey, the house next door is only worth £180k...I don't see *any difference* to make this one worth more...so that's what this one is worth, too". So you're £20k out of pocket.

I'm talking about reducing the value of your house...not what you pay for it. So in your example it's entirely possible that the £200k *is* 25% less than the house would otherwise be worth.

rustyboy21

It's what state the house is in that matters more than what view it has.


Out of , say 10 prospective buyers for this hypothetical house, I would say maybe 1 of them ( if that) would say '' The house is lovely, but its a pity that the view is blocked by that tree'' They don't know the tree has not always been there, so I don't see the correlation you are making. If all the houses were exactly the same, all the d!cor etc similar, one would assume that the prices would be very much the same. If there was a 2m brick wall 3 foot away from your rear windows, then I can see that this would be a major issue and cause depreciation of the house price. But a tree in a neighbours garden, wouldn't and shouldn't effect the price.


I would agree with your scenario, if , when you bought the house, the view out of the windows was of an uninterrupted view of a valley with green fields in front and no buildings. Then someone decides to build an estate with maybe 100 houses on it, which blocks your view totally. Then, yes I would expect a price reduction to occur, if the design of the estate/height of the houses and buildings was bad. You would also be able to tell that it wasn't always there by the building materials used, It could be argued quite easily that this estate has affected the price of the house and maybe its views too.


I cannot see where you are coming from here. It is a tree , not on your property, which may have been there before the houses were built (in this scenario, not the OP's) .

Idiophreak

rustyboy21 wrote: »

It's what state the house is in that matters more than what view it has.

But that doesn't mean the view doesn't matter.

Ask yourself, 2 identical properties...

a) one with a tree blocking out all the light and any view
b) the other one with a nice view down the valley and a nice suntrap garden.

Which would you pay more for?

If you're saying you'd pay the same, you're in a distinct minority.

And the point I'm making is that letting your trees grow out of hand can effectively change your neighbour's property b into property a. Change a property people would pay more for, into a property people would pay less for.

It really doesn't matter whether the trees have always been there or not. Having a view adds value. You either have it, or you don't. OP had it when they bought the property, now they don't...so now they don't have the value the view added.

Mr_Ted

Dan-Dan wrote: »

Yet I got a forum warning for daring to suggest two posters suggesting various illegal actions , were crazy......

:beer:
Likewise, I cant understand the philosophy of the admin of this forum that they can advocate illegal suggestions and activities, yet prevent it when someone tell people who do so they are idiots, and OP's that are unbelievably ignorant and self centred that they are when they clearly are and have no legal leg to stand on

I wonder what the legal position actually is regarding the admin allowing the suggestion of illegal activities and if they are making themselves legally responsible for doing so

rustyboy21

Idiophreak wrote: »

But that doesn't mean the view doesn't matter.

Ask yourself, 2 identical properties...

a) one with a tree blocking out all the light and any view
b) the other one with a nice view down the valley and a nice suntrap garden.

Which would you pay more for?

If you're saying you'd pay the same, you're in a distinct minority.

And the point I'm making is that letting your trees grow out of hand can effectively change your neighbour's property b into property a. Change a property people would pay more for, into a property people would pay less for.

It really doesn't matter whether the trees have always been there or not. Having a view adds value. You either have it, or you don't. OP had it when they bought the property, now they don't...so now they don't have the value the view added.

But the chances of having 2 identical houses, for sale next door to each other at the same time, is virtually nil. One of the only times is , if they were new build and both on the market at the same time. That I could appreciate.


But the fact is, that no one apart from the vendor knows that the tree has grown lately and is blocking a view. It could be blocking a view of something even more hideous than the tree is, so therefore enhancing the view. An electric pylon would depreciate your house value, a phone mast would. A phone mast with a tree growing in front of it, would enhance the view.

Jnelhams

If you put any chemicals or damage a tree that's on someone elses land then that's criminal damage, and it could prove to be a very very expensive mistake.

Annoying, but you'll have to live with it, or hope for an escaped beaver, or a descent of Woodpeckers or hope that someone in a delivery lorry reverses into it.

Idiophreak

rustyboy21 wrote: »

But the fact is, that no one apart from the vendor knows that the tree has grown lately and is blocking a view.

No, you're right. All they know is that it's a house without a view and that's what they'd pay for.

If there was no tree, they'd know it was a house with a view.

There are your two identical properties for you. In one scenario, the house has a view. In the other, it doesn't. Which is worth more?

DirectDebacle

Idiophreak wrote: »

No, you're right. All they know is that it's a house without a view and that's what they'd pay for.

If there was no tree, they'd know it was a house with a view.

There are your two identical properties for you. In one scenario, the house has a view. In the other, it doesn't. Which is worth more?

Depends on what the view is of.

Op exercised poor buying judgement by placing more importance to the view than the actual bricks and mortar. Now suffering buyers remorse.

Op needs to decide whether it is better to stay put, accept loss of view and perceived price reduction of the property or cut losses and sell up. Purely a money saving exercise.

rustyboy21

Idiophreak wrote: »

No, you're right. All they know is that it's a house without a view and that's what they'd pay for.

If there was no tree, they'd know it was a house with a view.

There are your two identical properties for you. In one scenario, the house has a view. In the other, it doesn't. Which is worth more?

That is what I have agreed with you. If there were 2 houses , Identical and next door to each other, one with a view, one without, The one with the view would be more preferable, so common sense dictates that it may be more expensive. But the chances of that arising in the real world, apart from new build, is very slim. 2 houses next door to each other in a well established road being up for sale at the same time would be very, very slim. I would be questioning if there were other issues going on in that road, if that arose, rather than just a tree. I already gave this scenario in my previous post.


But it doesn't take away the fact that in the OP case, anyone viewing their house, doesn't know that there is a beautiful view the other side of the tree, as they most likely never seen the view before, so the chance of a depreciation on the asking price wont come from that point. It would come from either fittings etc in the home, or the fact that the OP has had a battle with a neighbour, who she wishes dead. Full disclosure of Neighbour relations will harm her more than a tree.