Neighbours' tree

TrixA

We live in an urban area with small gardens and one of our neighbours has a large Eucalyptus tree which is planted directly adjacent to the boundary with our property. I'm not very good at estimating vertical heights, but it's way taller than a three storey house, and I assume still growing. There are some branches overhanging our fence, but not that many as the tree leans in the opposite direction, towards the neighbours' house. I'm guessing a lot of the roots are under our garden though. The tree also blocks a lot of our light in certain seasons. The bigger issue is that we are now planning to build an extension the wall of which would be within 6m or so of the tree, and have been told that due to the presence of the tree we'll have to dig the foundations deeper than normal, which is going to add significantly to the cost of the project.

I would like to discuss the tree with the neighbour to see if they would consider having it removed or reduced. However, as far as I can tell the house in question is not lived in - I've never seen anyone in the garden, and have tried knocking on the door to no avail. The house is not next door to us - it's in an adjoining street with the garden at right angles to ours - so I haven't been able to observe if there's anyone coming or going.

If it is a vacant property, is there any way to go about locating/contacting the owner, and if I can't contact them what are my rights with respect to the tree? I understand I'm legally entitled to remove the branches on our side of the fence, but that's not really the thing I'm concerned about, it's more the roots and the loss of light.

prosaver

that happened to me, it wasn't all that extra to dig deeper,you can get the height reduced if it damaging your foundation. Ask your local council planning office, they will be happy to give all the relevant information and its free.

Mojisola

TrixA wrote: »

If it is a vacant property, is there any way to go about locating/contacting the owner, and if I can't contact them what are my rights with respect to the tree? I understand I'm legally entitled to remove the branches on our side of the fence, but that's not really the thing I'm concerned about, it's more the roots and the loss of light.

You don't have any, other than the right to cut the branches back.

Have you tried leaving a letter at the house in question?

Offering to pay to have the tree taken out would be cheaper than paying the extra on your extension's foundation.

TrixA

Mojisola wrote: »

Offering to pay to have the tree taken out would be cheaper than paying the extra on your extension's foundation.

This is what I'm wondering, although I was hoping we might be able to persuade them to split the cost. I'm sure the tree would be a major issue if they ever wanted to sell the property as it completely dominates the garden and if it fell would be likely to land on their house.

No I haven't tried leaving a letter yet, I tend to think that some people find letters a bit confrontational.

phoenix_w

TrixA wrote: »

No I haven't tried leaving a letter yet, I tend to think that some people find letters a bit confrontational.

Just start your letter with "I've tried calling around to see you several times, but didn't get any response" and end it with "Please come and see me at number 23 sausage street or give me a ring any time on 01234 567890" and then there's nothing confrontational.

Could you go and speak to their immediate neighbours? They may be able to tell you who owns the place and give you contact details for them.

Is the house owned by someone who rents it out? If so you may wish to download their title plan from the land registry (~£3) which will get you the owner's name & address at time of registration (although it could be out of date!)

Ozzuk

One tip, as this benefits you greatly I'd go with meeting all costs rather than expecting them to pay (unless they offer). A big tree in a garden can put people off, it can also do the opposite (I love trees).

moneyistooshorttomention

Maybe the electoral register would give a clue as to who lives there?

I had a neighbour growing a "problem tree" near my last house. As I recall - if the tree had continued growing (which it didn't in the event) then my insurance company would have been rather interested in its presence nearby (in case a claim was made for damage done by the tree). I seem to recall I would have had to do a letter to the owner of the house officially requesting they deal with the tree - in order to cover myself as regards my insurance company (something about being able to prove I had tried to "mitigate my losses" or something).

I'm a bit vague on the details of that - as that was now a couple of years ago and it wasn't necessary in the event anyway.

TrixA

I like trees too, but you need the right tree in the right situation. Eucalypts are some of the tallest trees in the world and really not suitable for urban gardens, people here plant them because they think they're exotic and don't realise how big they grow or how quickly.

MX5huggy

Cutting down the tree will not necessarily remove the requirement for beefed up foundations. The ground could be liable to heave as it expands without the tree sucking up thousands of litres of water a day. Ofcourse if the designer of the foundations doesn't know there was a tree they may not take it into account but that would be a false economy. You just need a big hole and a lot of concrete.

Gloomendoom

MX5huggy wrote: »

Cutting down the tree will not necessarily remove the requirement for beefed up foundations. The ground could be liable to heave as it expands without the tree sucking up thousands of litres of water a day. Ofcourse if the designer of the foundations doesn't know there was a tree they may not take it into account but that would be a false economy. You just need a big hole and a lot of concrete.

Very true. I have a building project in the offing and have been told that it will either need 10' deep strip foundations or building on a raft. This is because of its proximity to existing trees on one side and recently removed trees on the other.

I'm going for the raft.

Davesnave

Eucalypts have a nasty habit of shedding branches randomly which makes them unsuitable for town situations, but as they have attractive juvenile foliage, many people plant them for flower arranging etc.

It only takes a few years for some species to get out of hand, as they are faster growing than leylandii. Even if cut down, the root usually sends up several shoots, so a troublesome tree could become a multi-stemmed monster in under 15 years.

As a weapon of urban warfare, Eucalyptus dalrympleana has few equals, except perhaps some species of poplar, which attack drains, rather than just cast shade 365 days of the year. Populus tremula has the dual benefit of being the noisiest tree one can plant, as well as having the invasive root system, so it's a handy thing to plant by a neighbour with a barking dog etc.

You'll be doing the owner of this tree a huge favour if you offer to have it removed. The difficulty I foresee is convincing them that they have an anti-social tree. Just like those people with vicious, unpredictable dogs, they will take any suggestion of this personally, as indeed they should, because they're entirely to blame.