High Hedge Act - unusual case needs advice

Richard_RM

Hi All,

I'm after some advice on the High Hedge Act on behalf of my neighbour. I've read the legislation and understand in broad terms what the implications are but my neighbour has quite an unusual situation which isn't clear-cut as far as the legislation is concerned.

Background to the story: both myself and my neighbour live in the end houses of a cul-de-sac and behind our gardens was a scrappy bit of waste ground about 90 metres long by 10 metres wide (so about 900 square metres in plan area altogether). Beyond this is a single-track road then some more houses. This scrappy bit of land had remained undeveloped since before anyone can remember and it's the kind of land that you'd never think anyone would really want to build on (as it's so small with difficult access via single track road).

My neighbour's house was actually owned by her mum originally and she planted some conifer-type trees on the boundary between her back garden and the scrappy bit of land about 70 years ago. She then passed the house to her daughter, who's now in her late 60's. The trees have now got to about 10-12m in height and provide a good privacy screen. So yes the trees are tall but previously they didn't bother anyone. There was no loss of view, loss of sunlight etc suffered by anyone as they only affected aforementioned bit of undeveloped land.

Fast forward to 2015 and a developer bought the scrappy bit of land and proposed to build 8 three-storey town houses on it. Despite a lot of local objection and concerns within the Council Highways dept. about road safety, plot size etc) the development got planning anyway and went ahead. So there are now eight 3-bed three-storey town houses on a plot of land about 900 square metres in size.

Because the site is so small they had to angle the houses to make them fit (site is only 10m wide) and have also basically rammed the houses right up against my neighbour's boundary. They have already cut back her conifer trees width-wise and they were overhanging the site somewhat. Unfortunately for the people now renting the houses (they are rented not sold) their living room / lounge was built at the back of the house and is basically right up against the boundary / tree line.

They have complained to the developer (who is renting the houses to them) and the developer is now taking my neighbour to court and trying to force her to chop the trees down to 2m in height using the High Hedge Act. She has had to hire her own solicitor and also a tree specialist who has said the trees are now so tall and well-established that cutting them back significantly would likely kill them. Also the task to chop them down is large so would likely cost approx. £3k, which she would have to pay.

She also she got an estate agent to re-value the house accounting for the total lack of privacy she would suffer - basically the view is currently of a line of mature trees but if removed it would be of a row of town houses that would directly overlook her garden and house. The estate agent estimated a loss of value from the house in the region of £15-20k because of this.

She has discussed her concerns with the local Council but they have stated that as far as the High Hedge Act is concerned, the preceding conditions of the site do not matter. That basically, if you have an established row of trees that have not caused anyone any concern for 50+ years, then someone decides to build a house up against the tree, they are within their right to make you remove it if it blocks their light.

I also understand that the Act is there to preserve an existing view. However, there was no pre-existing view since the houses are new, and if the trees are removed the view would consist of my neighbours garden and her house! So I don't see how the "view" argument could be used.

The whole situation seems completely ridiculous to me - surely there must be some accounting of the previous conditions? The developer knew full-well this would be a problem as my neighbour wrote them, objected via the Planning Portal, got her own tree survey done which highlighted the issues etc. It doesn't seem right for the developer to be able to ride rough-shod over her like this and basically steal approx. £20k from her for their own benefit.

I was hoping someone may have experienced or know about a similar situation, in that the REASONS for a lack of light are taken into account rather than just that there IS a lack of light. As far as I can tell the developer engineered a situation in which the current tenants have a problem due to the developers bad design and greed (cramming as many houses into a tiny plot of land as possible) but the downside is borne by other people (my neighbour who currently faces losses of £20k+ and also the tenants who have to live in these tiny houses with no light).

I'd also like to know the Developer is within their right to bring a complaint against my neighbour ON BEHALF OF their tenants. My understanding of the Act was that the occupiers had to do it, and that each complaint had to be made individually (there are 4 new houses that are affected).

Thanks for your patience and any advice!

tl;dr: developer bought small parcel of land behind my neighbour, built houses right into her tree line and is now using the High Hedge Act to make her cut them down. She faces financial loss of £20k+. Can High Hedge Act be used this way?

Aylesbury_Duck

A few points from me:

1. As I understand it, the council cannot force your neighbour to take any action that could result in the hedge's death or destruction. The tree specialist has given their professional view so that would seem to be a good place to start, although it may simply result in the enforcement being to cut the trees down to a level where it would not kill them.

2. Your neighbour doesn't face a financial loss of £20k+. She faces a quantifiable loss of whatever it will cost to take action on the trees but any other sum relating to the potential value of the home is arbitrary and not properly quantifiable. Has she got an interested buyer at sum x and now has had a reduced offer of x-£20k? I doubt it.

3. At first thought it does seem odd that someone can build and then take action against something that was very obviously there in the first place but my cursory reading of the act suggests that they can take action. Thinking about it though, if it wasn't possible to use the act in this way, you'd have people living near open land growing enormous hedges as a tactic to prevent or at least discourage development adjacent to them.

sevenhills

You could try to get a tree preservation order(TPO), not sure if your trees would be covered, might be worth a try?
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies, deeming that it is an offence to damage or destroy bat roosts and the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built.

AndyMc.....

sevenhills wrote: »

You could try to get a tree preservation order(TPO), not sure if your trees would be covered, might be worth a try?
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies, deeming that it is an offence to damage or destroy bat roosts and the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built.

On a conifer? Can’t see that happening.

sevenhills

AndyMc..... wrote: »

On a conifer? Can’t see that happening.

The trees are 50 years old, must support some wildlife, worth a shot.

Doozergirl

Sometimes it shouldn't be about what the fine letter of the law says, it's about what is reasonable from an objective point of view.

Solicitors are expensive. Your friends current costs there are quantifiable, the loss of value (if any) is not. When new houses are built, people often cite as a reason for objection that the value of their homes will be affected negatively; fact is they are not. They even build those new homes at far greater proximity to themselves and people pay a premium for them. Potential buyers are actually more likely to be worried about the potential fate of a scrappy patch of land behind a house and the subsequent potential loss, than they are when they simply see neighbours. If they didn't experience the view from the older house before, they are blissfully unaware of any change to it.

Forgetting the developer, you have entire families at a disadvantage because they have no light and one woman of considerable age with a privacy screen that is far bigger than is necessary and has been left to grow out of control.

In the same situation, I'd ask the developer to pay for the (or pay towards) tree removal instead of the solicitors fees and plant something that doesn't grow 10-12 metres tall in its place. It's an absurd height and those trees will be pig ugly on the other side. Your friend's mother never considered how tall the trees might grow or how people in the future might feel. There is no good reason why it couldn't have been maintained more sensibly.

One may not like building nearby but one can only prevent it by buying the land they look at. The quality of life those multiple residents have will be greater with some reduced privacy. Privacy standards will meet the council's planning guidance for new dwellings and will have been deemed an acceptable distance. The trees don't count towards additional privacy, purely distance.

Family need light filled homes to live in and unmaintained conifers of ridiculous height should not take precedence over that. One may demonise the developer for that, but the land was good for development and densities are allowed because we need to fill space in villages, towns and cities in order to provide sustainable communities of housing and protect the countryside, which people also feel passionate about.

Davesnave

You haven't answered the question I asked on the other thread regarding mediation. Has an attempt been made?

So far as I remember, mediation has to take place or be offered before a court case may be brought under the Act.

AndyMc.....

sevenhills wrote: »

The trees are 50 years old, must support some wildlife, worth a shot.

Are you claiming conifers are rare or add cultural or historic value?

VfM4meplse

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Are you claiming conifers are rare or add cultural or historic value?

Neither were the trees behind my old home AFAIK, but they still received the designation. Living adjacent to a TPO is a PITA IMHO.

HTH

Davesnave

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Living adjacent to a TPO is a PITA IMHO.

With conservation areas, and similar, there may well be blanket TPOs covering all trees above a certain girth, but with exceptions for fruit trees (which need regular pruning) and possibly conifers too.

These locations are typically the more desirable ones, so it can be difficult to have the cake and eat it too.

moneyistooshorttomention

Sounds worth investigating further re the possibility of a TPO (whether already in existence or needing to be created).

My sympathies, on this occasion, are with "the person that was there first" - it's surely a totally different ballgame having leylandii where there is no housing already there the other side v. putting leylandii in where there is housing already there.

I guess one way to "test the waters" is to put the house ostensibly on the market at it's proper price (ie trees in place price) and see what happens as to whether people "refuse to bite" except at a £20k lower price than it's worth because of those houses the other side.

As for the households ("households" - not emotive language like "families" !!!) the other side of the hedge = they knew what they were getting into. Presumably they saw the places prior to renting them and could work that fact out for themselves and went ahead and rented them anyway. "They made their bed...." and so why are they complaining now about something that was clearly visible during their viewings?