Land Registry Right to Light

Typhoon1978

I’ve been going round in circles with my local council over the last year regarding 5 lime trees that surround our property. As well as year round mess, the trees (throughout Summer and part of autumn) cast significant shade on our property - enough that during the day we have to have lights on inside. The council are refusing to do anything. However, I have found a section of the Land Registry deeds that appear to mention a right to light. 

I wondered if anyone knew if I am correct and if this gives us any hopes of having the trees reduced in height.

Thanks in advance. 

Le_Kirk

Due to the Land Registry not using punctuation, that reads as if you have a right to light but I think it says: -
"All such rights of way, water, light drainage, air and other............"  

Typhoon1978

Le_Kirk said:

Due to the Land Registry not using punctuation, that reads as if you have a right to light but I think it says: -
"All such rights of way, water, light drainage, air and other............"  

I did wonder whether the lack of punctuation might mean this. However, because they mention air and because they don’t detail any of the others such as ‘right of way’ or ‘running water’, I thought I may be in luck. Thanks for your comment. 

Le_Kirk

Air is a good point but hard to see how you would prevent the passage of air.  Probably worth a chat with the council clutching your Land Registry document in your hand.

TELLIT01

Were the trees planted after you purchased your property?  If so, you may have a valid argument that you are being deprived of light that you previously had.  If the trees predate the house purchase I very much doubt there is anything you can do.

Typhoon1978

TELLIT01 said:

Were the trees planted after you purchased your property?  If so, you may have a valid argument that you are being deprived of light that you previously had.  If the trees predate the house purchase I very much doubt there is anything you can do.

I fear you are right. The trees were presumably planted at the point the houses were built c.1939. I was hoping that the right to light in the deeds would mean that they had to be kept to the height they were when the deeds were created in 1989. As we are on a corner plot, the trees surround our garden and front of the house and are only a few metres from our boundary - the higher branches hang probably 3-4m over. The council have even tried to put us off pruning up to the boundary by suggesting the removal of such a large amount of the canopy could make it unstable and whoever carried out the work would be liable if the tree structure was compromised and caused damage to surrounding properties if it fell. 

Between a rock and a hard place. 

MalMonroe

Typhoon1978 said:

I’ve been going round in circles with my local council over the last year regarding 5 lime trees that surround our property. As well as year round mess, the trees (throughout Summer and part of autumn) cast significant shade on our property - enough that during the day we have to have lights on inside. The council are refusing to do anything. However, I have found a section of the Land Registry deeds that appear to mention a right to light. 

I wondered if anyone knew if I am correct and if this gives us any hopes of having the trees reduced in height.

Thanks in advance. 

To be honest, I don't even understand what is written on those deeds but I don't think it gives anyone right to light.

If the trees do indeed belong to the council then the very least they should be doing is regularly inspecting and/or pollarding them to ensure that they are not diseased and/or causing a danger to anyone. BUT they have to ensure that they are not disturbing any wildlife before they set about doing so. Right now birds will be nesting and also, where I live, squirrels. Our trees are usually pollarded a couple of weeks into October but not every year. Our properties back onto a wood and there are loads of trees . . . 

A few years ago, a couple of my neighbours and myself had problems with council-owned trees blocking our light and shedding leaves to such an extent that they blocked the drains which overflowed and flooded one neighbour's property. Another neighbour also complained to the council because there is a big council-owned tree at the back of her property and birds naturally perch there but she was unable to hang out any washing because of the mess. They couldn't have cared less and refused to pollard. To be fair we don't even know who owns those trees at the back. But the council owns the trees at the front of our properties.

What happened in our case was that the council eventually agreed to come out to inspect the trees and agreed to pollard some of them. They also agreed to turn out twice a year in autumn and winter to clear all the shed leaves. They do now also come to inspect trees for disease regularly. So things are slightly better.

The council told us that we have no right to natural light and the fact that birds perch in trees and make it impossible for some of us to use washing lines because of their mess is 'just nature' and they won't do anything. 

If your council hasn't even been out to have a look, though, that could be your first step, asking them to do so. It wasn't straightforward for us and we had to keep insisting that they came out to at least see what the problem was. What do we pay our council tax for?? Was a question we kept asking them and we ended up contacting the Head of Council services before they would get off their behinds and get out here. But it was worth it. The solution isn't perfect but it's a compromise. And if your council would agree to just get rid of some of the top branches on the trees near your property, it'll be helpful.  Don't forget to keep asking them about council tax.  And go to the big boss. It does work.

Ectophile

The way I read it, you have the same right to light as the council had before the land was sold to build your house.  It doesn't actually say what those rights were, though.

Reading to the end, if the council did pay contractors to cut back the trees, you would have to pay a share of the cost.

Typhoon1978

Ectophile said:

The way I read it, you have the same right to light as the council had before the land was sold to build your house.  It doesn't actually say what those rights were, though.

Reading to the end, if the council did pay contractors to cut back the trees, you would have to pay a share of the cost.

Thanks for your comment. The house is an ex-council house and the land registry deeds were created when the then occupier triggered the right to buy clause in 1989. They purchased the property from the council after living in it for 24 years. That’s why I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that we may be entitled to the same level of light as when the deed was created in 1989, giving us an argument that the trees should be lowered to the level they were in that year. I would hazard a guess that they have doubled in height. 

TELLIT01

Ectophile said:

The way I read it, you have the same right to light as the council had before the land was sold to build your house.  It doesn't actually say what those rights were, though.

Reading to the end, if the council did pay contractors to cut back the trees, you would have to pay a share of the cost.

I read that section as meaning having to pay a 'proper portion' of the cost of water and drain repair, although it seems odd that anybody should have to contribute to repair cost when damage is caused by some thing they don't own.  The council used to cut back a tree which overhung my in-laws property without any cost to the in-laws.

Belenus

Typhoon1978, when did you purchase this house?

How high were the trees at that time?

What time of year was it? When the trees were in full leaf or during winter time?

How obvious was the problem of light at the time?