Party wall tree help

funkyfifi

YoungBlueEyes said:

This is where I'll show my ignorance but - shouldn't you get to say yay or nay if someone wants to do something within your boundary?  The foundations will come under your boundary and it'll cost you the holly... surely they can't just tell you to suck it up because they want an extension...?!

Well I'm hoping that the party wall surveyor will have some good ideas about it, but yeah it doesn't seem hugely fair I guess 
I don't have a problem as such with them building it, but I didn't realise what it all entailed

funkyfifi

jonnydeppiwish! said:

YoungBlueEyes said:

This is where I'll show my ignorance but - shouldn't you get to say yay or nay if someone wants to do something within your boundary?  The foundations will come under your boundary and it'll cost you the holly... surely they can't just tell you to suck it up because they want an extension...?!

The foundations can come up to your boundary, not necessarily the actually wall. That will be have to be instepped.

Op, looking the pictures, I’m afraid you tree may not survive considering the roots that the neighbours can remove.

Just out of interest, how have they got permitted development for both the loft conversion and a 6m extension?

I don't think it's a case that they "got" permitted development..... Just the sizes apparently fall under it. 

jonnydeppiwish!

funkyfifi said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

YoungBlueEyes said:

This is where I'll show my ignorance but - shouldn't you get to say yay or nay if someone wants to do something within your boundary?  The foundations will come under your boundary and it'll cost you the holly... surely they can't just tell you to suck it up because they want an extension...?!

The foundations can come up to your boundary, not necessarily the actually wall. That will be have to be instepped.

Op, looking the pictures, I’m afraid you tree may not survive considering the roots that the neighbours can remove.

Just out of interest, how have they got permitted development for both the loft conversion and a 6m extension?

I don't think it's a case that they "got" permitted development..... Just the sizes apparently fall under it. 

There’s still a process for permitted development.

Op they cannot put any foundations on your ground, they will have to build in from the border.

Doozergirl

jonnydeppiwish! said:

funkyfifi said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

YoungBlueEyes said:

This is where I'll show my ignorance but - shouldn't you get to say yay or nay if someone wants to do something within your boundary?  The foundations will come under your boundary and it'll cost you the holly... surely they can't just tell you to suck it up because they want an extension...?!

The foundations can come up to your boundary, not necessarily the actually wall. That will be have to be instepped.

Op, looking the pictures, I’m afraid you tree may not survive considering the roots that the neighbours can remove.

Just out of interest, how have they got permitted development for both the loft conversion and a 6m extension?

I don't think it's a case that they "got" permitted development..... Just the sizes apparently fall under it. 

There’s still a process for permitted development.

Op they cannot put any foundations on your ground, they will have to build in from the border.

They can if the OP agrees.   From a party wall perspective it's an awful lot more practical to continue the party wall in attached houses and let it straddle the boundary.  I will always advocate this - the houses are already attached afterall! 

In future, when someone extends the OP's house, there will be a wall to attach to already and a much more structurally sound arrangement with no awkward gaps between houses.  And bigger extensions for both.  

If the first extension is built away from the boundary, it tends to be the second to extend that misses out on space because they're trying to maintain a safe and practical gap for maintenance and damp prevention.  

funkyfifi

Doozergirl said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

funkyfifi said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

YoungBlueEyes said:

This is where I'll show my ignorance but - shouldn't you get to say yay or nay if someone wants to do something within your boundary?  The foundations will come under your boundary and it'll cost you the holly... surely they can't just tell you to suck it up because they want an extension...?!

The foundations can come up to your boundary, not necessarily the actually wall. That will be have to be instepped.

Op, looking the pictures, I’m afraid you tree may not survive considering the roots that the neighbours can remove.

Just out of interest, how have they got permitted development for both the loft conversion and a 6m extension?

I don't think it's a case that they "got" permitted development..... Just the sizes apparently fall under it. 

There’s still a process for permitted development.

Op they cannot put any foundations on your ground, they will have to build in from the border.

They can if the OP agrees.   From a party wall perspective it's an awful lot more practical to continue the party wall in attached houses and let it straddle the boundary.  I will always advocate this - the houses are already attached afterall! 

In future, when someone extends the OP's house, there will be a wall to attach to already and a much more structurally sound arrangement with no awkward gaps between houses.  And bigger extensions for both.  

If the first extension is built away from the boundary, it tends to be the second to extend that misses out on space because they're trying to maintain a safe and practical gap for maintenance and damp prevention.  

Thing is, it'll make no difference if the foundations are or aren't in my bit.... The tree would still likely die from the excavation, so it's not really that that bothers me particularly..... 
I guess I'll have to see what the surveyors say on Tuesday, but at the very least I guess I'd like a tree survey to see if it can be resited or in someway saved....
People probably think I'm overreacting and I've tried to think about just letting it go for an easy life..... But I can't.... It just makes me desperately sad
And its more that because we had to insist over and over for a party wall agreement, they were probably just going to wait until I was at work one day and chop it down 

funkyfifi

We're also pretty sure that it's clay soil here...... If the roots are all over their side too, and they remove them will it be safe for them to build with a normal foundation like on the plans? 

Doozergirl

funkyfifi said:

Doozergirl said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

funkyfifi said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

YoungBlueEyes said:

This is where I'll show my ignorance but - shouldn't you get to say yay or nay if someone wants to do something within your boundary?  The foundations will come under your boundary and it'll cost you the holly... surely they can't just tell you to suck it up because they want an extension...?!

The foundations can come up to your boundary, not necessarily the actually wall. That will be have to be instepped.

Op, looking the pictures, I’m afraid you tree may not survive considering the roots that the neighbours can remove.

Just out of interest, how have they got permitted development for both the loft conversion and a 6m extension?

I don't think it's a case that they "got" permitted development..... Just the sizes apparently fall under it. 

There’s still a process for permitted development.

Op they cannot put any foundations on your ground, they will have to build in from the border.

They can if the OP agrees.   From a party wall perspective it's an awful lot more practical to continue the party wall in attached houses and let it straddle the boundary.  I will always advocate this - the houses are already attached afterall! 

In future, when someone extends the OP's house, there will be a wall to attach to already and a much more structurally sound arrangement with no awkward gaps between houses.  And bigger extensions for both.  

If the first extension is built away from the boundary, it tends to be the second to extend that misses out on space because they're trying to maintain a safe and practical gap for maintenance and damp prevention.  

Thing is, it'll make no difference if the foundations are or aren't in my bit.... The tree would still likely die from the excavation, so it's not really that that bothers me particularly..... 
I guess I'll have to see what the surveyors say on Tuesday, but at the very least I guess I'd like a tree survey to see if it can be resited or in someway saved....
People probably think I'm overreacting and I've tried to think about just letting it go for an easy life..... But I can't.... It just makes me desperately sad
And its more that because we had to insist over and over for a party wall agreement, they were probably just going to wait until I was at work one day and chop it down 

I think you're right that the tree would likely die, so it's important to be pragmatic about the building and what benefits your house the most when it is built - that would be a party wall, imo.  

If we're looking at this bluntly, you plant something by the boundary and it becomes a potential nuisance to your neighbours and collateral damage when building projects commence.  This isn't really their fault.  They would always be entitled to cut back any foliage or roots growing over the boundary - that's not in contention here, so they can go ahead and build foundations to the boundary and if the tree dies, it dies.  You never had the entitlement to use their land to support the tree.  

The depth of their foundations has nothing to do with planning permissions.  They will be what they need to be upon inspection. 

There would not be a tree survey carried out for one holly bush in a standard planning application.  They are not a protected species. 

I think this is for you to be working out what to do with the tree before it is too late, not them, because if you start to appear unreasonable with requests for surveys to protect a tree that should not be on their side, they can cut back their side immediately if they want to and that is their problem solved. 

I know you are emotionally attached to it, and I get it, but it's a bit unfair for you to put this on your neighbours as being the problem on this specific issue.  

FreeBear

Have you taken any cuttings yet ?

It will also be worthwhile checking around the base to see if there are any suckers - These can be carefully potted up and planted elsewhere should the original tree be killed. Personally, I don't think cutting a few root will kill the tree. They are pretty stubborn things and will take a lot of abuse.

ThisIsWeird

Following on from what Doozer says, it'll likely be in both your interests to have their extension's wall built 'on' the boundary, which will mean that the foundation trench will need to go beyond it on to your land to some degree. Obviously this will be less good for your holly tree, but it might be a bargaining tool for the neighbour agreeing to move the tree either inwards in to your garden, or to a different part of it for your agreement.

Or you could, I guess, simply refuse to allow them to bring their foundation one iota over your land, so they'd then need to dig the trench right up to the boundary, quite likely still hurt the tree in the process, and then have to build their outer wall skin a few inches inside their boundary. But, should you - or a future owner of your house - also wish to build an extension, what then?! Either the neighbour will allow you to come over on to their land these few inches and build your extension on to their extension - what are the chances, eh?! - or else you'll also have to stop at the boundary, in which case you'll have a most undesirable tiny gap between your two walls, one that will make ongoing maintenance nigh on impossible, and also present a constant headache to keep clean.

Far better, I think, is if you - via the PWA surveyor - discuss and agree the former 'right on the boundary' arrangement, and ask the neighb to agree to move the tree as part of this deal. Even without the tree being involved, I understand it's the best option.

funkyfifi

ThisIsWeird said:

Following on from what Doozer says, it'll likely be in both your interests to have their extension's wall built 'on' the boundary, which will mean that the foundation trench will need to go beyond it on to your land to some degree. Obviously this will be less good for your holly tree, but it might be a bargaining tool for the neighbour agreeing to move the tree either inwards in to your garden, or to a different part of it for your agreement.

Or you could, I guess, simply refuse to allow them to bring their foundation one iota over your land, so they'd then need to dig the trench right up to the boundary, quite likely still hurt the tree in the process, and then have to build their outer wall skin a few inches inside their boundary. But, should you - or a future owner of your house - also wish to build an extension, what then?! Either the neighbour will allow you to come over on to their land these few inches and build your extension on to their extension - what are the chances, eh?! - or else you'll also have to stop at the boundary, in which case you'll have a most undesirable tiny gap between your two walls, one that will make ongoing maintenance nigh on impossible, and also present a constant headache to keep clean.

Far better, I think, is if you - via the PWA surveyor - discuss and agree the former 'right on the boundary' arrangement, and ask the neighb to agree to move the tree as part of this deal. Even without the tree being involved, I understand it's the best option.

Yes, as I said, I have no problem with a foundation I can't see being on my property.... Actually none at all, it doesn't bother me xxx
And that all makes total sense xxx 
I'm honestly not trying to cause them any issues in terms of building what they want to..... I just want to protect what's really important to me I guess