My neighbour doesn't want me to remove diseased trees on my land

ThisIsWeird

avantra said:

After another measurement, according to the famous string, the boundary structure is divided at 80% on our side.

So their string boundary would appear to be accurate? 80% of that raised dividing bank is yours? So they don't have enough room on their side to plant smaller trees or shrubs should they want to?

I didn't expect the neighbour to be something like an art lecturer! Not to typecast, but I would have expected more decorum, more chill, more reason from someone in that profession. But perhaps that's me being artist. Artist.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

avantra said:

After another measurement, according to the famous string, the boundary structure is divided at 80% on our side.

I didn't expect the neighbour to be something like an art lecturer! Not to typecast, but I would have expected more decorum, more chill, more reason from someone in that profession. But perhaps that's me being artist. Artist.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/artistic_temperament

Until you really get to know someone it is impossible to know what they are really like, especially in difficult or stressful situations.  Hence why I get a bit uncomfortable when words like "entitled" get used in threads like this when the people using them have no idea about the individual they are talking about. We are all different and you can't analyse people (and what they do) by numbers.

Some of the neighbour behaviours that come in for critical judgement on the forum are very similar to behaviours associated with people having various neurodevelopmental conditions.  Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between someone who is just being unpleasant, and someone who acts the way they do because that was the way they were born. (cf various threads where people/neighbours have difficulty accepting change to 'their' environment)

Trying to understand why people do what they do - instead of inflaming the situation - is usually the key to resolving neighbour disputes.  E.g. by not making the neighbour feel they are being 'punished' by telling them the reasons why you are putting a fence up (which make it sound like you are getting revenge on them).

avantra

ThisIsWeird said:

avantra said:

After another measurement, according to the famous string, the boundary structure is divided at 80% on our side.

So their string boundary would appear to be accurate? 80% of that raised dividing bank is yours? So they don't have enough room on their side to plant smaller trees or shrubs should they want to?

I didn't expect the neighbour to be something like an art lecturer! Not to typecast, but I would have expected more decorum, more chill, more reason from someone in that profession. But perhaps that's me being artist. Artist.

They can plant very thin shrubs I suppose.
We were willing to share something nice but the neighbour did his best to drain any good will we had.
I think something low and solid will help put this to rest but any advice is welcomed.

Section62

avantra said:

I think something low and solid will help put this to rest but any advice is welcomed.

Your front garden slopes quite steeply, so a 'panel'-type fence is likely to look odd/unattractive, and may be difficult to construct whilst keeping under the maximum height for permitted development.

Whatever you do, make absolutely sure it is permitted by both planning and any covenants you have on the property.

Personally I'd probably do something like a half-round knee rail about 300 to 450mm max above ground level.  This would be enough to say 'this is the boundary', without being too oppressive.  The location and form of the extension is something else to take into account, ideally the two should complement each other.

ThisIsWeird

I don't think, going by the height of the removed trees, that 'oppressive' is going to be an issue.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

I don't think, going by the height of the removed trees, that 'oppressive' is going to be an issue.

The difference is trees are natural, you don't (usually) need planning permisison to plant them, and even if they become 'oppressive' over time, it wouldn't normally become a planning issue.

A fence is 'development' for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 meaning planning permission is required to put one up, albeit in specific circumstances that permission is granted through the GPDO process.  Therefore characteristics such as 'oppressive'ness may be a relevant planning issue.

By making the fence as minimal as reasonably possible it helps avoid the potential problem of other people complaining about the new fence being 'oppressive' and causing the planning department to start getting involved.  Which is even more important in cases where consent for development on the same property has already been granted if the proposed new fence wasn't included within the consent. (or worse, if by condition it is explicitly excluded)

FreeBear

Section62 said: Personally I'd probably do something like a half-round knee rail about 300 to 450mm max above ground level.  This would be enough to say 'this is the boundary', without being too oppressive.

Use concrete posts either end to give a permanent indicator of the boundary. Wooden posts will rot away eventually.. Then plant something like Mytle to give all year round greenery  It will be slow growing, but does smell nice when you brush against the leaves.

35har1old

Section62 said:

35har1old said:

ThisIsWeird said:

mi-key said:

Personally, I'd try and work out exactly where the boundary is - if it's along their length of string, then great. Then I'd put the posts with their away side touching that line - I'd be disinclined to give them a literal inch, let alone six.

I'd also be inclined to make it a solid fence, as anything that grows widthways is likely to remain a bone.

...
There may be a problem with ownership in the future as i think whatever side the post is on has ownership of fence...

A finished  brick wall 200mm both sides in finish brick would be the best bet

BIB1 - No, that's a myth. There is no law or rule about which side of a fence the posts are on in relation to ownership.  In some cases the deeds of a property may state that a specific fence should have the posts on a particular side, but that is by agreement rather than having anything to do with fence ownership law.

BIB2 - Brick walls can be problematic, as well as expensive.  The wall will need a foundation which, if the face of the wall is to be on or close to the boundary, will need to be partly under the neighbour's land.  Unless the neighbour changes tack, a brick wall would be inadvisable compared to ThisIsWeird's suggestion of a fence (with the caveats of establishing the boundary line first).

Section62 said:

35har1old said:

ThisIsWeird said:

mi-key said:

Personally, I'd try and work out exactly where the boundary is - if it's along their length of string, then great. Then I'd put the posts with their away side touching that line - I'd be disinclined to give them a literal inch, let alone six.

I'd also be inclined to make it a solid fence, as anything that grows widthways is likely to remain a bone.

...
There may be a problem with ownership in the future as i think whatever side the post is on has ownership of fence...

A finished  brick wall 200mm both sides in finish brick would be the best bet

BIB1 - No, that's a myth. There is no law or rule about which side of a fence the posts are on in relation to ownership.  In some cases the deeds of a property may state that a specific fence should have the posts on a particular side, but that is by agreement rather than having anything to do with fence ownership law.

BIB2 - Brick walls can be problematic, as well as expensive.  The wall will need a foundation which, if the face of the wall is to be on or close to the boundary, will need to be partly under the neighbour's land.  Unless the neighbour changes tack, a brick wall would be inadvisable compared to ThisIsWeird's suggestion of a fence (with the caveats of establishing the boundary line first).

Even a fence would have the same problem with post concrete being  beyond boundary line if posts come right to boundary.
You would have to the check deeds to verify which boundary is  your responsibility.

Section62

35har1old said:

Section62 said:

35har1old said:

ThisIsWeird said:

...
There may be a problem with ownership in the future as i think whatever side the post is on has ownership of fence...

A finished  brick wall 200mm both sides in finish brick would be the best bet

BIB1 - No, that's a myth. There is no law or rule about which side of a fence the posts are on in relation to ownership.  In some cases the deeds of a property may state that a specific fence should have the posts on a particular side, but that is by agreement rather than having anything to do with fence ownership law.

BIB2 - Brick walls can be problematic, as well as expensive.  The wall will need a foundation which, if the face of the wall is to be on or close to the boundary, will need to be partly under the neighbour's land.  Unless the neighbour changes tack, a brick wall would be inadvisable compared to ThisIsWeird's suggestion of a fence (with the caveats of establishing the boundary line first).

Even a fence would have the same problem with post concrete being  beyond boundary line if posts come right to boundary.

With a bit of thought and ingenuity it is perfectly possible to install posts with concrete such that the concrete doesn't need to cross the boundary.

However, my suggestion of something low/minimal means concrete wouldn't necessarily be required.

35har1old said:

You would have to the check deeds to verify which boundary is  your responsibility.

Although it is always good to know what your deeds say regarding your maintenance obligations, who is 'responsible' for this boundary is irrelevant in this case.  The OP would be putting a fence up entirely within their own boundary, the fence would be theirs.  It doesn't matter whether the neighbour has 'responsibility' for this boundary.

What the OP would need to check, which has already been pointed out, is whether there are planning reasons or covenants preventing them putting up fences/walls of various descriptions... that is the real reason why the deeds do need to be checked.

Section62

35har1old said:

Section62 said:

35har1old said:

Section62 said:

35har1old said:

ThisIsWeird said:

...
There may be a problem with ownership in the future as i think whatever side the post is on has ownership of fence...

A finished  brick wall 200mm both sides in finish brick would be the best bet

BIB1 - No, that's a myth. There is no law or rule about which side of a fence the posts are on in relation to ownership.  In some cases the deeds of a property may state that a specific fence should have the posts on a particular side, but that is by agreement rather than having anything to do with fence ownership law.

BIB2 - Brick walls can be problematic, as well as expensive.  The wall will need a foundation which, if the face of the wall is to be on or close to the boundary, will need to be partly under the neighbour's land.  Unless the neighbour changes tack, a brick wall would be inadvisable compared to ThisIsWeird's suggestion of a fence (with the caveats of establishing the boundary line first).

Even a fence would have the same problem with post concrete being  beyond boundary line if posts come right to boundary.

With a bit of thought and ingenuity it is perfectly possible to install posts with concrete such that the concrete doesn't need to cross the boundary.

However, my suggestion of something low/minimal means concrete wouldn't necessarily be required.

35har1old said:

You would have to the check deeds to verify which boundary is  your responsibility.

Although it is always good to know what your deeds say regarding your maintenance obligations, who is 'responsible' for this boundary is irrelevant in this case.  The OP would be putting a fence up entirely within their own boundary, the fence would be theirs.  It doesn't matter whether the neighbour has 'responsibility' for this boundary.

What the OP would need to check, which has already been pointed out, is whether there are planning reasons or covenants preventing them putting up fences/walls of various descriptions... that is the real reason why the deeds do need to be checked.

The Fence would need to be back at least 100mm from boundary line to allow for the concrete of the post to be within own property and hope ground conditions are good to be able to excavate a need post hole.

Land Searches Title Deeds, Land Searches & Property Reports

Again, why is concrete needed, and why is concrete needed on the neighbour's side of the fence?

It is perfectly possible to install low fence posts without needing 100mm of concrete on the neighbour's side of the post.

The link you've provided is to a commercial organisation providing land serches.  I'm not sure what relevance it has to the discussion?