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

35har1old

Section62 said:

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?

You have to remember if the root ball is removed and backfilled with soft materials the use of metal spikes will be suspect  to movement.Most fence erecting companies would still requmend using concrete.the photos would suggest that is a significant height difference with the neighbour's property 

Section62

35har1old said:

Section62 said:

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?

You have to remember if the root ball is removed and backfilled with soft materials the use of metal spikes will be suspect  to movement.Most fence erecting companies would still requmend using concrete.the photos would suggest that is a significant height difference with the neighbour's property 

Has the OP removed the "root ball"(s)? And who said anything about "metal spikes"?

It appears you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and raising problems where problems don't exist.

All the OP needs to know is that (if they want to) they could safely put up a low fence with one face on the boundary without needing concrete (or anything else) on the neighbour's side of the boundary. The same cannot be said of a brick wall.

avantra

I intend to leave the stumps in.
Removing these will mean a rebuild of the brick and concrete bed which is not needed.

I prefer to have some low evergreen shrubs tbh but some long-term clear physical separation is a must with a neighbor like that.

My thinking is to place three to four metal or concrete polls on our side as close as possible to the boundary line and stretch a loose link chain in between. Once the works on the house are finished I suppose we can plant something with very low vigor so there will be no reason for the neighbor to give us further agro. 
 

FreeBear

avantra said:

I intend to leave the stumps in.

I prefer to have some low evergreen shrubs tbh but some long-term clear physical separation is a must with a neighbor like that.
 

Myrtle will give you a nice dense hedge. Slow growing, evergreen, with the added advantage of a nice smell. Leaving the stumps of the old hedge in place may not be the best thing.. Use a stump grinder to get the big lumps out, fork in some compost, and then you'll be giving the new hedge a good start in life.

twopenny

I used Morisons dwarf box for a division. 
I even measured the distance for exact plant so they were just my side of the boundary. It does the job. Full size would be better to hide those bins. But it's slow to grow but dead easy to trim on neighbours side so no probs.

Once done I'd be tempted to toss some flower seeds on his side to cheer him up. Birds could have bought them  ;-)