Reply With Quotedo you say in your posting who owns the wall?
I know the collective here are very switched on so thought I’d ask. We live at at the end of a private drive with only 3 properties. We’re right at the back out of the way. We’re all equally responsible for any repairs etc like to the driveway which we are all fine with. The problem is at the start of the drive and caused (we think) by a property on the other side of the wall. There is a very large tree which we think is causing the wall to bow out and collapse. The owners don’t live there and it’s always empty although maintained immaculately. The tree is very high up to the wall which must be a retaining wall as soil and tree are a good 4 or 5 foot high on the other side. The wall is only about 6 feet high.
We spoke to a gardener who said almost certainly it was the tree, the planning department, who confirmed the tree wasn’t listed and a Solicitor who said that if it was their tree causing the damage, they would be liable. We’d have to prove it.
Anyway we managed to meet them and discuss it with them. They live around 50 miles away and it was the wife’s parents house and she couldn’t bare to sell it. He kept saying it must be listed as there’s a church over the road and therefore it would be listed by association. We checked and the council told us there was no preservation order on it. He is a farmer and also does building work, including these types of walls. We verbally agreed that they would pay a quarter if I could get the others to all pay a quarter. All amiable and he said around £1,500 in total. All very friendly and very straight forward.
He’s now emailed to say he’s spoken to the council, one of the houses is listed so the wall must be in association. When Western Power repaired a wall further down the road they need to liaise with the church. Also due to the conservation and a possible listed planning cost it might be over £2,000.
The cost is the cost, I’ll pay whatever I should pay, that’s not my issue. It just seemed very straight forward last week, this week it seems like he’s either making it complicated or trying to wriggle out of it. I would add that he thought we wanted the tree cut down, but we said we were happy with it (which we are), but I did wonder if he was trying to get it listed and thus complicating things. A previous owner also had a part of the wall repaired which he said he knew about at the time, so planning bit doesn’t make sense.
Of the few people we’ve spoken to that has seen the wall and tree, everyone has said that they think the tree is the cause and that financially it should be the owner of the tree who pays as it’s what’s caused the damage. I realise a Surveyor would need to back this up and that we’re happy to contribute. I’d just like to know views in case he’s not playing fair.
You can see from this picture below just how high up the trees base is and the soil - also another tree has sprouted from it.
do you say in your posting who owns the wall?
We’re looking into it. We paid to get the info from the gov website and it looks like we’re responsible with the other two owners 1/3rd each. So I’m guessing one of us does. That’s not the issue, it’s the owner of the tree who is not one of us. I doubt he’s the owner, in fact I’m sure he’s not.Originally Posted by BillN
If someone’s walking or driving past and that wall suddenly collapses - and it looks at risk of doing so - lives could be lost. It really should be resolved without delay.
My garage was damaged by my neighbours tree.
They messed me about and so in the end I was forced to claim on my own buildings insurance. I was disappointed my insurance company didn’t attempt to recover the loss from the neighbour. Seems the cost of going legal is too punitive.
Last edited by Montello; 12th July 2020 at 19:35.
That was My first thought.That wall is going over anytime soon I would think.Find who owns it ASAP.
Playing devils advocate here and not wanting to antagonise you; the tree looks a lot older than the road and possibly the older than the wall.
As you state the tree appears to bowing the wall out. If I owned the land with the tree I may have a case to say that the new road has undermined my land and the integrity of existing wall and that a proper structural retaining wall should have been built to accommodate safe access to the new buildings and withstand any future growth of the tree.
I appreciate that’s probably not what you want to hear but I prepare myself for the land owner engaging experts and that may be a possible position that they take.
Surely the owners(s) of the wall would need to repair it ASAP via their building insurance? The insurance co will investigate and request the tree owner to cut down the tree as part of fixing the wall. If they don’t they would be put on notice that they would be liable for any further damage caused by the tree once the wall was repaired.
As I found out not all building insurance will pay out for “slow moving” issues as they may consider them maintenance issues and outside the scope of the policy.
That just means that there isn't a TPO on the tree - so it might be sensible, in the longer term, to consider getting it removed so that it doesn't damage the wall further.
As far as the wall being listed, that won't necessarily be true just because it's near a (listed) church. It's only if it's within the curtilage of a listed building and it has some historical/architectural significance that it will be listed by association. (For example, our house is Grade 2* listed, but our garages are not). If you contact your local council, they should be able to let you know the extent of the listing.
It might be worthwhile asking your question over on the Garden Law forum. Lots of clued up people over there. https://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/
Clearly, the status of the tree has been established - not subject to a TPO.
The wall is shared ownership - the question of a wall being 'listed' by virtue of it's proximity to a nearby church seems a bit 'thin' TBH. Local Planning/Building Control will be able to confirm.
The remaining puzzle is agreeing who pays/shares cost of removing the tree and then repairing the wall - surely the other parties would want this doing?
Last edited by Chris_in_the_UK; 12th July 2020 at 21:37.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
No point repairing wall until tree gets cut. Otherwise it will happen again. It could also take out a portion of the wall while tree is being removed should something not go to plan or depending on action of roots during removal.
No way that tree would get a TPO, it’s hardly an ancient oak or alike. If I was the owner I’d just take it down or at least keep it maintained.
I have never understood the unwavering devotion to something temporary. I like trees as much as the next person, but they have a limited lifespan. At some point they will succumb to nature, if not to man.
The wrong species in the wrong place can wreak dreadful damage.
It’s run it’s course. It’s causing damage.
Thanks everyone for all the comments. Some useful points to consider. Even though the wall is clearly bowing out, it does seem very solid for now - we want to get it sorted though as it won't last. Whilst all 3 houses are equally responsibly for repairs, our best bet is the Old Vicarage would probably own the wall - problem is the chap that owned it died last year and his wife wants to sell and downsize (house is huge). We want as much info as possible before we speak to her, to make it easier for her. My wife is going back to the council to try and find out more. We will also go back to the owner of the tree and politely ask him why what seemed very straight forward, now seems complicated.
No doesn't antagonise me, all thoughts welcome. The road (in some form) has been there longer than the tree from what I can gather as it's part of the Old Vicarage which has been there a very long time. The tree is around 80 to 100 years old apparently. Our house was built behind the Old Vicarage and the other house was the old stables.
I would’ve thought that tree is now fully mature? How much more can it grow after 80/100 years?
Surely the wall belongs to the tree owner, as it bounds the land the tree is in and the road is on the opposite side to the tree?
Also, why is the earth so much higher than the road side, are you on a hill? Or has the tree owner loaded earth from somewhere else?
I suspect that your council will have a Tree Officer and it may well be a good idea to get their advice as to the legalities and remedies as they come up against these sorts of problems all the time.
Again, playing devils advocate here, if you flip the theory around you get; the high ground on the tree side was always there and a new road was cut out of existing land to allow road construction and an then wall built to hold back / retain existing higher ground where the tree resides. Tree would have been a bit smaller then I’d imagine and possibly not deemed a threat.
Also if the wall is structurally monitored / assessed and is historically proven to be stable, you may have a hard job getting any remedial work sorted.
However, everything could be quite amicable and pleasantly resolved with good communications and friendly meetings. Owner of tree may be quiet willing to have it cut down and removed.
Having been a structural technician in private consultancies for over 25 years I learned that these things can get very complicated and everyone stresses or it can go really smoothly with all parties on board and in agreement. A lot depends on striking up good relations and remaining calm.
Good luck.
After speaking to the council they have told me that he's applied for a TPO - something he failed to say in his long winded and very detailed email.
I've spoken to a Surveyor who was surprised because he can always apply for a TPO, but getting one removed wouldn't be easy. If the tree was proven to cause ongoing damage it may be more hassle than it's worth.
I emailed him saying that I know and that I was surprised he didn't say. He phoned up within minutes. I said it just felt sneaky and underhanded, he said it wasn't and doesn't see its an issue - we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
He said he will do the repairs and split the costs but wants heritage and conservation to confirm that there is no listing on the wall and are happy for us to do it without planning permission. He apparently owns two large farms with over 100 TPO's on oak trees. My problem is he sounds very plausible and I have no knowledge in this area.
I've now emailed the conservation office in the council and asked her to check for me. Hopefully he's not being underhanded and is genuinely playing it by the book. Time will tell.
^^^ Proceed with caution looks like he is covering his bases; “least said, soonest mended” as the saying goes.
Please keep us updated on progress and good luck, hope it all is resolved amicably.
Why apply for a TPO now when it’s clear it needs to come down.
He is playing games.
Why would you contribute money to repairs when the tree is going to make it an ongoing job? If he wants to keep the tree let him bear the cost of his own stupidity.
I would look at what your actually liable for. It seems it’s his tree and his boundary wall so his responsibility. If his wall damages your road then still his problem. The devils in the detail so find out actual liability first before you jump into things.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Sage advice. Otherwise an act of generosity in trying to sort a relatively minor problem could be used against you to suggest that you pick up a contribution to the cost of a far larger bill down the line.
Looks to me he has a responsibility let him assume it
I FEEL LIKE I'M DIAGONALLY PARKED IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE
Definitely find out if it's his responsibility. If it turns out it's him, then tell him he needs to sort it before that wall kills someone. Serves him right for his clearly underhand TPO application.
We’ve downloaded all the property info and it’s very vague. Problem is we think the wall is the responsibility of one of our houses (next door to mine) but it’s his tree causing the damage in our view. Everyone that has looked at it thinks the same. He however thinks the wall is just old and needs repairing and the tree has been there 100 years and it will have stopped growing so not causing ongoing damage.
So we think it’s his tree, he’s defending himself and saying it’s not. Unless I guess we get Surveyors, Solicitors and Possibly a court case no one will know for sure. That’s why I’ve tried to be amicable m, it’s just the TPO behind my back has annoyed me.
Trees never stop growing in width, every year there’s another ring of growth. Roots die and grow all causing movement in soil.
From now on, I wouldn't bother with direct negotiations with him. Just get professionals to deal with it. More expensive, but you won't know if he's being transparent and that could lead to a proper falling out.
My take on this would be to get your insurance involved - the wall is already obviously damaged from the trees growth, if the wall is the tree owners responsibility then your insurance will pick up on this and reject your claim, if the tree is deemed to be responsible and the wall is yours the insurance will likely petition for it to be removed before repairs. They are far better placed to determine all this and you have a legitimate claim (if the wall is yours).
As for the tree owner starting the process of getting a TPO on the tree, that's just dirty pool to avoid the cost of removal, all sympathy with his cause would be gone for me now, if the tree is deemed responsible for the damage, he or his insurer should pay, none of this half and half stuff.
Sounds to me like yes, he is experienced and via a TPO is trying to avoid responsiblity - you only have a verbal agreement right now over costs.
Trust is gone, he's trying to avoid liability so go legal imo. I would defintiely advise council of the situation regarding the possibly dangerous wall and link it to his recent TPO application so they know that shenanigans is afoot.
No point trying to play nice with a devious mudman
Absolutely agree with the last few replies - I wouldn't be negotiating or offering to pay anything after his actions.
It's just a matter of time...
Just get the Council arboricultural dept involved and let them assess the possible danger and let the owner of the tree take care of his responsibilities.
We border Council land which has a number of trees one of which was in danger of falling i got on to the Council and got them to take care of their property this situation is no different
Last edited by mart broad; 15th July 2020 at 11:42.
I FEEL LIKE I'M DIAGONALLY PARKED IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE
I'd say he's done this sort of thing before, handled this sort of situation. If he owns two farms plus the property involved he possibly views himself as some sort of big shot in the local area, exempt from normal protocols. I wouldn't play nice and I wouldn't play nasty. I'd let the situation runs its proper course through official channels and retain your composure and dignity.
Posting Permissions
