NASTY NEIGHBORS

A neighbour's tall tree is starting to encroach on my property: can I get it cut back or removed?

The total removal of a substantial tree could result in subsidence or ground movements, which could then affect the buildings nearby
Consult a tree survey specialist to give advice on the suitability of the tree for either reduction or full removalI'm concerned about a tall tree on my neighbour's land that is within a metre of my 13-year-old property. Should I get it cut or totally removed?

MailOnline's property expert Myra Butterworth replies: When a large tree is encroaching on your property, the first instinct is often to get it removed altogether.

Experts warn that the removal of a substantial tree next to a property could potentially result in subsidence and so advise getting a tree specialist's report first

However, there are a number of issues to consider here first.

Killing the tree or removing it altogether can create more problems, for a start. Root shrinkage can affect the ground surrounding it, damaging buildings nearby. It's always worth seeking the advice of a good arboriculturist in case there are better alternatives.

Secondly, there are steps you have to take since it's on your neighbour's property and not your own.

And thirdly, there are sometimes regulations about cutting down trees whether on private property or public land.

We spoke to an expert about some of the issues. Jon Jennings, a planning and development director at surveyors Cheffins, says:

This issue raises difficulties around both planning and structural implications associated with the removal of substantial trees.

In this instance, the tree is clearly on third party land, therefore requiring consent of the landowner before any reduction or removal of the tree is carried out.

The removal of such a substantial tree could potentially result in subsidence or ground movements which could then affect the buildings nearby.

Obviously different types of trees have different root spreads and different relative impacts when removed. In this situation, it is essential that a tree survey specialist is consulted to give advice on the suitability of the tree for either reduction or full removal.

Should the tree survey specialist recommend that it is removed, it is important to check that it is not protected by way of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), a location within a Conservation Area or via a restriction placed on a planning consent. To find this out, you would need to search your Local Planning Authority website for any restrictions and engage with the Council's Tree Officer.

Any reputable tree consultant should do this on your behalf as part of their due diligence. It is important that you find a competent tree officer as they will hold all of the requisite indemnity insurances.

Should the tree in question have a Tree Preservation Order, you will need to get the Council's consent to prune or fell it.

The TPOs are orders made by a Local Planning Authority to protect specific trees and prohibits any damage or destruction without written consent.

Similarly, if a tree is within a conservation area, you will need to give written notice to the Local Planning Authority regarding any proposed works to the tree at least six weeks before any work is carried out. This is in order to give the Council time to consider protecting the tree with a TPO.

It is important that you keep the Council's Tree Officer informed of your proposals even though trees can be removed in private gardens without the need for a felling licence.

It is also important to note that when you first purchase a property, a tree may be small but over a period of ten to twenty years it can change significantly in size and impact and it is recommended that all property owners have their trees regularly inspected.

Myra adds: Your question mentions that your home - which is within a metre of the tree - is just 13 years old.

I wondered why this wasn't raised as an issue at the time that planning permission was granted.

In a statement, Wiltshire Country Council said: 'From reading the committee report appraisal section (unnumbered pages 2-3), the case officer reported to committee that the 'design and layout of the scheme' was acceptable and this would have formed part of the committee's deliberations.

'I am sure that had there been concerns relating to the proximity of the tree to the houses, comments would have been aired. The fact is, none were, and the application was approved.'

It is essential that a tree survey specialist is consulted to give advice on the suitability of the tree for either reduction or full removal

A homeowner has failed in a bid to force her absentee neighbours to chop down 60ft trees she claims have ruined her garden.

Donna Nicol used high hedge laws to try and force Madge Stephen-Spall and her parents to lop conifers that separate their gardens in the coastal town of Ayr.

Mrs Stephen-Spall lives in Australia but her family still own a £400,000 detached seafront property in the town.

The Scottish Government has a refused a homeowner's request that these trees be cut because they are cutting out light to her garden

Donna Nicol says the trees have turned her garden into a 'dark, damp, shadowy environment'

Mrs Nicol claims her neighbours have ignored her pleas over a hedge that overshadows her garden and no action has been taken since they first discussed the issue two years ago.

Mrs Nicol tried to push into South Ayrshire Council forcing a reduction in height for the conifers but officials rejected her claims.

She then turned to the Scottish Government in a last ditch bid to have them chopped, but has again failed.

Mrs Nicol wrote to council bosses: 'Overall the impact of these non-native trees is to create a dark, damp, shadowy environment out of keeping with a bright sea front landscape and premier homes.'

The family of Madge Stephen-Spall own the property where the trees are growing

She added: 'Further more, due to the absentee home ownership this situation has deteriorated until legal intervention is the only practical option.

'Neighbours have for many years tried to convince the homeowners to manage the trees. There is a legal and moral responsibility upon all such homeowners in Scotland.'

Her appeal to the government stated: 'I can find no robust evidence from the council that would convince any lay person viewing this site that no negative effects are evident on my property.'

But ruling against Mrs Nicol, government reporter Robert Maslin said: 'I find the high hedge does reduce light in the rear garden and on the rear elevation of the house but I also find that the amount of reduction is limited and that a reasonable amount of light still reaches the rear garden and the rear of the house.'

Mrs Stephen-Spall was unavailable for comment.