forestry on my doorstep! where do i stand?

Ronnie_Rotten

our property stood empty for several years, during which time the neighbour who owns most of the ground around us planted forestry right up to the border. the trees are approximately 5 meters from the house, which to my mind is pretty close.
they probably have about 10 years to go before being felled. aside from the obvious shade cast by them, i'm also mildly concerned about the risk from fire. i know that some of the plot was replanted a few years ago following an accidental fire.
although the neighbour is a really nice guy, he's a little bit 'old school' in his ways. he says he thought the property would never be lived in again when the trees went in, so just planted right up to the boundary. i've broached the subject with him, mentioned buying a row or 2 of trees and cutting them out. not sure where i stand legally. i'd appreciate it if anyone had any idea what the 'legal position' is, so i can bear it in mind when we come to a fair and sensible agreement over what happens next. and who pays for it...!

Outkast_IRE

According to this pg9
planting should be kept 60meters back from any dwellings and associated buildings unless the owner agrees a closer distance

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/publications/landscape.pdf

I wouldn't pay for anything the neighbour sounds greedy planting that near to you. If he wont play ball maybe its time to contact department of agriculture

Ronnie_Rotten

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

According to this pg9
planting should be kept 60meters back from any dwellings and associated buildings unless the owner agrees a closer distance

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/publications/landscape.pdf

ok. so that covers new planting. what if the property was empty at the time of planting? or was perceived to be derelict and probably uninhabitable?

Outkast_IRE

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

ok. so that covers new planting. what if the property was empty at the time of planting? or was perceived to be derelict and probably uninhabitable?

A dwelling is a dwelling, as far as im concerned he should of consulted you.
Do you plan on moving back into the house soon ?

And what is several years ? surely you know the real number of years its empty ?

Ronnie_Rotten

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

A dwelling is a dwelling, as far as im concerned he should of consulted you.
Do you plan on moving back into the house soon ?

And what is several years ? surely you know the real number of years its empty ?

i didn't own the place when the trees were planted. i bought it 3 years ago. it had been empty for 4 years before that. the last guy had it for 4 years or so before the bank had it off him. it was in a pretty derelict state when he got it.
as far as moving in... well. lets say as it stands i'm better off in my caravan in the garden! at least its dry and warm! but...well... within a couple of years? if the wallet allows...

Outkast_IRE

If there was someone living in it that recently I would class it as a dwelling and think the trees should not have been planted so close.

Department of agriculture is the place to contact and ask a few questions.

Dampintheattic

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

If there was someone living in it that recently I would class it as a dwelling and think the trees should not have been planted so close.

Department of agriculture is the place to contact and ask a few questions.

I'd say you can't see the wood for the trees -;)

mr lee

what kind of trees are they?if there spruce u might have a problem with water contamination,thats if u have your own well,and if the trees are close to it,
could also be a problem with roots and the house foundations,5 meters is too close.

mf240

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

i didn't own the place when the trees were planted. i bought it 3 years ago. ...

Did you not notice the trees when you bought it?

I would think this would be something any legal process would consider relevant.

Farmer

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

According to this pg9
planting should be kept 60meters back from any dwellings and associated buildings unless the owner agrees a closer distance

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/publications/landscape.pdf

Today's rules may not have been in place back then.

I'd say stick with diplomacy for another while. Find out what it's currently worth in timber sales versus it's full potential value (€5k /ac??). Will he lose any premium over the reduced area? (Premium is only paid for the first 15/20 years). If either of you fell some trees, will they have to be re-planted under the terms of the felling licence?

You probably only want a small bit kept clear. How much would the ESB pay for keeping the same area clear for power lines?. He may be happy to to help you anyway and glad of a small bit of early money.

As a farmer, he may also prefer not to annoy a potential full time friendly neighbour. On the other hand, if confronted about it, or of the opinion that you're going to turn a quick buck by selling the now improved site, things could look different to him.

Outkast_IRE

Farmer wrote: »

Today's rules may not have been in place back then.

Those rules were published in 2000, so not sure if/what changes there have been since then

yellow50HX

if the trees were planted before you bought the house i dont see what your complaining about. surely you noticed these when you were buying the place. it would be different if he had planted them when you were living there.

dotn want to start another thread on the pros and cons of forestry but i dont see why he shoul dcut down the tress around a property that been abandoned years ago just beacuse the new owner wants to see over them.

coillte have a plantation down the road from my place, if i told them i wanted a few acres cut so that i had a better view from my new house i'd be told where to go fairly lively

tabby aspreme

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

our property stood empty for several years, during which time the neighbour who owns most of the ground around us planted forestry right up to the border. the trees are approximately 5 meters from the house, which to my mind is pretty close.
they probably have about 10 years to go before being felled.Quote)

If there ten years from being felled they must have been planted 35/40 years ago

Dont be daft

If there is a real risk of fire and the forestry is an eyesore then I presume this was reflected in the price you paid for the property.

Like a few have said already, the trees were there when you bought it. You hardly thought they were going to get smaller?

If it really is the issue you make it out to be then you've already been compensated in the sale price and if you haven't then you should have and it's nobody's fault but your own that you weren't.

You might say that I haven't been helpful but that's exactly the kind of reasoning that a court would consider.

Ronnie_Rotten

Dont be daft wrote: »

If there is a real risk of fire and the forestry is an eyesore then I presume this was reflected in the price you paid for the property.

Like a few have said already, the trees were there when you bought it. You hardly thought they were going to get smaller?

If it really is the issue you make it out to be then you've already been compensated in the sale price and if you haven't then you should have and it's nobody's fault but your own that you weren't.

You might say that I haven't been helpful but that's exactly the kind of reasoning that a court would consider.

Sure, I paid next to nothing for the place. I'll make a decent profit when if sell it. Believe it or not, I did see the trees, and expected them to grow. I also figured that either i'd come to some arrangement by which i'd but an acre or so of trees, cut them down and ignore the stumps due to a thick hedge or something along those lines. The guy isn't unreasonable, and I do plenty to help him out that he can't handle at his stage of life.

Is it an issue? It is if they burn down and destroy my property in the process. There are plenty of occupied properties out here that are seriously overshadowed by their own forestry, i guess they don't care much. Doesn't make it safe though.

I don't plan on slapping the guy with a bit of paper and demanding he rip out his trees. At the same time, it should smooth negotiations if i can say 'now, john, you know planting that close was a bit naughty now...!'

I may be wrong about when they're due to chop, there's 2 years until they're thinned i'm informed by my wise wife! They'll be up fir a while yet!

Foundations?!? Nope. Not on this old shed of a house! Nothing to worry about there then! But i appreciate the implications of roots growing under the house.

I understand the concept of 'buyer beware', and it was a consideration when i paid for a cottage and outbuildings that essentially came free with a very cheap plot of land. Doesn't mean i don't care what happens to them though!

bob charles

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

I understand the concept of 'buyer beware', and it was a consideration when i paid for a cottage and outbuildings that essentially came free with a very cheap plot of land. Doesn't mean i don't care what happens to them though!

There is a big difference with the trees being close to your house and being close to this plot of land you mention. Regards buying some, usually the price is half of the value it will add to your house so it may not come cheap.

Ronnie_Rotten

bob charles wrote: »

There is a big difference with the trees being close to your house and being close to this plot of land you mention. Regards buying some, usually the price is half of the value it will add to your house so it may not come cheap.

Sorry, wasn't clear then. the soliciter said 'you'd not get a plot of land with planning on for that price, so consider the buildings [as in need of work they are] as a bonus'

It's all one plot, 3/4 acre, old cottage partly refurbed in classic diy (as in needs doing again) style and a brand new block cavity 'shed' on the footprint of a demolished farm building.

We knew were buying a project, but one you could live in if you were desperate, mental, unconcerned for your physical heath or a frog or pine martin. We had a frog and 2 pine martins as residents when we first got it.

fits

Also under terms of forestry subsidies any felled must be replanted so you might need special permission to clear an area close to the house.

Ronnie_Rotten

fits wrote: »

Also under terms of forestry subsidies any felled must be replanted so you might need special permission to clear an area close to the house.

Aah, replanted but not 5 meters from my back wall, right? Assuming the subsidy is still being paid of course...That's why i need somebody who knows their stuff to step in. If there's a safety issue i think there would have to be some sort of sensible middle ground to satify everyone.

bob charles

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

Aah, replanted but not 5 meters from my back wall, right? Assuming the subsidy is still being paid of course...That's why i need somebody who knows their stuff to step in. If there's a safety issue i think there would have to be some sort of sensible middle ground to satify everyone.

5 meters from your back wall could be 25m+ from your house. If its the latter your at a hiding to nothing trying to get it felled

Ronnie_Rotten

bob charles wrote: »

5 meters from your back wall could be 25m+ from your house. If its the latter your at a hiding to nothing trying to get it felled

Nope. 5 meters from my house. The back wall of my house. I call it it house for the purposes of the discussion. You may call it otherwise if you saw it! My 'currently unoccupied dwelling'

The picture was taken march 2012. You see the tops of the trees? 5 meters from the house.:rolleyes:

mf240

Sell the house for filling and plant the site.

mick.murphy

ON the Stumps!!!

Ronnie_Rotten

mf240 wrote: »

Sell the house for filling and plant the site.

Funny. Our mate up the road said 'would you not just knock it and start again?' But then they paid the same for their geo thermic heating system (which is shoite) as we did for everything. So there you go.

Anyway.... legally, does the neighbour have any obligation to address the tree situation, or are we solely in the realms of friendly negotiation, and amicable agreement?

moy83

My father rented a farm for years that had an ould house on it that was literally in a wood . It would be a regular thing to have people asking him would the owners sell it . Alot of people like these dark old wooded cottages so if youre ever selling it might a selling point that could work for you .
You have a point about the forest fires but from what I've seen the fire brigades usually have the houses near forestry well damped down if there is any chance of the wind blowing it near them

Ronnie_Rotten

moy83 wrote: »

My father rented a farm for years that had an ould house on it that was literally in a wood . It would be a regular thing to have people asking him would the owners sell it . Alot of people like these dark old wooded cottages so if youre ever selling it might a selling point that could work for you .
You have a point about the forest fires but from what I've seen the fire brigades usually have the houses near forestry well damped down if there is any chance of the wind blowing it near them

We liked it because there's no chance of houses being built in front cos of a bog and behind cos of the trees. I'd live with anything over a massive concrete tasteless lion gated shoot the planning officer cos he's on the take type house being built on my doorstep!

My concern is that it'd be a spark from our chimney to get the fire started!!!

Farmer

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

My concern is that it'd be a spark from our chimney to get the fire started!!!

That's another concern that you can explain to your neighbour while suggesting that your proposed clearance would provide a fire break. Like a good salesman, you just need to provide the reasons why he should "buy" in to it

Additionally, you need to clarify exactly when it was planted and, if before the 2000 dated document above, what regulations existed regarding distance from houses...and be sure that these were regulations, not recommendations. A lot of older forestry is planted within 5 metres of public roads so the same distance may have applied to neighbouring boundaries back then

I'd suggest talking to forestry a advisor (maybe Teagasc) for info on this.

Farmer Pudsey

More bad news that forestry looks like it is only heading for first thinning's so it may well be there for the next 30-40 years. On the positive side if you have a log stove you have access to timber for that long as well.

Wonder would he miss 3-4 trees every year :rolleyes:

fits

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

Aah, replanted but not 5 meters from my back wall, right? Assuming the subsidy is still being paid of course...That's why i need somebody who knows their stuff to step in. If there's a safety issue i think there would have to be some sort of sensible middle ground to satify everyone.

The state invested a huge amount of subsidies into forestry on the basis that the land would stay in forestry.

Whatever happened your dwelling in the past, a member of the forest service must have approved the forest plan, including planting so close to the dwelling. So whatever happens in future if those trees are felled, they must be replanted unless you get special permission for otherwise.

you cant really come along in the meantime and say oh, I actually want to live here and the trees are a nuisance so can you knock them please and honour the 60 metre rule?

Speak to a teagasc advisor and do some research but I don't think this is going to be very easy.

GY A1

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

Nope. 5 meters from my house. The back wall of my house. I call it it house for the purposes of the discussion. You may call it otherwise if you saw it! My 'currently unoccupied dwelling'

The picture was taken march 2012. You see the tops of the trees? 5 meters from the house.:rolleyes:

damn that is too close for comfort like

GY A1

moy83 wrote: »

My father rented a farm for years that had an ould house on it that was literally in a wood . It would be a regular thing to have people asking him would the owners sell it . Alot of people like these dark old wooded cottages so if youre ever selling it might a selling point that could work for you .
You have a point about the forest fires but from what I've seen the fire brigades usually have the houses near forestry well damped down if there is any chance of the wind blowing it near them

thats true fire brigade will protect property closest to the forestry, buts thats way too close, in all fairness there need to be a reasonable gap between the trees and the house for safety,
if them trees caught fire the heat would be ferocious that close to the house

Rovi

Judging by your photograph and the opinion that they're at or about ready for thinning, I surmise that those trees were planted 12-18 years ago.
That's at least 2 owners ago, according to this:

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

i didn't own the place when the trees were planted. i bought it 3 years ago. it had been empty for 4 years before that. the last guy had it for 4 years or so before the bank had it off him. it was in a pretty derelict state when he got it.

It was "pretty derelict" 7 years ago; what sort of state was it in 12-18 years ago? Was it occupied or habitable at that time?

If the plantation was established under whatever forestry scheme was in effect at the time, it would have to have been planted/supervised by an accredited forester and signed off on by the Forestry Service.
I'd be amazed if this building went unnoticed by either/both of these professional persons, so I wonder if they either were in agreement that it was abandoned/derelict and therefore did not fall under the 60m setback requirement, or if some sort of agreement was reached with the then owners?

Rovi

[MOD]

Thread moved to the Forestry forum.

[/MOD]

Oldtree

"Caveat emptor" your only route is an amicable one with your neighbour, unless you buy some of the adjoining lands.

Perhaps a pertinent question for your neighbour would be "does his liability insurance cover (in the event of a fire or windthrown mature trees) include damage to adjoining properties?" If not then he would be directly liable.

periodictable

Ronnie_Rotten wrote: »

i didn't own the place when the trees were planted.

If indeed there is a nuisance, you went into the deal with your eyes open, so you cannot blame the closeness of the trees to the house-you bought the property with a forest next door.
Look on the bright side-you've got protection from the wind-your house is south facing?
What about your own golden leylandii on the other side? They will get very very big.
Roots form the forest are not of concern to you, but leylandii being an extremely shallow rooted tree risks blowing.
If you have genuine concerns, talk to the owner. Ask him would he consider thinning the lines closest to you heavily-50% removal of the trees- it should reduce top height and make the trees windfirm. They could be high pruned too to allow some airflow and perhaps light and to encourage a green understorey thereby reducing your fire risk.
You came to the nuisance, so don't blame the land owner.
I cannot help but wonder if the trees close to you were broadleaves, would you have worked yourself up into such a lather?

Ronnie_Rotten

I remembered my password..... so I'm bumping this thread!

Several subtle attempts have been made with regards to the issue I have. Most of them replied to with a typically West of Ireland 'ah well Tis grand sure so it is' type of response. Nice guy, but old and not that....progressive shall we say.

Any other thoughts on the LEGAL situation here. We've invested a few shekels in the place now and are wondering what the insurance assessor might say with regards to the trees.

Oh, and to the last poster, a broadleaf forest would be preferable, surely, but yes. I think I'd feel exactly the same if the risks were the same...