Distance of Coillte trees from house or house boundary

darrenheaphy

Hello all. I read on an old boards thread that the minimum distance of house to tree line is 60 metres for any new or replanted trees, is that still the case?

We bought a house surrounded by Coillte woodlands (house built long after trees were planted), those trees were cut about 3 years ago and they're about to start re-planting this week or next. I'm guessing, but have never measured, that the distance is about 15m to 20m if they use the same space as before.

Is there a minimum distance they must conform to? We quite like the additional sunlight so if they're violating that minimum condition we'd like to contact them about it

Base price

See here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102201103&postcount=3

darrenheaphy

Base price wrote: »

See here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102201103&postcount=3

Awesome, thank you

SILVAMAN

darrenheaphy wrote: »

Awesome, thank you

Actually that's not the case, only for new afforestation.
The felling licence stipulated that the land must be replanted if felling is to be granted.
The 60m rule applies to grant-aided plantations.
You also must remember, that as you consider the trees a nuisance, you have in effect come to the nuisance i.e.the forest site was there when you bought the house.
“Coming to the nuisance” is a defense in real estate law to a nuisance claim. A nuisance occurs when one land owner engages in conduct which significantly affects, interferes or otherwise negatively impacts another’s ability to use and enjoy their own property or which may affect health, safety and welfare. A defense to a nuisance claim by the offending party is that it engaged in the offending activity (the nuisance) before the complaining party arrived and became affected by the activity. For example, defendant has owned and operated a well known music studio for many years. In spite of knowing this, the plaintiff purchased the property next door knowing that sound would regularly travel and be heard on the adjoining property.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3478129?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I suggest you maintain friendly relations by asking them to plant birch and rowan for 30m on the land closest to your property. It benefits the landowner in that they have a broadleaf component, looks better, takes less light, and instead of briars and rushes you have a nice looking stand of broad leaves to look out on.

Oldtree

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Actually that's not the case, only for new afforestation.
The felling licence stipulated that the land must be replanted if felling is to be granted.
The 60m rule applies to grant-aided plantations.
You also must remember, that as you consider the trees a nuisance, you have in effect come to the nuisance i.e.the forest site was there when you bought the house.
“Coming to the nuisance” is a defense in real estate law to a nuisance claim. A nuisance occurs when one land owner engages in conduct which significantly affects, interferes or otherwise negatively impacts another’s ability to use and enjoy their own property or which may affect health, safety and welfare. A defense to a nuisance claim by the offending party is that it engaged in the offending activity (the nuisance) before the complaining party arrived and became affected by the activity. For example, defendant has owned and operated a well known music studio for many years. In spite of knowing this, the plaintiff purchased the property next door knowing that sound would regularly travel and be heard on the adjoining property.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3478129?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I suggest you maintain friendly relations by asking them to plant birch and rowan for 30m on the land closest to your property. It benefits the landowner in that they have a broadleaf component, looks better, takes less light, and instead of briars and rushes you have a nice looking stand of broad leaves to look out on.

That gets a wow from me. New bit of legal interpretation to wrap my head around, nice one.
Do you have a link to UK or Irish law for a similar slant?

SILVAMAN

Oldtree wrote: »

That gets a wow from me. New bit of legal interpretation to wrap my head around, nice one.
Do you have a link to UK or Irish law for a similar slant?

In the UK there was a case Coventry v Lawrence (2014) where the claim was about noise from a racing track constituting a nuisance to a couple who had bought a house in 2006. Although the couple won their case, the court held that there could be a prescriptive right to create a nuisance by noise, if it had been going on for 20 years. The court did refer to the locality in when assessing the alleged nuisance, and this is where a claim by a plaintiff against agricultural practices might fail.
Of course there is an issue as to whether the trees actually constitute a nuisance, private nuisance being defined in Bamford v Turnley, as "any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant's] land or his use or enjoyment of that land.

Oldtree

That case seems to almost hinge on 'reasonable enjoyment of property' (caused by a nuisance). It seems a bit unfair though as the speedway was there first. Perhaps because the noise wasn't there for 20 years had some weight?

If a window exists for 20 years and then trees grow into blocking the light to the window then that is a nuisance and the owner of the window can apply for a right to light.

Other tree nuisances are overhanging branches and invasive roots, so its not much of a leap to see natural light deprivation as a nuisance, it could be covered by ordinary standards of human comfort.

It seems reasonable to me that any new dwelling must put up with what exists in the surrounding environment, as its already there, even if it has not been there for 20 years, (even a coup planted recently but before the new owner purchases the property), continuing to get taller and block natural light.

But if a 'reasonable enjoyment of property' under anti-social laws comes about for light blocking trees it could change things.

The high hedges legislation goes some way to addressing this and it would only be a small step to go from evergreens to all trees, as deciduous trees block the light for more than half the year.