Trees removed without my permission.

Redchick

Hi everyone.
I hope someone can give me some advice (admin if this is not the correct forum please let me know)

At the back of my property there is a native hedgroes with whitethorn and some other trees. The boundary lies in the middle of this hedgroes and is marked with a wire fence. My neighbour has just removed all the vegetation without my permission. They said the county council gave them permission to remove it, however I don't understand how they could give permission to someone else in relation to a boundary.

I'm so upset, there was a multitude of birds flying around yesterday evening searching for their nests. I wouldn't let our Gardner touch the hedgroe when we got work done to protect the birds.

What can I do?

Fighting Tao

You could report them, as destruction of hedgerows can only be done at certain times. See this link: https://iwt.ie/what-we-do/campaigns/hedgerows/

Caranica

Redchick wrote: »

Hi everyone.
I hope someone can give me some advice (admin if this is not the correct forum please let me know)

At the back of my property there is a native hedgroes with whitethorn and some other trees. The boundary lies in the middle of this hedgroes and is marked with a wire fence. My neighbour has just removed all the vegetation without my permission. They said the county council gave them permission to remove it, however I don't understand how they could give permission to someone else in relation to a boundary.

I'm so upset, there was a multitude of birds flying around yesterday evening searching for their nests. I wouldn't let our Gardner touch the hedgroe when we got work done to protect the birds.

What can I do?

I'm so sorry, and angry, to hear this.

Make a complaint to NPWS first off, it's nesting season and such removal is illegal between 01 March and 31 August.

If they said the Council gave them permission, was it a planning application? If so check it out.

You may also need to contact a solicitor, but that depends on what's in the pp. I can't think of any other reason they could say the Council gave them permission.

Fann Linn

You're not supposed to be even cutting hedgerows now so I don't think the CoCo could have given any permissions unless traffic sightlines are obstructed and normally in those cases the council's will do it themselves.

I'd say your neighbour is spoofing.

CIARAN_BOYLE

There's two issues here.

1. The removal of hedgeroes is regulated. The County Council may be able to give them an exemption to that regulation. I'm not certain if they can or not.

2. Some or all of the hedgeroes were planted on your side of the border. They are therefore your property and he destroyed your property.

Point 1 may be all well and good but it doesn't make point 2 acceptable. My point is thtt you have to think about the two points as separate items.

sydthebeat

Have a look at section 44 of the land conveyancing act 2009.

You may have recourse for compensation through the courts if you can show you have been inconvenienced or damaged.

Note however that the neighbour does not need your permission to carry out these works.

You would need some legal advice on who exactly owned the hedgerow.

If the neighbour removed it from their side and without entering your garden it's possible it is theirs.

Where are the stumps relative to the fence?

stoneill

Make a complaint to the NWPS and the Gardai.
There is no way the Co. Council gave permission for this

beggars_bush

Report

Its a fairly crappy thing to do nature wise, never mind as a neighbour
Some people just don't care

tabby aspreme

Could you post pictures OP

Peregrinus

sydthebeat wrote: »

Have a look at section 44 of the land conveyancing act 2009.

You may have recourse for compensation through the courts if you can show you have been inconvenienced or damaged.

Note however that the neighbour does not need your permission to carry out these works.

No, but he does need to be doing them for one of the purposes stated in subs (1). The OP doesn't tell us why the neighbour took down the hedge; it may not have been for a purpose that would come within s.44.

_Brian

I don’t agree with removing hedges like this.
But.

Domestic hedges aren’t covered by the moratorium on hedge cutting during the closed season. It’s very possible no laws have been broken here.

Redchick

Thanks for all the replies so far.
They have planning permission to build a wall on their boundary. The application made no mention of clearing the hedgeroe. I have viewed the site layout and PP application, the hedgerow is outside his boundary, and according to land registry docs our site fully encompasses the hedgeroe, however I know they can be inaccurate.

I've emailed the council (not taking calls due to level 5 restrictions) and I'll get on to the NPWS and Irish birdwatch assoc this morning.

Just to point out, they don't intend on even extending their existing border to the legal boundary so just don't understand why they had to clear all the trees. To be honest we're going to get tons more light because of it but I'd rather the birds back. There were also hedgehogs in the area and no doubt they've all been killed

sydthebeat

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, but he does need to be doing them for one of the purposes stated in subs (1). The OP doesn't tell us why the neighbour took down the hedge; it may not have been for a purpose that would come within s.44.

Agreed.

Though it's unlikely that the OP knows the reason the works were carried out as it sounds like this neighbour isn't very neighbourly

Edit : typed before the above was posted

Discodog

It might be an idea to post here regarding the boundary.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=633

As for the wildlife aspect & as already posted, private gardens are excluded. So your only recourse is the boundary aspect.

Redchick

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Could you post pictures OP

Not without being identifiable, their house is now in full view.

Is your neighbour a farmer or is it another garden or something else?

Calahonda52

from
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/27/enacted/en/print#part8-chap3

Rights of building owner.

44.— (1) Subject to subsection (2), a building owner may carry out works to a party structure for the purpose of—

(a) compliance with any statutory provision or any notice or order under such a provision, or

(b) carrying out development which is exempted development or development for which planning permission has been obtained or compliance with any condition attached to such permission, or

(c) preservation of the party structure or of any building or unbuilt-on land of which it forms a part, or

(d) carrying out any other works which—

(i) will not cause substantial damage or inconvenience to the adjoining owner, or

(ii) if they may or will cause such damage or inconvenience, it is nevertheless reasonable to carry them out.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), in exercising any right under subsection (1) the building owner shall—

(a) make good all damage caused to the adjoining owner as a consequence of the works, or reimburse the adjoining owner the reasonable costs and expenses of such making good, and

(b) pay to the adjoining owner—

(i) the reasonable costs of obtaining professional advice with regard to the likely consequences of the works, and

(ii) reasonable compensation for any inconvenience caused by the works.

(3) The building owner may—

(a) claim from the adjoining owner as a contribution to, or deduct from any reimbursement of, the cost and expenses of making good such damage under subsection (2)(a), or

(b) deduct from compensation under subsection (2)(b)(ii),

such sum as will take into account the proportionate use or enjoyment of the party structure which the adjoining owner makes or, it is reasonable to assume, is likely to make.

(4) If—

(a) a building owner fails within a reasonable time to—

(i) make good damage under subsection (2)(a), the adjoining owner may apply to the court for an order requiring the damage to be made good and on such application the court may make such order as it thinks fit, or

(ii) reimburse costs and expenses under subsection (2)(a) or to pay reasonable costs or compensation under subsection (2)(b), the adjoining owner may recover such costs, expenses or compensation as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) an adjoining owner fails to meet a claim to a contribution under subsection (3)(a), the building owner may recover such contribution as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Calahonda52

Redchick wrote: »

Not without being identifiable, their house is now in full view.

There is no law against taking pictures and posting them

Redchick

Deleted User wrote: »

Is your neighbour a farmer or is it another garden or something else?

Another garden.

quartz1

It was a very ignorant and inconsiderate action by your neighbour. Very very frustrating .

banie01

As others have mentioned I don't think s44 applies as it's a domestic garden.(could well be wrong tho).

Who's side of the fence are the stumps of the hedge located on?
Are they on both sides? Theirs? Yours?
Did they enter your property to undertake the removal?

Calahonda52

banie01 wrote: »

As others have mentioned I don't think s44 applies as it's a domestic garden.(could well be wrong tho).

Who's side of the fence are the stumps of the hedge located on?
Are they on both sides? Theirs? Yours?
Did they enter your property to undertake the removal?

Domestic is not the issue here.

Consent cannot be withheld if a court order is obtained


OP, where are the foundations in respect of the understood boundary line?
are they in your property.

maestroamado

Redchick wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies so far.
They have planning permission to build a wall on their boundary. The application made no mention of clearing the hedgeroe. I have viewed the site layout and PP application, the hedgerow is outside his boundary, and according to land registry docs our site fully encompasses the hedgeroe, however I know they can be inaccurate.

I've emailed the council (not taking calls due to level 5 restrictions) and I'll get on to the NPWS and Irish birdwatch assoc this morning.

Just to point out, they don't intend on even extending their existing border to the legal boundary so just don't understand why they had to clear all the trees. To be honest we're going to get tons more light because of it but I'd rather the birds back. There were also hedgehogs in the area and no doubt they've all been killed

Did you look at the actual planning permission approval to see what it says..
It seems strange that they needed planning to erect a wall the two properties as normally no planning needed for this or at least that was the case in the past, having a wall which is usually capped and a hedge at the back would not look right, personally i would prefer the hedge but they need to be maintained which may not have being happening.
I assume from what you say there was diggers to remove the roots of the trees and i cannot understand how this was carried out without your knowledge.
Please just confirm how all this happened...

maestroamado

Redchick wrote: »

Not without being identifiable, their house is now in full view.

Can you not take pictures of a small to demonstrate without showing any of the properties.

Redchick

The planning permission was for a 2m high wall with capping and a garage beyond it. The wall was separate to the garage.

There were two fences with the hedging inbetween - the hedging was the legal boundary according to land registry and the pre-existing wire border.

Diggers etc went onto his land yesterday while we were at work and tore down all trees/hedges right up to our fence but across the boundary line. Not sure if I'm explaining it properly. I will try take pictures but everything is more or less gone.

I think that answers all the questions.

Peregrinus

If the wall is going to be erected along the boundary line, then I think s. 44 allows him to do this. But it would have been neighbourly to discuss it with you first.

Legal remedies would not be much use to you anyway - the hedging is gone and, even if you got money out of him, the wall will still look hideous, and birds can't nest in the money.

If I were you, as soon as the wall is up I'd replant, directly in front of the wall.

Redchick

They've pulled out the wire so you can't see it anymore. That's only a small part of what was the hedge, you can see the pre-existing wall on they're side and that's the end of their site.

Redchick

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the wall is going to be erected along the boundary line, then I think s. 44 allows him to do this. But it would have been neighbourly to discuss it with you first.

Legal remedies would not be much use to you anyway - the hedging is gone and, even if you got money out of him, the wall will still look hideous, and birds can't nest in the money.

If I were you, as soon as the wall is up I'd replant, directly in front of the wall.

Exactly! We didn't touch a thing on his side when we were trying to sort our garden out, looks like he couldn't repay that respect.

antodeco

Sorry I may have missed this. That green fence is your fence? The gap between there and the end of the wall was where the wires fence was? The unfortunate piece here is if that green fence is yours, you may have no list claim to the other side as you have created a new boundary of interpretation. I had that issue before. I can't remember what it was called

Redchick

antodeco wrote: »

Sorry I may have missed this. That green fence is your fence? The gap between there and the end of the wall was where the wires fence was? The unfortunate piece here is if that green fence is yours, you may have no list claim to the other side as you have created a new boundary of interpretation. I had that issue before. I can't remember what it was called

We both had fences with the hedge in between. The hedge was right on the borderline for both properties. He doesn't intend on moving his wall out any further than where its at.