I would tell that neighbour to show me that surveyor's report and will be telling them to get their facts right! If your hedge is the right height, not blocking too much light out to the neighbour's side; that report is wrong! Why should you have to remove and replant because someone doesn't like the hedge you already have? I would make sure that if any branches are poking through or the hedge is hanging over their side of the fence, it is cut or trimmed back and tell them to live with it. What if the hedge had been planted prior to your moving to that property...that is not your fault. Perhaps you need to look at what it looks like from their side of the hedge and suggest a trim but a complete removal, I would not, personally consider. That is my opinion.

Many thanks for your reply. I don’t really want to replace the trees as they give us much appreciated privacy and stop their conservatory roof glaring into our home so we have to close the curtains. However, I am trying to be reasonable. We have cut back the overhanging branches. My neighbour’s concern is that they think this may stop the sale of their property because it has been highlighted in the surveyor’s report and the report sees them as a possible cause of future structural damage to their property because of the roots.

don't know if this helps or not, found an article about it and this is a quote from it

"Laurels are not particularly known for causing problems near to properties and 5m is a fair distance away. The roots could well grow near to your neighbours house as Laurels are large vigorous plants (they can grow to 40 x 40ft given the chance) unless you have a dwarf variety "Otto Luyken" though this is generally not used as hedging."

website; http://www.angliangardener.co.uk/garden/Any%20questions/trees_house_hedge.htm

Thanks Catty4667. This all seems to be very confusing. I don’t seem to be able to get any definite advice about this topic. I do so want to maintain my privacy but I am not the sort of neighbour who wants to cause a problem.

We have a 20 year old beech hedge alongside a sturdy concrete drive and there is no sign of damage to the drive, but it is kept at 6 feet high, which does limit the root growth. A mature tree would cause problems there.
Remember roots are said to extend outwards to match the spread of the branches, and some tree roots eg cherry and birch are much nearer the surface than others. You could always have an independent expert to give you his opinion. You say you have "some trees" but not what they are apart from the laurels, or how big, or how far from the neighbour's house they are - all these factors can make a big difference. There is more danger to foundations on a clay soil than others as there is more expansion and shrinkage in varying weather conditions.

Why not get some advice from a tree surgeon, they understand the way trees grow.

I agree with the tree surgeon advice but why should you have to go to all this trouble and pay for it yourself? This could cost you a lot of money - taking down the old trees and putting up hedging and I don't think it fair.

I would also ask to see this report. You do sound concerned but there is also no point in bending over backwards for neighbours who are moving and your privacy on your land in your own concern.

we have a beech hedge 10ft from our property and our surveyor said no problems with it and it was 40ft tall. its now cut down to 15ft high. we have lived with it for 17 yrs and its been planted for 50yrs or more. the other side has laurel. and in both cases the surveyor didn't see it as a problem.

the surveyor has probably put it in to cover his/her back just incase there is a small chance it could happen, to be honest i wouldn't worry yourself about it, remember we live in the world of health and safety now!

That's very reassuring SBG - our drive is safe for a long time then! Disposing of all those "hedge trimmings " when it was reduced must have been a real facer.

I suspect the surveyor's expertise is in buildings rather than horticulture, like someone else said, I suppose he's added the bit about the trees to cover himself. If you keep your trees maintained - not overhanging and not too high, there's no problem, surely. You keep your valuable privacy :)

I agree with Catty and Dawn. The surveyor is probably erring on the side of caution in case they take legal action against him. In my opinion most surveyors are knowledgeable in structural engineering but lack horticultural knowledge. If it was me I would ignore what he said and do nothing.

The worse case scenario is that in time it MIGHT become a problem to your neighbour's property and you could do something about it if it does arise.

My advise would be to tell your neigbour to get their prospective buyers to get a horticultural specialist in to look at the problem as you don't agree with them. Leave the ball (and costs) in their court ;o)

You are missing important information - the variety of trees, the age of the trees, the height and distance from your neighbours property.
1. The variety will determine the root spread and depth which will indicate whether damage is likely to occur.
2. The height and distance will determine whether a tree will crash through the roof if it falls over in a storm.
3. The age will give you an at argument about the likelihood of damage. A row of 100 yr old tree that has not caused structural damage by being there will almost certainly result in damage if removed. A row of 1 year old trees in a residential area is probably asking for trouble. You would definitely be liable for any damage caused by an inappropriate hedge/tree which you had planted in a residential setting. If the trees were there before you then you can only be responsible for their proper maintenance.

Your neighbour is unlikely to have seen the surveyor's report - in England and Wales this is confidential between the surveyor and their client ie a potential buyer. And at £300+ a potential buyer doesn't get a surveyor's report until they are sure they want the property. The surveyor will be a member of the RICS and WILL understand how trees and high hedges affect property. They will err on the side of caution in their advice to their client because if they fail to note the proximity of trees and a high hedge and damage subsequently occurs they can be sued.

On the other side, you need to consider your responsibility under the High Hedges legislation - laurel will come into this as it is evergreen. So if your hedge is over 8 ft high it can be declared a nuisance and your local authority can require you to reduce it or remove it.

"On the other side, you need to consider your responsibility under the High Hedges legislation - laurel will come into this as it is evergreen. So if your hedge is over 8 ft high it can be declared a nuisance and your local authority can require you to reduce it or remove it."

Way to go to scare people Urbanite. Hedges are not just declared a nuisance, there is a long process, so spewing out fact-less crap helps no one.

The neighbour would have to prove that they have done everything possible to be reasonable with the hedge holder and then pay £350-500 to the local council. the Council would then have to assess if arbitration has been carries out and they would then have to agree that it is a nuisance. The legislation says the height is 2 metres at the highest point of ground, so not a uniform 2 metres across any hedge.

From what I have read less than 10 cases have ever been upheld using the High Hedge legislation in england.

The length of the process and the number of cases to date are irrelevant - the height of evergreen hedges is now subject to legislation and it is a householder's responsibility to maintain the hedge within the legislation.
The maximum height may not be specified but it is clear from the wording of the Act that 2 metres is considered a reasonable height.
And the neighbour is already convinced that the hedge has compromised the sale of their property.
The alleged low number of cases upheld is probably due to householders realising that it is cheaper to cut the hedge to a reasonable height themselves rather than have the Council move in on them.

Many thanks for all the interest in my dilemma. I am sorry I have not put up any further information sooner but I have had family problems to deal with.
Here is some more information.
• There are 3 ‘trees’ at the bottom right hand side of my garden that I believe are the cause for concern. They consist of two laurels with a Christmas tree in the middle. The laurels are approx 10 ft high, the Christmas tree is a little higher but will be trimmed down to the same height or lower. They are a few feet apart but their growth is not dense and they have been regularly trimmed. Over hanging branches have also been removed. I think they have been planted about 3-4 yrs. The soil in this area is sandy. Behind my property is my neighbour house (situated in a cul-de-sac behind us). Their drive runs along the back of our property with their extended garage at the end of this. The above mentioned trees are planted in my garden but at the side of their garage wall which forms part of the boundary to our property. I might also point out that this garage wall extends into my next door neighbour’s garden (right). She too has some laurel trees planted which are smaller but which I am led to believe are also an issue.
• We have been provided with extracts from the surveyors report: Risks -... Proximity of trees to the right hand side of garage and driveway ..... Futher specialist advice should be sought before proceeding further to determine whether these matters are of any long term structural significance .......Subject to the limitations of the inspection there is no evidence of damage from trees which adjoin the right hand side wall of the garage but are on adjoining land and may have caused damage to the surface of the tarmacadam driveway.
Further we were provided with tables for various trees concerning the subsidence hazard of full-grown trees - safe distances and typical safe distances outside which the tree is unlikely to affect subsidence of a building.

I know these trees are ‘evergreen’ but going back to my original question does beech (hedging) come under the high hedges legislation. My understanding is that it is excluded because it is deciduous. Also, I think climbing plants are excluded. Would I be able to plant say Pyracantha (a recommended burglar deterrent).

No, Beech does not fall under any hedge legislation as it is not evergreen. The fact that it can keep its leaves does not count.

The hedge legislation is about nuisance hedging - so deliberately trying to annoy your neighbours by spoiling views, amenity and enjoyment of garden. You are clearly not trying to do that.

"the height of evergreen hedges is now subject to legislation and it is a householder's responsibility to maintain the hedge within the legislation. " "The maximum height may not be specified but it is clear from the wording of the Act that 2 metres is considered a reasonable height. "

You are contradicting yourself. The various legislation only allows the local authority to take into account evergreen hedges over 2 metres. That is nothing like suggesting that 2 metres is a legal height restriction. The spirit of the act, as explained above, is the stop neighbours being anti-social, not to make hedges 2 metres tall.

Not contradicting myself at all. The spirit of the legislation is to curb the antisocial behaviour of allowing evergreen hedges (originally stemming from leylandii) to impinge on the amenity of a neighbour. You may have a right to privacy but as with much of UK legislation, that right brings responsibilities.
The legislation doesnot specify a maximum height but local authorities will take a more lenient view of a hedge that is maintained at about 8 ft but a dim view of a hedge that has been allowed to grow to 20 ft, no matter how well maintained the 20ft hedge is. The over-riding principle is the loss of amenity to the neighbour - not your privacy.

For my part, I wish the legislation had been far more specific and stated outright that no domestic hedge of any variety be allowed over 6 ft at its highest point, regardless of its proximity to any building. Until you have lived with one of these hideous things on your doorstep you cannot know the misery they cause.

In the context of the original question, I'd have no qualms about ripping out laurels and planting a beech hedge any day of the week.

I’m beginning to think it might be better to pull everything out and concrete my garden over but there is probably a law against that as well!

Oh please don't lose heart Roserose. I can imagine the stress its causing you but I still think your neighbours have made more of this than is necessary. When my husband dug up a laurel tree, the tap root went straight down towards Australia and he had a devil of a job digging down to it. The radial roots weren't particularly big or far reaching.

I can understand why you are somewhat disillusioned by all the contradictory answers Rose, that's GoY members for you, always passionate and trying to help the best way they can, which is good. But I think the majority consensus is to just carry on with how life was before the house was up for sale and don't worry. That's certainly what I would do.

We have lived with the misery of a huge Leyland tree closer to our property than our neighbours, it darkened my kitchen and bathroom blocked the sun from our garden, brushing up the debris became a daily chore dead brown foliage, dead pigeons pigeon nests pigeon eggs, the branches touching our guttering and gable end, my bathroom had to be re plastered as it was damp, no sun or light reached our gable end, in the end I had to get the extending ladders and cut it back myself took me 9 hours including brushing and gathering up all the branches and mess and taking it to the tip.... what a difference it made only to be short lived as my neighbours much to our joy had the remaining tree cut down and have now planted what he described to me as beech screening.... I don't think so this is a direct replacement for the Leyland tree.... more years of misery.... planted today about 8 feet tall .... lovely