I'm the bloke with the ex-Leylandi

[AdviceSeeker]

Howdy

I moved into a house which had a large Leylandi in the back corner of the yard. My neighbour voiced some concern that this was damaging her concrete block shed. The tree didn't bother me but I wanted to do the right thing so I've paid the £1200 to get it removed and the stump ground out.

Now her friend is telling her I need to get rid of the roots as well at extra expense. This doesn't strike me as necessary as from my understanding the Leylandi will NOT grow from the roots. Given time they will naturally decompose. The roots would have grown under the neighbours shed but the shed was built when the tree was there so I would assume any decent builder would make a barrier to protect the shed from the roots. Even if they didn't - I'm struggling to see this as my problem.

I want to act responsibly on this but I also feel that I have spent enough and done enough for an issue which wasn't of my making. So really my question is this: Is there any major reason that I would HAVE to gfet rid of the roots to this tree?

Cheers

[David Hare-Scott]

This seems to me to be a legal rather than a gardening question. Also it would seem to be impossible to accomplish unless they are suggesting the shed should be pulled down and rebuilt at your expense. If it was really such a problem the neighbour ought to have taken it up with the previous owner years ago before the tree got so big rather than lay it all on you. If it was me I would politely say that I had taken all reasonable steps to remedy the problem and that I was done with the matter, unless there is some legal reason otherwise in your region, on that I have no opinion.

D

[AdviceSeeker]

Thanks very much David. Yes, very much a legal question but as you say, I've taken reasonable steps. I think I'll just suggest that and leave it settle.

Cheers

[echinosum]

Your neighbour does not understand how incredibly kind you have been to her to remove a tree at your own expense. You were under no obligation to remove it. She should have paid to take it down to the extent it was being done for her benefit.

As you say, the tree won't grow from the roots, and the roots will eventually decompose - though very slowly as they are very resinous - and any lifting the roots caused will subside back a bit, though probably rather unevenly. If she wants to take the roots under her property out, she can pay for that herself.

I had a similar situation. I had a garage next to a neighbour's large tree (and the garage predated the tree). I wished to replace the garage with a new one. He was under no obligation to avoid having such a tree, so I couldn't ask him to remove it on the basis that he had let it grow close to my existing building. And in terms of putting in the new building, it was my problem to devise a style of building which would not be affected by it- indeed council building control insisted on it. So we put the building on a reinforced concrete raft, rather than standard footings. Although I offered to pay to remove it, hoping he didn't want it, (it was next to his garage too) he preferred to keep it

- and he is a builder.