Boundary to Harewood Gardens Swimming Pool
Some two or three months ago I brought my concerns of trespass, damage to the adjacent trees and the discovery of waste in that area to Tania's attention. Yesterday, 8th April 2025, Tania engaged with her concerns, all of which I understand and acknowledge. I did point out that the trespass and damage was a bit of an issue and Tania pointed out she thought the boundary was hers so there was no trespass or damage. This can be either ascertained or agreed upon.
The neighbours' issues are debris from the tress contaminating the pool, possible injury from decaying and dead ash and possibly the limited light.
Until now, with reference to deeds and titles, I have considered the boundary belongs to ELF hence it can not be ignored.
What is now clear, after yesterday's visit, is that a previous owner installed a pool right up to and onto the boundary wall. As such it can be argued that the part used, having not been objected to for such a long period, a) the users have established a personal right which has been transferred to subsequent owners or b) the time can be shown to be over 12 years and hence the neighbours can lodge a claim to title via the Land Registry to that part built upon. This would not apply to the remainder of the boundary wall. The consideration is then the upkeep of the wall.
Possible resolutions
- If I accept part of the boundary wall belongs to the neighbours they are free to remove and fell any tree that has it's roots in that part of the wall, although notification of felling will be required as the brash and wood is likely to fall on the ELF property. Sadly this may include the holly tree.
- I am also considering the coppicing of trees within a few meters of the boundary to assist in limiting wind blown leaves and allowing more light to the pool.
- Clearly any ash within 'falling distance' of the boundary can also be felled, by the neighbours with agreement or will be done as seems timely by me
- Tania's idea of buying some 30 feet is currently not acceptable such a transfer could lead to further desire to acquire land and I see no justification for such a transfer other than to extend control. I pointed out that 'they' knew the limits of their property on purchase and the encumbrance of overhanging trees, which parts can be removed without trespass or overreaching.
- Concerns about future owners of ELF can be addresses by a contractual agreement or a charge on any ELF property transferred. It must be noted that to enforce either a charge of contract that is not being fulfilled may require a a court order and consequential expenses.
- Agreement of the upkeep on the wall, and acknowledgment of the the ownership not just of the reminder of that wall but the rest of common boundaries.
- I had previously mentioned, to Gavin, the option of using the wall for grape vines which would require clearing substantial ground for planting and adequate light
12:04 After informing Gavin of this post, by video chat, of the above text, a few other issues arose, which I have addressed by edits
13:31 Some edits and updates carried out.
15:59 More edits and updates carried out.
Thursday 10th Had a chat with Jerry or is that Gerry? and said I consider that as the pool edge was built on to the wall I consider it theirs in the sense that they would want to maintain it, so cutting all the trees from it makes sense. So although the mall may be registered as belonging to ELF I have no effective control over it and accept that in effect it's ownership has been transferred.
This could also apply to the remaining boundary as now I have had a look it seems that Harewood Gardens has been extended some couple of meters on to the land shown as belonging to ELF on the deeds and title. As I imagine this was done many years ago that land is effectively lost.
I will draw a map with measurements to outline what I consider the boundary to be with certain entitlements to both parties.
UpDate 20:49 I saw Tania after 6pm to say I was about to clear some dead ash some distance from the boundary to make it easier to fell those close to the boundary. There was a slightly uncomfortable talk about the ownership of the boundary and it's use, focusing on that Tania didn't want it used for growing grapes etc. as she felt uncomfortable having people so close. This discomfort that Tania has is going to be difficult to address not just in owner rights and ethics, but as philosophical engagement.
An in-depth look at the old deeds etc. may help to clarify, but the start of the argument is as laid out in comment 1. This is the building of the wall and thence who is responsible for maintenance and third how are both sides accesses.
Printer Friendly Layout 
