He builds a pool next to his neighbor’s tree and ends up forced to pay for treatments to save it because the work affected the roots

have a swimming pool at home is the dream of many people and some homeowners choose to build one in the garden if they have enough space to do so. But sometimes what may seem like an advantage to enjoy on hot days can end up causing problems with neighbors when the works affect elements that are close to the boundaries of both properties. This is what happened to an Australian homeowner who installed a pool next to his neighbor’s tree and ended up forced to pay for the treatments necessary to recover it after digging damaged its roots.

According to news.com.authe man built a pool in the backyard of his house in November 2023, but very close to a pine tree that was located on the neighbor’s property. Some time later he realized that the idea had not been so good because the proximity to the tree caused him certain discomfort, such as fallen leaves and pine needles in the water that ended up in the purifier, affecting the pool’s filtration system, and also taking away light.

The fall of leaves was such that the owner of the pool took the case to court to say that it should be cut down; However, the situation ended up turning against them, since until before the construction of the pool the tree did not lose as many leaves, and problems began to appear as a result of their work.

The pool works damaged the roots and ended up stressing the tree

The experts determined that during the excavations the protected area of ​​the roots had been entered without first consulting an arborist or carrying out tests to verify where they extended.

Specifically, the works affected 17.7% of the structural zone of the roots and the protection area of ​​the tree. After these works, part of the crown began to turn brown and the specimen showed signs of stress.

This deterioration also caused a greater drop of leaves, exactly one of the problems for which the owner of the pool requested that the tree be removed.

The court summed it up by pointing out that the owner “has asked for the problem of the accumulation of dry leaves in the pool,” since he decided to build it knowing that it was located under the existing branches.

For this reason, he rejected that the cost of solving the situation had to fall on the owner of the tree.

He wanted the tree cut down, but he will have to pay for the treatments to get it back

The Justice also rejected the request to completely cut down the pine. Although he acknowledged that its location was not the most appropriate and went so far as to describe the case as “the wrong tree in the wrong place,” he considered that it was still a healthy specimen and that there were other solutions before resorting to felling.

“There is clearly no basis to order the felling of the tree at this time,” states the resolution, which considers that pruning can sufficiently reduce the inconvenience.

The owner of the pool will now have to pay for the actions necessary to repair the damage caused by the excavations, including three soil treatments with organic biological products and at least one treatment with pesticides to try to restore the health of the roots.

In addition, six months after starting this work, you will have to undertake pruning to reduce the branches that protrude over the pool by approximately half.

The tree owner will also subsequently have to bear the cost of ordinary pruning within a period of between 12 and 18 months.

The resolution also includes measures to prevent the confrontation between the two from continuing to grow. The man admitted in court that he had been throwing seeds, pods and pine needles that he collected on his land over the fence, a practice he agreed to stop doing.