On 26/10/04 17:00, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

The fuss is because many such hedges are *not* managed properly and the one
the OP is talking about is a case in point. It was allowed to get much too
tall and still is, from their point of view, I should think. While *you*
are managing your hedge, all is well but what if you sell the house? Will
the next owner be as conscientious, have the time, care as much?

Oh, for heaven's sake! I'm willing to take responsibility for what I do
in my garden while it is my garden, but I do not see that I have
responsibility to manage it a way that would ensure a future owner could
not annoy the neighbours.

But it is leylandii with which this problem of neglect so often arises and
then so *fast* and that is why the subject arises on here rather a lot. And
it is why people like me who loathe and detest the things and have
'suffered' from them, take the view we do. You have a different one and
you're welcome to it. Any badly managed hedge is a potential blot but it's
leylandii that seem to outstrip all other complaints.

After all, this argument also applies to beech hedges - *you* may manage
your beech hedge, but a future owner may not and, after all, beech are
forest trees. If you follow this argument, then the only allowable
hedges are those from shrubs which will never reach more than 6 ft.

Perhaps that would be a good idea in places where others can suffer from a
neighbour's lack of consideration.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)