On 28/10/04 8:53, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

In that case, they have been the 'in thing' for many years and for very good
reason. If they are the most planted hedge, they are the most planted hedge
causing the most annoyance, most suffering and most all round bloody
nuisance.

That still doesn't mean to say the are *always* a bad thing, and
*always* the wrong solution. I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem,
I'm arguing against the extreme reaction on urg whereby whenever
leylandii is mentioned someone always pops up and says 'prune them 6
inches below ground level'.

I make no bones about detesting leylandii but have also said that in the
right place, they have their uses. And IMO and that of many others, the
right place is not a small or suburban garden.

And I'm also arguing against the argument that we should plant our
gardens in such a way that no-one in the future should be able to use
our plantings to cause a nuisance to their neighbours.
Can we expect no-one to be responsible for their own actions any more?

Well, I always thought the philosophy of planting trees - and leylandii are
trees - is that you *do* plant for future generations. We don't advise
people to plant trees that will be giants blocking their front doors, on the
grounds that "the next owners or next generation can always cut it down."
It is my view and I thought it was a generally accepted one, that planting
trees IS the responsibility of the person doing it. You may not agree with
that in which case we shall have to agree to disagree, I hope.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)