"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

Depending on the subsoil, I'd intuitively go for three foot. A fence
is pretty well a straight line, so unlike a house there wouldn't be
any part of the structure supporting at right angles. A block wall
with buttresses might turn out to be cheaper in the long run. If the
*******s don't kick it down before the mortar's gone off.

Why don't we consider a strained wire netting fence on concrete posts
for the outside, with anything you fancy which costs little and looks
nice on the safe side? I'm a supporter of public footpaths on
principle, but this is the real world, so it would hardly be your
fault if half a dozen Himalayan Giant brambles unkindly chose to
establish themselves and grow into a homicidal tip-rooting thicket on
the public side. After all, you only planted them to cover up the
ugliness of the netting fence, and give passers-by a few tasty
charitable berries in due season. If the Council wanted to come along
with a bit of weedkiller, well, you'd still have a kick-proof fence;
and there'd be seeds in the ground by then anyhow.

Mike.

I like your thinking It's interesting to look at the 30-or-so houses
that back onto the footpath to see what my neighbours have done. There's a
couple of breeze block walls, some chain link fences and a few good laurel
or privet hedges, with added spiky surprises. A few innovative types have
used enormous sheets (up to 8' high) of some kind of hardboard.

Perhaps an actual wall is the best option after all. I really want the
instant privacy from wandering toerags and something that's pretty permanent
so I can plant a nice thick mass in front of it and not have to worry about
having to leave access for repairs.

Could anyone give me a rough clue of how much I'd have to pay for a 20' x 6'
invincible block wall. (Don't forget to add 30% near-Oxford tax

cheers again,
G.A.