On Apr 3, 9:03 am, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "Pongo Potts" contains these words:

"George" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Apr 2007 13:35:02 -0700, "
wrote:

I asked a friend tonight who came to supper, he is a lawyer, he says
you can reduce the height of the hedge now to 6 feet (or was that 2
metres).

********.

And if a neighbour were to set foot on my land and hack at my hedge, I
would empty a double-barrel shotgun in his face.

yes, sure you would.............

Sounds exactly like the type that would have an overly-high hedge, doesn't he!

IIRC legislation covering high hedges come under the 'anti-social' heading?

--
AnneJ

There is leglisation in place where hedges that take your right to
light can be cut but I don't know the full details.

Judith

Mike Lyle wrote:
p.k. wrote:
Rhiannon Macfie Miller wrote:
At the bottom of my garden (the south end) is a Leylandii-type
hedge.

who owns the hedge?

My question, too. Oh, dear. If Rhiannon owns it, then she can do what
she likes, but it may perhaps save a bit of hassle if she does it now.
If you don't own it, I'd suggest getting it sympathetically trimmed
right away: new owners next door can't complain at routine
maintenance.

According to the deeds I have, we have 'sole responsibility' for
maintaining that particular boundary, which I assume means that it's
ours. However, whether the new neighbours know this is another matter…

It sounds like, if I'm doing things before the neighbours move in, then
I'm best off getting done what I planned to ask permission for, which
was to cut it down to slightly below the level it was at when we moved
in: this would take it down to about six or seven feet.

I'd still ideally like to get it taken out altogether (and replaced with
a low fence or a pretty hedge), but I don't want to pay the tree
surgeons twice (once to cut and once to take out). I might therefore
wait until the neighbours move in and talk it over with them, and see if
they're amenable to a change in boundary.

Rhiannon

Rhiannon Macfie Miller wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
p.k. wrote:
Rhiannon Macfie Miller wrote:
At the bottom of my garden (the south end) is a Leylandii-type
hedge.

who owns the hedge?

My question, too. Oh, dear. If Rhiannon owns it, then she can do what
she likes, but it may perhaps save a bit of hassle if she does it
now. If you don't own it, I'd suggest getting it sympathetically
trimmed right away: new owners next door can't complain at routine
maintenance.

According to the deeds I have, we have 'sole responsibility' for
maintaining that particular boundary, which I assume means that it's
ours. However, whether the new neighbours know this is another
matter.
snip

You may be responsible for the boundary, but the trees may still be on your
neighbours land.
Don't your deeds give any clue as to where the boundary is? A specific
distance from house wall? In a continuing straight line from your next door
neighbours? Frankly, until you establish ownership, I wouldn't touch them.
Have a look here............
http://www.together.gov.uk/category.asp?c=132
and the links on that page
--
ßôyþëtë
London, UK

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...


Unless he turns out to be worse than the previous owner. I would cut it to
the ground now.

Steve


I would not regard a row of Leylandi type trees as a hedge.
I agree with Steve - fell them while there is no-one there to stop you !

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

BoyPete wrote:
Don't your deeds give any clue as to where the boundary is? A specific
distance from house wall?

There's the length of each boundary of the land, and that's it, so I
suppose I could measure the east and west boundaries and work out where
the south boundary lies from that… However I think it sounds like it
would be best to wait until the new neighbours move in.

Rhiannon

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 06:10:40 +0100, "Pongo Potts"
wrote:


"George" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Apr 2007 13:35:02 -0700, "
wrote:

I asked a friend tonight who came to supper, he is a lawyer, he says
you can reduce the height of the hedge now to 6 feet (or was that 2
metres).

********.

And if a neighbour were to set foot on my land and hack at my hedge, I
would empty a double-barrel shotgun in his face.


yes, sure you would.............

Try it...

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:45:22 GMT, "zaax"
wrote:

George wrote:

On 2 Apr 2007 13:35:02 -0700, "
wrote:

I asked a friend tonight who came to supper, he is a lawyer, he says
you can reduce the height of the hedge now to 6 feet (or was that 2
metres).

********.

And if a neighbour were to set foot on my land and hack at my hedge, I
would empty a double-barrel shotgun in his face.

So you have a fire arms licence

Yes.

and your threatening people with a shot gun.

I'm not threatening anyone.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:03:59 +0100, Anne Jackson
wrote:

Sounds exactly like the type that would have an overly-high hedge, doesn't he!

IIRC legislation covering high hedges come under the 'anti-social' heading?

I find encouraging people to trespass and commit criminal damage
anti-social.

On 3 Apr 2007 08:53:35 -0700, "
wrote:

On Apr 3, 9:03 am, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "Pongo Potts" contains these words:

"George" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Apr 2007 13:35:02 -0700, "
wrote:

I asked a friend tonight who came to supper, he is a lawyer, he says
you can reduce the height of the hedge now to 6 feet (or was that 2
metres).

********.

And if a neighbour were to set foot on my land and hack at my hedge, I
would empty a double-barrel shotgun in his face.

yes, sure you would.............

Sounds exactly like the type that would have an overly-high hedge, doesn't he!

IIRC legislation covering high hedges come under the 'anti-social' heading?

--
AnneJ

There is leglisation in place where hedges that take your right to
light can be cut but I don't know the full details.

There is no "right to light" in gardens.

On 2 Apr 2007 14:43:26 -0700, "
wrote:

On Apr 2, 10:22 pm, K wrote:
" writes



On Apr 2, 7:00 pm, Rhiannon Macfie Miller
wrote:
At the bottom of my garden (the south end) is a Leylandii-type hedge.
When we moved in two years ago it was already a little higher than I'd
have liked, and we've not had time to do anything about it up till now;
the neighbours to the side of us also told us that the people on the
other side of the hedge had argued with the previous owner about the
hedge, which made us chary of approaching them about it. Recently we've
had more time, but the hedge is now too high for us to feel comfortable
cutting ourselves, and so I'd be looking to get a professional in to cut
it.

Finally, today, I went round to the house to ask permission to reduce
the height of the hedge. There was nobody there, and no furniture
visible through the windows either. Further investigation on the net
revealed that the house has recently been listed for sale, and has
therefore presumably just been sold. So, my question is: do I quickly
get the hedge cut before someone moves in, or should I wait an
unspecified amount of time in the hope that the new neighbour will be
amenable to a lower chop or complete removal of the hedge?

I asked a friend tonight who came to supper, he is a lawyer, he says
you can reduce the height of the hedge now to 6 feet (or was that 2
metres).

Isn't the question of whose hedge it is relevant? If it's the
neighbour's hedge, then I'd be surprised if she could legally cut it
down (although whether anyone would notice in the middle of a house sale
is a moot point), though she'd still have the usual right to chop back
anything overhanging her side.

If it's jointly owned she ought to wait till she can consult.

If it's her hedge, then the neighbour can invoke the high hedges
legislation and ask for it to be cut back.

But is your legal friend saying that there's a minimum height below
which it can't be cut? Surely not?

No, not at all Kay, my friend said that the hedge had to be kept to
2 metres if it was taking her light, I should have read it more
carefully before I answered.

You either:

a) Don't really have a friend who's a lawyer

or

b) Have a friend who is a lawyer who doesn't know what they're talking
about.

Which one is it?

Rhiannon Macfie Miller wrote:

I don't really know Scottish legislation on this point so can't comment
but about this:

Further investigation on the net revealed that the house has recently been
listed for sale, and has therefore presumably just been sold.

Are you certain the house has been sold?
If it hasn't, it may be worth having a word with the estate agent if you
can find who they a a nice, trimmed hedge may actually contribute to
their sale, as in, it looks better than a shabby one.
Then, once people have visited they have seen the short(er) hedge and
can't complain about it.

Just a thought.


Greg

--

Have you ever really considered how much your buildings actually weigh?

No ficus = no spam

In message , Pete Stockdale
writes

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...


Unless he turns out to be worse than the previous owner. I would cut it to
the ground now.

Steve


I would not regard a row of Leylandi type trees as a hedge.

It certainly is considered so within the 'high hedges' legislation (but
that doesn't apply AFAIK here, as the OP is in Scotland)
--
Chris French

"

I would not regard a row of Leylandi type trees as a hedge.

It certainly is considered so within the 'high hedges' legislation (but
that doesn't apply AFAIK here, as the OP is in Scotland)
--

When does a group of trees become a hedge? Even if they are clearly set
back from the boundary and maybe mixed species, they will still have the
same light blocking effect. If you have a copse, orchard or arboretum could
the same restrictions apply?

On 3/4/07 18:19, in article , "Rhiannon
Macfie Miller" wrote:

Mike Lyle wrote:
p.k. wrote:
Rhiannon Macfie Miller wrote:
At the bottom of my garden (the south end) is a Leylandii-type
hedge.

who owns the hedge?

My question, too. Oh, dear. If Rhiannon owns it, then she can do what
she likes, but it may perhaps save a bit of hassle if she does it now.
If you don't own it, I'd suggest getting it sympathetically trimmed
right away: new owners next door can't complain at routine
maintenance.

According to the deeds I have, we have 'sole responsibility' for
maintaining that particular boundary, which I assume means that it's
ours. However, whether the new neighbours know this is another matterŠ

If it's yours, you can do what you like, as long as you don't harm your
neighbour's property. They might prefer the mess to be out of the way
*before* they move in! Perhaps you could ask the estate agents either to
inform them of what you're planning or for their contact address so that you
can tell them yourself.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

In article ,
Sacha writes:
| On 3/4/07 18:19, in article , "Rhiannon
| Macfie Miller" wrote:
|
| According to the deeds I have, we have 'sole responsibility' for
| maintaining that particular boundary, which I assume means that it's
| ours. However, whether the new neighbours know this is another matterŠ
|
| If it's yours, you can do what you like, as long as you don't harm your
| neighbour's property. They might prefer the mess to be out of the way
| *before* they move in! Perhaps you could ask the estate agents either to
| inform them of what you're planning or for their contact address so that you
| can tell them yourself.

But that condition is only HALF the story - the hedge must also have
been planted on the owner's property, and not under an arrangement with
the other people. It is common for property A to have sole responsibility
for a boundary, but the actual hedge to have been planted by the owners of
and on property B and the boundary described in the deeds not to exist as
a construction any longer.

So, IF the deeds say that AND it is on your property, any reasonable
person would assume that it is yours, in the absence of other evidence.
And then I would just go ahead. But DO check where it is planted first!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.