My Oxford home is let. It has a very small triangular back garden with two lelandiis in the corner, one very very tall and one slightly shorter. Next to the garage at the side if the house is another and along the front wall are 4 more.

I can hear you saying, why has this person allowed them to become so tall. Don't ask, it is a big mistake..... However my neighbour is having problems with the TV signal. I have made enquiries as to cost of having them reduced and one company suggested removal of them. Although I believe in conservation, these trees are a big problem and although they are great specimins, I have no desire to keep them. However the back garden trees are about 20 feet from the house, the side one about 5 and the front garden also about 20. The front ones have already pushed up a driveway paving slab.
Any suggestions on the best way to deal with these giants....... been there at least 20 years!

In article ,
redg writes:
|
| My Oxford home is let. It has a very small triangular back garden with
| two lelandiis in the corner, one very very tall and one slightly
| shorter. Next to the garage at the side if the house is another and
| along the front wall are 4 more.

It it almost certainly your landlord's responsibility, but the only
sane thing to do is remove them. They are FAR too close to the house,
and the insurers might refuse to pay if they damage it or someone
else's property.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , says...

In article ,
redg writes:
|
| My Oxford home is let. It has a very small triangular back garden with
| two lelandiis in the corner, one very very tall and one slightly
| shorter. Next to the garage at the side if the house is another and
| along the front wall are 4 more.

It it almost certainly your landlord's responsibility, but the only
sane thing to do is remove them. They are FAR too close to the house,
and the insurers might refuse to pay if they damage it or someone
else's property.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I read it that the OP is the landlord?
Any way the sooner you bite the bullet and get them down the better, the
longer you leave it the more costly it will become. If using a reputable
(insured) tree surgeon then they will be well used to dealing with trees
such as those you describe. Perhaps you could replace one or more with
something more suitable?
--
Charlie Pridham, Gardening in Cornwall
www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of national collections of Clematis viticella cultivars and
Lapageria rosea

In article ,
Charlie Pridham writes:
|
| I read it that the OP is the landlord?

Ah, I see. That simplifies things.

| Any way the sooner you bite the bullet and get them down the better, the
| longer you leave it the more costly it will become. ...

And the higher the chance that they will come down in a storm, causing
costly damage and a row with the insurers.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[quote=Nick Maclaren;767819]In article ,
Charlie Pridham writes:

Not sure if I am doing this reply correctly. Yes I am the landlord and posted the message. I would very much like to end the problem but I understand that by removing them completely, there could be structural damage beneath the house, either drying out of roots or water remaining under the house with them all being so near to it. They are massive trees! I've left it too long but no good moaning about it, onwards and downwards hopefully!

I will get in touch with a tree surgeon. My agents have already got quotes for reducing them but they are pretty useless at getting any other reliable information for me. About 700 sterling pounds to halve them including removal of waste. Is it cheaper to just ged rid of them ? I am overseas and sometimes things aren't that simple. I searched the internet yesterday to try and find a website that offered information relating to the removal and any subsequent problems but to no avail.

Thanks for your replies, appreciated.

On 31 Dec, 11:31, redg wrote:
Nick Maclaren;767819 Wrote:



In article ,
Charlie Pridham writes:

Not sure if I am doing this reply correctly. Yes I am the landlord and
posted the message. I would very much like to end the problem but I
understand that by removing them completely, there could be structural
damage beneath the house, either drying out of roots or water remaining
under the house with them all being so near to it. They are massive
trees! I've left it too long but no good moaning about it, onwards and
downwards hopefully!

I will get in touch with a tree surgeon. My agents have already got
quotes for reducing them but they are pretty useless at getting any
other reliable information for me. About 700 sterling pounds to halve
them including removal of waste. Is it cheaper to just ged rid of them
? I am overseas and sometimes things aren't that simple. I searched the
internet yesterday to try and find a website that offered information
relating to the removal and any subsequent problems but to no avail.

Thanks for your replies, appreciated.

--
redg



Why not have them cut down to 6 or 7ft stumps and then use these for
growing something like climbing roses, clematis etc over.
David Hill
Abacus Nurseries

In article ,
Dave Hill writes:
|
| Why not have them cut down to 6 or 7ft stumps and then use these for
| growing something like climbing roses, clematis etc over.

If you kill them, in 5-10 years their roots will rot and they will
fall over. If you don't, they will regrow and be as much trouble
in 5-10 years.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 30 Dec, 13:17, redg wrote:
My Oxford home is let. It has a very small triangular back garden with
two lelandiis in the corner, one very very tall and one slightly
shorter.

It's time to bite the bullet, call (more than one) tree surgeon to get
a price for complete removal.

It's not worth buggering about trying to save money when an accident
could be nasty.

So you all reckon I should get it done, but no comments about the undergound structural damage where the roots have reached. That's my big worry.

On 1 Jan, 05:29, redg wrote:
So you all reckon I should get it done, but no comments about the
undergound structural damage where the roots have reached. That's my

That's why you need the professionals.

In general all the Leylandii I have taken down have had a root ball no
wider than the crown, but I live on heavy clay. The nature of root
growth is a complicated thing, depending on underground conditions.

In article ,
says...

;768016 Wrote:
On 30 Dec, 13:17, redg wrote:-
My Oxford home is let. It has a very small triangular back garden
with
two lelandiis in the corner, one very very tall and one slightly
shorter.-

It's time to bite the bullet, call (more than one) tree surgeon to get
a price for complete removal.

It's not worth buggering about trying to save money when an accident
could be nasty.

So you all reckon I should get it done, but no comments about the
undergound structural damage where the roots have reached. That's my
big worry.




--
redg

If you are on clay worry, but otherwise if not showing signs of cracks
now and you have them down you should be fine. Even on clay the sooner
they are removed the less likely you are to get "heave" after.
--
Charlie Pridham, Gardening in Cornwall
www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of national collections of Clematis viticella cultivars and
Lapageria rosea

In article ,
writes:
| On 1 Jan, 05:29, redg wrote:
|
| So you all reckon I should get it done, but no comments about the
| undergound structural damage where the roots have reached. That's my
|
| That's why you need the professionals.

Precisely.

| In general all the Leylandii I have taken down have had a root ball no
| wider than the crown, but I live on heavy clay. The nature of root
| growth is a complicated thing, depending on underground conditions.

But I think that the OP is misunderstanding. They will not remove
the roots, because that is unnecessary and likely to cause damage.
Leylandii will not regrow from the stump or roots, and they will
rot over a period of years - which is not a problem.

The main potential problem is heave and shrinkage, causes by the
amount of water that will no longer be extracted and the decay of
the root system. But, as people have said, that is primarily an
issue for clay - also, if their growth hasn't caused problems, their
removal probably won't.

However, real, local professionals will be able to judge FAR better
than us at our keyboards.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:32:04 -0800 (PST),
wrote and included this (or some of this):

On 1 Jan, 05:29, redg wrote:
So you all reckon I should get it done, but no comments about the
undergound structural damage where the roots have reached. That's my

That's why you need the professionals.

In general all the Leylandii I have taken down have had a root ball no
wider than the crown, but I live on heavy clay. The nature of root
growth is a complicated thing, depending on underground conditions.

Last month I had most of the trees in my front garden removed.
(mostly inherited stuff when I moved in)
]
6 large old Leylandii, were about 11' high and all at least 8' wide
and too near neighbour's drive.

1 overgrown Mahonia

2 large beech trees, far too near to pavement and neighbour's drive.

Sundry wild seeded trees in amongst the above.

Got a little man in who felled the lot in 3 hours, chipped up
everything in a flatbed for recycling.

A bargain at £250 (and the neighbour chipped in a £100 to help!)

--
®óñ© © ²°¹°-°²
..

On 31 Dec 2007, 19:12, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
In article ,Dave Hill writes:

|
| Why not have them cut down to 6 or 7ft stumps and then use these for
| growing something like climbing roses, clematis etc over.

If you kill them, in 5-10 years their roots will rot and they will
fall over. If you don't, they will regrow and be as much trouble
in 5-10 years.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I have never known Leylandii regrow from the trunk, only from
remaining green growth.
And if you get 5 to 10 years of use as a support then that's not bad
as most posts used for the job would only last that long, and by then
you have no problems with having to dig out the stumps.
David Hill
Abacus Nurseries

In article 85590a8f-a1bb-4a7a-a1bc-321c4869ec71
@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Dave Hill says...
On 31 Dec 2007, 19:12, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
In article ,Dave Hill writes:

|
| Why not have them cut down to 6 or 7ft stumps and then use these for
| growing something like climbing roses, clematis etc over.

If you kill them, in 5-10 years their roots will rot and they will
fall over. If you don't, they will regrow and be as much trouble
in 5-10 years.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I have never known Leylandii regrow from the trunk, only from
remaining green growth.
And if you get 5 to 10 years of use as a support then that's not bad
as most posts used for the job would only last that long, and by then
you have no problems with having to dig out the stumps.
David Hill
Abacus Nurseries

That is what we did at our old house. The previous owner
had a row of Leylandii as a hedge, but prior to selling had
cut them off at 6 feet. They looked awful. I finished the
job by removing all the side branches and using them as
fence posts. I fastened some chain link fencing to them (to
keep our dogs in) and planted up with a mixed hedgerow of
pyracanthus, hawthorne, holly and berberris. After a few
years it looked really good and the tree trunks and chain
link were invisible, lost in the hedge foliage. The trunks
made no attempt to re-grow with the exception of one trunk
which produced a half hearted shoot then died.
--
David in Normandy