In article , David@chapelllhou
se.demon.co.uk writes

Have you ever seen any reports of structural damage Jane? the roots are
shallow and weak, how are they going to cause damage? I think this is a
fallacy, but if anyone has any evidence...

When my brother in law wanted to build an extension, he was told by the
planning people that, because there was a leylandii growing within x
feet (where I can't remember what x was) he would have to make his
extension foundations some ridiculous depth - I can't remember the
figure but it would have been impossible for a man to stand up in and
throw the diggings out (

And when we pulled out leylandii that were about 10 years old and had
reached about 30 feet, the roots went for yards and yards. I think it
has something to do with the fact that they withdraw so much moisture
from the soil.
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms
at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see

in article , David
@chapelllhouse.demon.co.uk at David @chapelllhouse.demon.co.uk wrote on
21/9/03 6:50 pm:

In article , Sacha
writes
This is not true. If it were, there wouldn't be even the glimmering of a
beginning to control their use. Of course leylandii are problem plants in
urban and suburban use.

I think the cases that have been highlighted are so extreme that it was
felt something had to be done, look at the numbers though Sacha, the
problems are very much in the minority.

snip

Look at the numbers, David and tell me of ONE other single hedging plant
being considered for legislative action because of its antisocial use. Just
one.
--

Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)

in article , David
@chapelllhouse.demon.co.uk at David @chapelllhouse.demon.co.uk wrote on
21/9/03 6:50 pm:

In article , Sacha
writes
This is not true. If it were, there wouldn't be even the glimmering of a
beginning to control their use. Of course leylandii are problem plants in
urban and suburban use.

I think the cases that have been highlighted are so extreme that it was
felt something had to be done, look at the numbers though Sacha, the
problems are very much in the minority.

snip

Look at the numbers, David and tell me of ONE other single hedging plant
being considered for legislative action because of its antisocial use. Just
one.
--

Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)

In article , Sacha
writes
in article , David
at David @chapelllhouse.demon.co.uk wrote on
21/9/03 6:50 pm:

In article , Sacha
writes
This is not true. If it were, there wouldn't be even the glimmering of a
beginning to control their use. Of course leylandii are problem plants in
urban and suburban use.

I think the cases that have been highlighted are so extreme that it was
felt something had to be done, look at the numbers though Sacha, the
problems are very much in the minority.

snip

Look at the numbers, David and tell me of ONE other single hedging plant
being considered for legislative action because of its antisocial use. Just
one.

Laurel.

The draft legislation refers to any evergreen, not just to leylandii
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
Look at the numbers, David and tell me of ONE other single hedging plant
being considered for legislative action because of its antisocial use.
Just
one.

Laurel.

The draft legislation refers to any evergreen, not just to leylandii


The legislation has to be drafted that way as, if it is specific wrt the
botanical name of (say) Leylandii or to its common name, it is open to
argument whether a particular hedge is of that type thus rendering the law
useless against the very people it is intended to control, as they would use
the system to delay and obfusticate.

"Evergreen hedge" is clear and unambiguous, and if it catches the very rare
instance of an antisocial Evergreen other than Leyandii then all well and
good.

pk

in article , Kay Easton at
wrote on 22/9/03 7:23 am:

In article , Sacha
writes
in article , David
@chapelllhouse.demon.co.uk at David @chapelllhouse.demon.co.uk wrote on
21/9/03 6:50 pm:

In article , Sacha
writes
This is not true. If it were, there wouldn't be even the glimmering of a
beginning to control their use. Of course leylandii are problem plants in
urban and suburban use.

I think the cases that have been highlighted are so extreme that it was
felt something had to be done, look at the numbers though Sacha, the
problems are very much in the minority.

snip

Look at the numbers, David and tell me of ONE other single hedging plant
being considered for legislative action because of its antisocial use. Just
one.

Laurel.

The draft legislation refers to any evergreen, not just to leylandii

That makes sense but it is the leylandii mis-use that has led to the need
for this legislation. One hardly - if ever - reads of another hedging plant
allowed to grow to 70' or more and cause a nuisance to neighbours.

--

Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)

In article , Sacha
writes
in article , David
at David @chapelllhouse.demon.co.uk wrote on
21/9/03 6:50 pm:

In article , Sacha
writes
This is not true. If it were, there wouldn't be even the glimmering of a
beginning to control their use. Of course leylandii are problem plants in
urban and suburban use.

I think the cases that have been highlighted are so extreme that it was
felt something had to be done, look at the numbers though Sacha, the
problems are very much in the minority.

snip

Look at the numbers, David and tell me of ONE other single hedging plant
being considered for legislative action because of its antisocial use. Just
one.

Why have they called it the high hedges bill then and not the tall
Leylandii bill? I still say its the extreme nature of the few cases that
have forced the call for action rather than the quantity
--
David

In article , Sacha
writes
snip

Look at the numbers, David and tell me of ONE other single hedging plant
being considered for legislative action because of its antisocial use. Just
one.

Laurel.

The draft legislation refers to any evergreen, not just to leylandii

That makes sense but it is the leylandii mis-use that has led to the need
for this legislation. One hardly - if ever - reads of another hedging plant
allowed to grow to 70' or more and cause a nuisance to neighbours.

Its not just the height though that makes it a nuisance hedge, one of
the main stories on the front page of hedgeline was about a privet IIRC,
the bill (if it ever comes to pass!) should not just address the height
but also suitability, width, placement etc.
--
David

Sad Sid wrote in message ...
My neighbour to the West has a "traditional" mixed hedge which he is
forever
trimming. Despite this it is full of bramble, bindweed and nettle.


Which is the more wildlife friendly I wonder? ;-)

The unsightly mess, without a doubt. Slugs, in particular, live there
in
vast numbers.

They may very well live there, but then so also will their predators,
Leylandii has little going for it for wildlife other that somewhere for
birds to build nests, but they cannot get any food from them, they have
to rely on mixed hedgerows for that.

Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk

Kay Easton wrote in message
You are overstating. There are many well maintained lleylandii round
our
area. It is wrong to say 'this rarely happens'.

I'm sorry you have had a bad experience. But just because you have had
a
bad experience doesn't mean to say everyone should be banned from
having
leylandii.

Perhaps but it is often the fact that the original owner keeps it under
control, then the house is sold, and the new owners may not know the
potential problems with leylandii, and let it grow for a season without
trimming it because they are too busy with the house, then you have a
hedge that has grown 4 feet, and is becoming a nuisance. Also leylandii
is very unforgiving for novices, and it can easily be cut back too far,
thus causing a hedge with brown sides, instead of the green. Almost all
other hedges will take very severe trimming with no ill effect, and
some even relish that.

When I moved into my house it had 20, 30ft+ leylandii round its
boundary, the ones in the front I am not allowed to remove, but have had
them cut down at considerable expense. The rest I cut down.

Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk

Sad Sid wrote in message ...
My neighbour to the West has a "traditional" mixed hedge which he is
forever
trimming. Despite this it is full of bramble, bindweed and nettle.


Which is the more wildlife friendly I wonder? ;-)

The unsightly mess, without a doubt. Slugs, in particular, live there
in
vast numbers.

They may very well live there, but then so also will their predators,
Leylandii has little going for it for wildlife other that somewhere for
birds to build nests, but they cannot get any food from them, they have
to rely on mixed hedgerows for that.

Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk

Kay Easton wrote in message
You are overstating. There are many well maintained lleylandii round
our
area. It is wrong to say 'this rarely happens'.

I'm sorry you have had a bad experience. But just because you have had
a
bad experience doesn't mean to say everyone should be banned from
having
leylandii.

Perhaps but it is often the fact that the original owner keeps it under
control, then the house is sold, and the new owners may not know the
potential problems with leylandii, and let it grow for a season without
trimming it because they are too busy with the house, then you have a
hedge that has grown 4 feet, and is becoming a nuisance. Also leylandii
is very unforgiving for novices, and it can easily be cut back too far,
thus causing a hedge with brown sides, instead of the green. Almost all
other hedges will take very severe trimming with no ill effect, and
some even relish that.

When I moved into my house it had 20, 30ft+ leylandii round its
boundary, the ones in the front I am not allowed to remove, but have had
them cut down at considerable expense. The rest I cut down.

Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk

In article , Michael
Berridge writes

Kay Easton wrote in message
You are overstating. There are many well maintained lleylandii round
our
area. It is wrong to say 'this rarely happens'.

I'm sorry you have had a bad experience. But just because you have had
a
bad experience doesn't mean to say everyone should be banned from
having
leylandii.

Perhaps but it is often the fact that the original owner keeps it under
control, then the house is sold, and the new owners may not know the
potential problems with leylandii, and let it grow for a season without
trimming it because they are too busy with the house, then you have a
hedge that has grown 4 feet, and is becoming a nuisance. Also leylandii
is very unforgiving for novices, and it can easily be cut back too far,
thus causing a hedge with brown sides, instead of the green. Almost all
other hedges will take very severe trimming with no ill effect, and
some even relish that.
When I moved into my house it had 20, 30ft+ leylandii round its
boundary, the ones in the front I am not allowed to remove, but have had
them cut down at considerable expense. The rest I cut down.

You obviously took this into account when you bought the house so what's
the problem? We all buy houses and change something or other, if you
didn't take the cost into account then its more fool you. In your case
you've done the opposite of what you highlighted as a problem
--
David

In article , Michael
Berridge writes

Kay Easton wrote in message
You are overstating. There are many well maintained lleylandii round
our
area. It is wrong to say 'this rarely happens'.

I'm sorry you have had a bad experience. But just because you have had
a
bad experience doesn't mean to say everyone should be banned from
having
leylandii.

Perhaps but it is often the fact that the original owner keeps it under
control, then the house is sold, and the new owners may not know the
potential problems with leylandii, and let it grow for a season without
trimming it because they are too busy with the house, then you have a
hedge that has grown 4 feet, and is becoming a nuisance. Also leylandii
is very unforgiving for novices, and it can easily be cut back too far,
thus causing a hedge with brown sides, instead of the green. Almost all
other hedges will take very severe trimming with no ill effect, and
some even relish that.
When I moved into my house it had 20, 30ft+ leylandii round its
boundary, the ones in the front I am not allowed to remove, but have had
them cut down at considerable expense. The rest I cut down.

You obviously took this into account when you bought the house so what's
the problem? We all buy houses and change something or other, if you
didn't take the cost into account then its more fool you. In your case
you've done the opposite of what you highlighted as a problem
--
David

Sad Sid wrote in message ...
My neighbour to the West has a "traditional" mixed hedge which he is
forever
trimming. Despite this it is full of bramble, bindweed and nettle.


Which is the more wildlife friendly I wonder? ;-)

The unsightly mess, without a doubt. Slugs, in particular, live there
in
vast numbers.

They may very well live there, but then so also will their predators,
Leylandii has little going for it for wildlife other that somewhere for
birds to build nests, but they cannot get any food from them, they have
to rely on mixed hedgerows for that.

Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk