In article , Sacha
writes
/5/04 11:28
+JA6qKoAFwbc@c hapelhouse.demon.co.uk

snip
Isn't that only for hedges though Sacha? which is why its called the
high hedges bill. I'm not sure if this will be a Leylandii though, the
impression is that this has grown a lot since last July, not the normal
behaviour of a newly planted Leylandii as I know from trying to infill
with them.

You may be right with regard to hedges - if so, there's a glaring loophole
right away. Even one monster tree can overshadow a neighbour's garden
badly. I'm not sure why you think it's not a leylandii - you mean it's
grown too fast?

Yes exactly, small ones certainly are very slow for 18mths to 2yrs and
then they grow like you would expect them to, the medium size specimens
I have put in have also been very sluggish for the first year or two.
--
David

On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:07:17 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:



It is said that one way of dealing with the problem, if one can reach
the stem surreptitiously, is to drill a half inch hole into it to a
depth of about an inch. Pack the hole with sodium chlorate and cover
the wound, disguising its presence as best one can. This is, of
course, quite illegal and should not be attempted, but it is
nevertheless said to do the trick.

Franz

Many years ago, an acquaintance of mine had a similar problem. Said
acquaintance got a long bamboo, a similar length of old hose pipe, a
funnel to fit said hose pipe, and a gallon or so of sodium chlorate
solution. Late one dark night, the bamboo, complete with hose tied to
it, was passed through the fence, and the sodium chlorate solution
silently applied to the root area of offending small tree, which
mysteriously expired over the next few weeks. Totally illegal of
course.....


(don't forget to wash out the hose pipe afterwards)



--
Chris

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

The message
from (Robbie) contains these words:

Wonder if anyone can help me here.

My next door neighbour moved in last year after the previous neighbour
was evicted for various tenancy breaches. Just before the previous
neighbour left, they planted what I can only imagine to be a leylandi
shrub. That was last July, and now the shrub / tree is over 8 foot
tall.

Are you suggesting that the evicted person planted the tree as an act
of revenge on the landlord? Anyway, in view of his predecessor's fate
the new tenant will no doubt be extra careful to obey his own tenancy
contract to the letter, and they commonly forbid a rental tenant to
remove garden plants and trees.

Regardless of his tenancy agreement, you are legally permitted to cut
back any overhanging branches to the boundary line. You should then
offer them to their owner, who is your neighbour's landlord. If he
doesn't want them, you can dispose of them.

What I would do is write a pleasant letter to the landlord explaining
the circumstances, and say something like "Please notify me whether you
want the cut branches returned to your rented property, or disposed of
by myself, which I am happy to do. Leylandii is a fast growing tree so
this problem will recur. If you prefer, I am willing to remove the
entire tree and dispose of it with no expense to yourself". Include a
stamped addressed envelope to encourage a reply, and keep a copy.

Janet.

"Matt Barton" wrote in message
...

"Robbie" wrote in message
om...

And can anyone guess how tall this monster is going to grow

If it is C. Leylandii then depending on conditions it could grow to 70-80
feet. At about 3-4 feet a year. If the bleedin' monster in my garden is
anything to go by. We've got a 10ft leylandii partway down the garden
(which was about 20 ft until the weekend before last) and three of them
right at the bottom of the garden which are about 50 ft - but since they
shield us from a railway line I'm happy about keeping them.

Another consideration is the roots the thing will be putting out - if it's
next to your fence then the roots will extend under the fence and into
your
garden.




Just out of interest, we have a row of the yellowish coloured Leylandii (not
sure what type) in our front garden. I planted them when they were 4 footers
about 2 years ago and they are only about 5/6.5 feet now, so I don't know
about them been fast growers as people say they are. The reason I planted
them was because of the supposedly fast growth, as we wanted privacy from
the main road.

Oh well.

--
Bob H
Leeds UK

No, I know you're not and I do take your very good point. But leylandii are
not suitable trees for those purposes. I can't see any problem with people
growing smallish specimen trees in city gardens and deriving and giving
great pleasure when planting them.

I suppose it depends on the definition of smallish. I like the roofline
to be broken up, which means in our area something like 20-30ft. Luckily
I have a church car park on one side, a public park to the north, shade
loving neighbours (with a grove of birch, and beyond them neighbours
with full grown horse chestnuts) to the W, so the only neighbours who
might be bothered are on the S, and what's shading their garden is their
own house!

My brother and his wife live in
Wandsworth and have a row of (IIRC) poplar trees at the bottom of their
garden which have had to be severely pollarded and trimmed but which do, at
least in summer, shield them from the neighbours at the bottom of their very
small garden.

grin
There was a row of those down our road in Sevenoaks - when I woke up
after the '87 storm, I looked out to see my car parked outside, with a
poplar neatly across the road just behind the rear bumper, and another
neatly just in front of the front bumper. And as daylight drew, I
realised this sequence - poplar, car, poplar, car - was repeated all the
way down the road in both directions.

At that point I realised I *wasn't* going to get to work that day.

Rhododendrons aren't trees, neither are Camellias but they can grow pretty
big and are evergreen AND can be clipped to the required size AND have
lovely flowers.

And they can take up the whole width of your garden! Whereas a tree is a
bush-on-a-stalk and you can still do things underneath ;-)

Don't forget, the last house I lived in (the one you came to) had rather a
small garden

In Leeds that would have been advertised as a large garden! Even in the
suburbs.

but someone had planted a potentially huge blue cedar in it
because they addmired the one in next door's MUCH bigger garden. I had the
horrible job of cutting down this lovely, still young tree because if I'd
left it to mature, nobody could have got in or out of the front door.

Yep. My mother used to plants deodar cedars then chop them down when
they reached 6in dia trunk and start again. There will come the time
when we have to fell our Araucaria, but for the moment it's giving us a
lot of pleasure.

We don't of course have any legal rights to sunshine in our gardens, and
if it's a building that's stopping the sun, there's not a thing we can
do. And IMO the Planning authorities are remarkably unconvinced by any
argument that a proposed building will shade your garden - though
personally I'd much prefer to be shaded by an inappropriate tree than by
someone's extension.
--
Kay Easton

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

In article , Victoria
Clare writes
Kay Easton wrote in
:

Am I the only person who likes trees in towns? It's OK for you country
dwellers with your huge or isolated gardens, but however much any of us
would like to live in the country, the majority of jobs are in the
towns, and so most of us live in towns. And towns can so easily be
walls, roofs, walls and more walls, with no greenery above eye level.

You are quite right - and town trees should be grown and kept, even if at
some inconvenience.

Whew! I was beginning to think I was the only one in step ;-)

But I do think evergreens are often particularly hated because they cut
out the light so completely, and all year round.

Is it perhaps from their use of hedges where they become a rectangle of
plain green - none of the shape and texture you expect from trees? then
the rest follows - drastic pruning at one side to leave bare trunks, use
as a weapon in neighbour wars, so eventually it's impossible to look at
even a lone conifer with any favour?

I was thinking a nice ornamental crabapple instead might be just the job ?

Variety is the spice of life. Have you ever looked at a 60's estate with
what I recall being described on Gardener's Question Time as Prunus
bloody ****ardii in nearly every garden?


--
Kay Easton

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

In article ,
writes
You may be right with regard to hedges - if so, there's a glaring loophole
right away. Even one monster tree can overshadow a neighbour's garden
badly.

Why should one have a right not to be shaded by a tree when one has no
right not to be shaded by a building?
--
Kay Easton

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

"Joanne" wrote in message
news:k31oc.271$wB.111@newsfe1-win...
"nambucca" wrote in message
...
Just before the previous
neighbour left, they planted what I can only imagine to be a leylandi
shrub. That was last July, and now the shrub / tree is over 8 foot
tall. Whilst the neighbour is fine, he doesn't want to cut the shrub
(he reckons it looks spectacular!) and it looks like by the end of
this summer it will be dwarfing our 4 foot fence by some considerable
height!

You are well within your rights to cut back roots and branches right
back
to
the boundary

But, AFAIK, if you cut back the roots or branches which results in damage
to
your neighbour's trees, then you're liable for that damage. Also, I
believe
the new "anti-social" legislation says that an evergreen hedge (defined as
3
or more trees in a row) cannot be higher than 2 metres, however, I don't
know if that applies to evergreen hedges that are already in existance. I
believe that you're entitled to cut back any branches that overhang your
property and you're supposed to "offer" the branches back to the tree's
owner (but the owner doesn't have to accept them).


I have yet to see any Leylandi fall over because its affected neighbour
chopped back the roots and branches to the boundary

It takes a hell of a lot to get any established Lelandii to keel over

In article , Kay Easton
writes
In article ,
writes
You may be right with regard to hedges - if so, there's a glaring loophole
right away. Even one monster tree can overshadow a neighbour's garden
badly.

Why should one have a right not to be shaded by a tree when one has no
right not to be shaded by a building?

err careful with the snipping Kay, I didn't say that
--
David

In article , Bob H
writes
Just out of interest, we have a row of the yellowish coloured Leylandii (not
sure what type) in our front garden. I planted them when they were 4 footers
about 2 years ago and they are only about 5/6.5 feet now, so I don't know
about them been fast growers as people say they are. The reason I planted
them was because of the supposedly fast growth, as we wanted privacy from
the main road.

Oh well.

They take a couple of years to get going Bob and then its 2-3' per year
--
David

Kay Easton11/5/04 8:33


No, I know you're not and I do take your very good point. But leylandii are
not suitable trees for those purposes. I can't see any problem with people
growing smallish specimen trees in city gardens and deriving and giving
great pleasure when planting them.

I suppose it depends on the definition of smallish. I like the roofline
to be broken up, which means in our area something like 20-30ft. Luckily
I have a church car park on one side, a public park to the north, shade
loving neighbours (with a grove of birch, and beyond them neighbours
with full grown horse chestnuts) to the W, so the only neighbours who
might be bothered are on the S, and what's shading their garden is their
own house!

Yes - but that is *your* set of circumstances and on the whole, you appear
to have something you can live with happily. If the neighbours who could do
so suddenly planted a row of leylandii to shade your garden, you might
perhaps feel differently about those 'beautiful' trees?

My brother and his wife live in
Wandsworth and have a row of (IIRC) poplar trees at the bottom of their
garden which have had to be severely pollarded and trimmed but which do, at
least in summer, shield them from the neighbours at the bottom of their very
small garden.

grin
There was a row of those down our road in Sevenoaks - when I woke up
after the '87 storm, I looked out to see my car parked outside, with a
poplar neatly across the road just behind the rear bumper, and another
neatly just in front of the front bumper. And as daylight drew, I
realised this sequence - poplar, car, poplar, car - was repeated all the
way down the road in both directions.

At that point I realised I *wasn't* going to get to work that day.

Rhododendrons aren't trees, neither are Camellias but they can grow pretty
big and are evergreen AND can be clipped to the required size AND have
lovely flowers.

And they can take up the whole width of your garden! Whereas a tree is a
bush-on-a-stalk and you can still do things underneath ;-)

You can do just the same with Camellias and Rhodos. As Keith Wiley (late of
The Garden House) would say "lift their skirts'. ;-) I did make the point
- I hope - that both can be kept to the required size.

Don't forget, the last house I lived in (the one you came to) had rather a
small garden

In Leeds that would have been advertised as a large garden! Even in the
suburbs.

All things are relative. ;-)

but someone had planted a potentially huge blue cedar in it
because they addmired the one in next door's MUCH bigger garden. I had the
horrible job of cutting down this lovely, still young tree because if I'd
left it to mature, nobody could have got in or out of the front door.

Yep. My mother used to plants deodar cedars then chop them down when
they reached 6in dia trunk and start again. There will come the time
when we have to fell our Araucaria, but for the moment it's giving us a
lot of pleasure.

We don't of course have any legal rights to sunshine in our gardens, and
if it's a building that's stopping the sun, there's not a thing we can
do. And IMO the Planning authorities are remarkably unconvinced by any
argument that a proposed building will shade your garden - though
personally I'd much prefer to be shaded by an inappropriate tree than by
someone's extension.

We may not have legal rights but it wouldn't hurt neighbours to consider
pure enjoyment of one's own garden. And given that a tree probably costs
less to plant and prune than an extension, I think I'd prefer to deal with a
neighbour with an inappropriate tree!


--

Sacha
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article ,
writes
In article , Kay Easton
writes
In article ,
writes
You may be right with regard to hedges - if so, there's a glaring loophole
right away. Even one monster tree can overshadow a neighbour's garden
badly.

Why should one have a right not to be shaded by a tree when one has no
right not to be shaded by a building?

err careful with the snipping Kay, I didn't say that

Sorry.
I can't recall who it was.
--
Kay Easton

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

Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:204119

In article ,
(Sacha) wrote:

I'm not sure why you think it's not a leylandii - you mean it's
grown too fast?

That's what I thought. They are slow starters

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com
A useful bit of gardening software at http://www.netservs.com/garden/

Steve Harris12/5/04 12:00

In article ,
(Sacha) wrote:

I'm not sure why you think it's not a leylandii - you mean it's
grown too fast?

That's what I thought. They are slow starters

I must say that has not been my (limited) experience. Would this depend on
their age/height when planted? If these aren't leylandii, does anyone have
a clue what they are? It might help the OP to relax a bit!
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article , Sacha
writes
Kay Easton11/5/04 8:33
@scarbo ro.demon.co.uk

Yes - but that is *your* set of circumstances

Oh, I agree - I was really saying how lucky I feel that I live somewhere
which is green and vegetation covered. Not to mention being in the
garden and feeling I'm not being overlooked from all the surrounding
houses.

and on the whole, you appear
to have something you can live with happily. If the neighbours who could do
so suddenly planted a row of leylandii to shade your garden, you might
perhaps feel differently about those 'beautiful' trees?

Doubt it! I'm not sure it is possible to shade my garden any more than
it's already shaded ;-)
The grove of birches is well above roof height, and the mature chestnuts
are probably only 50 ft from our garden


--
Kay Easton

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