"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article , ned
wrote:
mcloone wrote:
Ok,
the gardener seemed helpful at the start, but the owner of the
hedge
expressed similar concerns that the hedge was now thin. The said
gardener charged 150 quid to spray cut branches with "fungicide".
He
said this would ensure it turns green again.

................. He stopped short of spraying green paint, then?
:-))

I suspect that it was a weak solution of bullshit.

Now don't you go believing all that the anti-leylandii crowd tell
you.
My experience is that grass grows well enough up to and under my
hedge.

It isn't leylandii's roots that are the problem, it's the umbrella
effect. Provided that a reasonable proportion of light and rain
reaches under them, you can grow any of the underplants that can
grow in fallen pine needles. And that is a lot.

Hear, hear. Mr Maclaren, sir. :-))

--
ned

http://www.bugsandweeds.co.uk
last update 15.10.2004

On 25/10/04 20:23, in article , "ned"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
snip
How high is your hedge and how old? IME, nothing grows easily under
leylandii, except perhaps, ivy.

I hope you appreciate this :-)

I do, I do!

I've just been out - in the dark - to measure it.
60ft Section A :- 8ft high. Tree spacing 2'6" to 3' apart. Base of
trunks, 7" to 9", probably 18 to 19 years old
60ft Section B :- 8'6" high. Spacing 3 ft. Base of trunks 9" to 12".
Probably 25 to 28 years old.
I've been tending it (lovingly) for the last 11 years.
In order to suppress all the normal hedge bottom weeds (nettle,
woundwort, nipplewort, goosegrass, bindweed, hedge garlic, ground ivy
and ivy, etc.) I am mulching with leylandii clippings and that is only
moderately successful. And grass grows right up to the south facing
hedge line without problem. The north facing side has a Leylandii
clipping mulch path between the hedge and the boundary line (allowing
access for trimming). Because I want to mow up to the hedge I have not
deliberately planted anything but, Honesty grows better there than
anywhere else. We have also had Michaelmas Daisy, Phlox, Strawberries,
Gooseberries, Mysotis, Aubretia, Lobelia, Allysum, Potentilla, Ash and
Elder saplings and Damson runners show up there of their own accord.

Now. Does that sound like the kiss of death to competing vegetation?

No, it doesn't but it does sound unusual to say the least. Both the
maintained height and the south facing part of it probably says a good deal
about what grows there but I have to say that generally speaking, most
peoples' experience is not yours!

Properly managed, Leylandii is just another plant.
There are some magnificently kept Leylandii hedges around.

Allowed to run wild, - sure, its a weed. Like Ivy. Like Russian Vine.
I do not know what all the fuss is about. :-)

The fuss is because many such hedges are *not* managed properly and the one
the OP is talking about is a case in point. It was allowed to get much too
tall and still is, from their point of view, I should think. While *you*
are managing your hedge, all is well but what if you sell the house? Will
the next owner be as conscientious, have the time, care as much? And IMO,
while you look after your hedge well, if someone wants a hedge to maintain
at 8' then planting beech will achieve the same results, more attractively
in what is my subjective opinion admittedly, and will put something back
into the soil each year.
Thank you for the night time act of daring! ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
On 25/10/04 20:23, in article , "ned"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
snip
How high is your hedge and how old? IME, nothing grows easily
under
leylandii, except perhaps, ivy.

I hope you appreciate this :-)

I do, I do!

I've just been out - in the dark - to measure it.
60ft Section A :- 8ft high. Tree spacing 2'6" to 3' apart. Base of
trunks, 7" to 9", probably 18 to 19 years old
60ft Section B :- 8'6" high. Spacing 3 ft. Base of trunks 9" to
12".
Probably 25 to 28 years old.
I've been tending it (lovingly) for the last 11 years.
In order to suppress all the normal hedge bottom weeds (nettle,
woundwort, nipplewort, goosegrass, bindweed, hedge garlic, ground
ivy
and ivy, etc.) I am mulching with leylandii clippings and that is
only
moderately successful. And grass grows right up to the south
facing
hedge line without problem. The north facing side has a Leylandii
clipping mulch path between the hedge and the boundary line
(allowing
access for trimming). Because I want to mow up to the hedge I have
not
deliberately planted anything but, Honesty grows better there than
anywhere else. We have also had Michaelmas Daisy, Phlox,
Strawberries,
Gooseberries, Mysotis, Aubretia, Lobelia, Allysum, Potentilla, Ash
and
Elder saplings and Damson runners show up there of their own
accord.

Now. Does that sound like the kiss of death to competing
vegetation?

No, it doesn't but it does sound unusual to say the least.

I have a few roses which thrive within a few feet, on the West side of
a 9 ft, 20 year Leylandii hedge. ( There are other shrubs there as
well, also thriving)

Franz

On 26/10/04 14:16, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote:

snip

I have a few roses which thrive within a few feet, on the West side of
a 9 ft, 20 year Leylandii hedge. ( There are other shrubs there as
well, also thriving)

Again, this would seem to indicate that height has a lot to do with it -
probably because of light and root spread.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article , Sacha
writes

The fuss is because many such hedges are *not* managed properly and the one
the OP is talking about is a case in point. It was allowed to get much too
tall and still is, from their point of view, I should think. While *you*
are managing your hedge, all is well but what if you sell the house? Will
the next owner be as conscientious, have the time, care as much?

Oh, for heaven's sake! I'm willing to take responsibility for what I do
in my garden while it is my garden, but I do not see that I have
responsibility to manage it a way that would ensure a future owner could
not annoy the neighbours.

After all, this argument also applies to beech hedges - *you* may manage
your beech hedge, but a future owner may not and, after all, beech are
forest trees. If you follow this argument, then the only allowable
hedges are those from shrubs which will never reach more than 6 ft.


And IMO,
while you look after your hedge well, if someone wants a hedge to maintain
at 8' then planting beech will achieve the same results, more attractively
in what is my subjective opinion admittedly, and will put something back
into the soil each year.
Thank you for the night time act of daring! ;-)

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On 26/10/04 17:00, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

The fuss is because many such hedges are *not* managed properly and the one
the OP is talking about is a case in point. It was allowed to get much too
tall and still is, from their point of view, I should think. While *you*
are managing your hedge, all is well but what if you sell the house? Will
the next owner be as conscientious, have the time, care as much?

Oh, for heaven's sake! I'm willing to take responsibility for what I do
in my garden while it is my garden, but I do not see that I have
responsibility to manage it a way that would ensure a future owner could
not annoy the neighbours.

But it is leylandii with which this problem of neglect so often arises and
then so *fast* and that is why the subject arises on here rather a lot. And
it is why people like me who loathe and detest the things and have
'suffered' from them, take the view we do. You have a different one and
you're welcome to it. Any badly managed hedge is a potential blot but it's
leylandii that seem to outstrip all other complaints.

After all, this argument also applies to beech hedges - *you* may manage
your beech hedge, but a future owner may not and, after all, beech are
forest trees. If you follow this argument, then the only allowable
hedges are those from shrubs which will never reach more than 6 ft.

Perhaps that would be a good idea in places where others can suffer from a
neighbour's lack of consideration.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
On 25/10/04 20:23, in article , "ned"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

big snip

The fuss is because many such hedges are *not* managed properly

........Then the howls of anguish should be hurled at the
(mis)managers - not the plant.

While *you*
are managing your hedge, all is well but what if you sell the house?

............ I bought the house with the hedge there. It was taller
than I would have wished. I knew what I was letting myself in for.
We subsequently took about 3ft+ off the top and enjoy it for what it
is, a superb windbreak, a structural feature, and home to the Juniper
Shieldbug. (see website)

When people buy houses, surely they weigh up what they are taking on.
You don't move in and then say, "Oh, I didn't see that tall hedge
there before."

Will
the next owner be as conscientious, have the time, care as much?
And IMO,
while you look after your hedge well, if someone wants a hedge to
maintain
at 8' then planting beech will achieve the same results, more
attractively
in what is my subjective opinion

............. But people do not consider what YOUR opinion is when they
buy. They buy what THEY want. It would be a terrible world if we all
thought the same. But I do get just a tad upset (just a tad) when I
see the torrent of abuse that is heaped upon Leylandii, when it can be
an attractive feature.

Gardening is all about 'management'. One owner's beautiful lawn can be
the next owners neglected wilderness.
Why don't we hear outcries about that dreadful thing called grass?
Eurghhh! It's running wild. It's all uneven. What a mess. 3ft tall and
seeding - everywhere. This is neat and tidy suburbia. Can't we have it
banned?
......... Or is that different? :-))

--
ned

http://www.bugsandweeds.co.uk
last update 15.10.2004

Sacha wrote:
On 26/10/04 17:00, in article
,
"Kay" wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

The fuss is because many such hedges are *not* managed properly
and
the one the OP is talking about is a case in point. It was
allowed
to get much too tall and still is, from their point of view, I
should think. While *you* are managing your hedge, all is well
but
what if you sell the house? Will the next owner be as
conscientious, have the time, care as much?

Oh, for heaven's sake! I'm willing to take responsibility for what
I
do in my garden while it is my garden, but I do not see that I
have
responsibility to manage it a way that would ensure a future owner
could not annoy the neighbours.

But it is leylandii with which this problem of neglect so often
arises and then so *fast* and that is why the subject arises on
here
rather a lot. And it is why people like me who loathe and detest
the
things and have 'suffered' from them, take the view we do. You
have
a different one and you're welcome to it. Any badly managed hedge
is
a potential blot but it's leylandii that seem to outstrip all other
complaints.

After all, this argument also applies to beech hedges - *you* may
manage your beech hedge, but a future owner may not and, after
all,
beech are forest trees. If you follow this argument, then the only
allowable hedges are those from shrubs which will never reach more
than 6 ft.

Perhaps that would be a good idea in places where others can suffer
from a neighbour's lack of consideration.

And surely, given that a garden is a bequest to posterity, one
shouldn't encourage ill-informed people to use Leylandii when there
are so many alternatives. Geoffrey Smith says he couldn't garden
without it (because he's high up in Yorkshire and needed rapid
shelter); but he doesn't live on an eight-houses-per-acre
development: AFAIK, his garden is next to farmland, which is a horse
of a different kettle. If you know what you're doing, it's ok: I've
even used them as specimen trees (yeah, yeah: even my mother thought
I was crazy) because that garden needed height and evergreen in a
hurry and I was skint.

We do owe some duty to our neighbours, and to our successors. I've
gardened on the northern side of one of these things: the neighbours
were absolutely charming, and the effect on their side was undeniably
beautiful. The house was exactly what we needed at the time. Trap.

Mike.

On 26/10/04 19:34, in article , "ned"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
On 25/10/04 20:23, in article , "ned"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

big snip

The fuss is because many such hedges are *not* managed properly

.......Then the howls of anguish should be hurled at the
(mis)managers - not the plant.

While *you*
are managing your hedge, all is well but what if you sell the house?

........... I bought the house with the hedge there. It was taller
than I would have wished. I knew what I was letting myself in for.
We subsequently took about 3ft+ off the top and enjoy it for what it
is, a superb windbreak, a structural feature, and home to the Juniper
Shieldbug. (see website)

When people buy houses, surely they weigh up what they are taking on.
You don't move in and then say, "Oh, I didn't see that tall hedge
there before."

No. If you're me, you move in, look at it for a few months, think what an
appallingly boring slab of nothingness it is and cut it down.

Will
the next owner be as conscientious, have the time, care as much?
And IMO,
while you look after your hedge well, if someone wants a hedge to
maintain
at 8' then planting beech will achieve the same results, more
attractively
in what is my subjective opinion

............ But people do not consider what YOUR opinion is when they
buy. They buy what THEY want. It would be a terrible world if we all
thought the same. But I do get just a tad upset (just a tad) when I
see the torrent of abuse that is heaped upon Leylandii, when it can be
an attractive feature.

Gardening is all about 'management'. One owner's beautiful lawn can be
the next owners neglected wilderness.
Why don't we hear outcries about that dreadful thing called grass?
Eurghhh! It's running wild. It's all uneven. What a mess. 3ft tall and
seeding - everywhere. This is neat and tidy suburbia. Can't we have it
banned?
........ Or is that different? :-))

Definitely. When grass seeds it doesn't grow to over 100 ft. and it
produces some rather lovely flowers, if left to itself.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On 26/10/04 19:51, in article , "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Sacha wrote:
On 26/10/04 17:00, in article
,
"Kay" wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

The fuss is because many such hedges are *not* managed properly
and
the one the OP is talking about is a case in point. It was
allowed
to get much too tall and still is, from their point of view, I
should think. While *you* are managing your hedge, all is well
but
what if you sell the house? Will the next owner be as
conscientious, have the time, care as much?

Oh, for heaven's sake! I'm willing to take responsibility for what
I
do in my garden while it is my garden, but I do not see that I
have
responsibility to manage it a way that would ensure a future owner
could not annoy the neighbours.

But it is leylandii with which this problem of neglect so often
arises and then so *fast* and that is why the subject arises on
here
rather a lot. And it is why people like me who loathe and detest
the
things and have 'suffered' from them, take the view we do. You
have
a different one and you're welcome to it. Any badly managed hedge
is
a potential blot but it's leylandii that seem to outstrip all other
complaints.

After all, this argument also applies to beech hedges - *you* may
manage your beech hedge, but a future owner may not and, after
all,
beech are forest trees. If you follow this argument, then the only
allowable hedges are those from shrubs which will never reach more
than 6 ft.

Perhaps that would be a good idea in places where others can suffer
from a neighbour's lack of consideration.

And surely, given that a garden is a bequest to posterity, one
shouldn't encourage ill-informed people to use Leylandii when there
are so many alternatives. Geoffrey Smith says he couldn't garden
without it (because he's high up in Yorkshire and needed rapid
shelter); but he doesn't live on an eight-houses-per-acre
development: AFAIK, his garden is next to farmland, which is a horse
of a different kettle. If you know what you're doing, it's ok: I've
even used them as specimen trees (yeah, yeah: even my mother thought
I was crazy) because that garden needed height and evergreen in a
hurry and I was skint.

We do owe some duty to our neighbours, and to our successors. I've
gardened on the northern side of one of these things: the neighbours
were absolutely charming, and the effect on their side was undeniably
beautiful. The house was exactly what we needed at the time. Trap.

Mike.


Anyone who plants trees - and leylandii are trees, not hedging plants -
should be aware as many are, thank god, that you plant trees for the
following generations.
Leylandii as windbreaks or screens on unobstructed sites are useful. As
hedges in small gardens they're a potential menace. I don't *think* I've
heard of anyone writing in here or anywhere for that matter, to complain of
an out of control beech hedge they've 'inherited'. But leylandii? The
queries over its management on this group are continuous and for good and
obvious reasons. Every time I drive past a house in this neighbourhood I'm
made aware of this. For years this was a well-maintained hedge which acted
both as a privacy screen and as a windbreak. The man of the house is now
very ill and the hedge is going untrimmed.........
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

big, big snip

But leylandii? The
queries over its management on this group are continuous

......... as are queries over ponds, compost heaps, best mower, etc.

and for good and obvious reasons. (Sascha says)
Every time I drive past a house in this neighbourhood I'm
made aware of this. For years this was a well-maintained hedge
which acted
both as a privacy screen and as a windbreak. The man of the house
is now
very ill and the hedge is going untrimmed.........

...................... lack of maintenance!
Cease to maintain any garden and it will degenerate.
What would an unmaintained beech hedge grow into?
........ Don't tell me. A ginormous beautiful beech hedge?
;-) 'Course you're not prejudiced. ;-)

--
ned

http://www.bugsandweeds.co.uk
last update 15.10.2004

On 26/10/04 11:51 pm, in article ,
" wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes
Anyone who plants trees - and leylandii are trees, not hedging plants -
should be aware as many are, thank god, that you plant trees for the
following generations.
But many trees are used as hedges Sacha, Beech, Hawthorn to name but two

snip
In essence, I've answered this in my reply to Kay.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On 27/10/04 12:13 am, in article , "ned"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

big, big snip

But leylandii? The
queries over its management on this group are continuous

........ as are queries over ponds, compost heaps, best mower, etc.

But not as the target of almost exclusively complaints.

and for good and obvious reasons. (Sascha says)
Every time I drive past a house in this neighbourhood I'm
made aware of this. For years this was a well-maintained hedge
which acted
both as a privacy screen and as a windbreak. The man of the house
is now
very ill and the hedge is going untrimmed.........

..................... lack of maintenance!
Cease to maintain any garden and it will degenerate.
What would an unmaintained beech hedge grow into?
....... Don't tell me. A ginormous beautiful beech hedge?

See my response to Kay.

;-) 'Course you're not prejudiced. ;-)

I'm extremely prejudiced and I make no bones about it. But I'm prejudiced
for good reason.
Perhaps people take better care of beech hedges because they don't take so
much care and that is because they don't grow at such a terrific rate.
Leylandii have their place as effective wind breaks where space allows for
them. As hedges in small gardens, sorry but no. Not, IMO.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article ,
Kay wrote:
In article , Sacha
writes

The fuss is because many such hedges are *not* managed properly and the one
the OP is talking about is a case in point. It was allowed to get much too
tall and still is, from their point of view, I should think. While *you*
are managing your hedge, all is well but what if you sell the house? Will
the next owner be as conscientious, have the time, care as much?

Oh, for heaven's sake! I'm willing to take responsibility for what I do
in my garden while it is my garden, but I do not see that I have
responsibility to manage it a way that would ensure a future owner could
not annoy the neighbours.

After all, this argument also applies to beech hedges - *you* may manage
your beech hedge, but a future owner may not and, after all, beech are
forest trees. If you follow this argument, then the only allowable
hedges are those from shrubs which will never reach more than 6 ft.

I think that both of you should try mixing some black and white paint,
and seeing what colour it makes :-)

The difference is not an absolute, but there ARE major differences
between overgrown beech and leylandii hedges. For example:

Beech can be cut back and regrow rather more readily
Beech allows more light through in the winter
Beech allows more rain through, so more will grow underneath

Yes, leylandii can be kept under control, but a leylandii hedge
that has got more than (say) 2-3 years out of control needs cutting
down. One that is 5 years out of control is seriously objectionable
in suburbia.

I don't know how old a beech hedge can be and be salvaged, but let's
say 5-10 years. And one out of control will start to thin itself
naturally and drop leaves in winter, so is much less objectionable
than leylandii.

However, laurel is every bit as objectionable as leylandii, despite
being salvageable in old age. I am old enough to remember when it
attracted the same vitriol as leylandii, and for the same reasons.
It seems that there is always a "standard bearer" for the fast growing,
dense evergreen hedging plants, and that attracts all the (justified)
venom directed at improperly maintained examples.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
writes:
|
| Its the antisocial behaviour of the owners in these cases not the tools
| that they use, perhaps ASBO,s should cover hedges as well :-)

It's not quite that simple, either. Try applying that argument
to guns, with reference to all classes of pistol.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.