"Bob" wrote in message
om...


You certainly should not have the right to maintain that view!

It's pretty unreasonable to expect the inhabitants of the valley to
behave in such a way as to preserve your view of them. When you
bought your house you did not buy the rights to the view, or the land
that it is made from.

Why should someone living a mile away have to concern themselves with
what you want?

Bob

Not quite a mile away more like 100ft and tell me if you were in the same
position as me and they decided to block your view, would you not be upset?
The planting they have done does not even add any additional privacy as they
were private anyway, so what's the sense in that.

Leylandii has its uses, I agree, but most of the time its used by gardeners
with no patience or creativity.
Steve
--
"The UK SpeedTrap Guide"
http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk
"Weather Page"
http://www.btinternet.com/~swarren/wx.htm

"PaulK" wrote in message
...


Interesting one:

TPO's are put on existing trees for their amenity value (the view?)
Walls and other structures are similarly controlled.

Yet not he planting of view destroying lines of Leylandii?

pk



Common since, horary. The new houses we live in have all been planned and
landscaped carefully to maintain the views of the valley and also for the
benefit of the existing owners. The houses were sold using the views as a
selling feature. We are not allowed to have, boats, caravans or large
trailers on driveways for more than a few weeks, we all know about this and
no one minds, but for one mindless person, the view is going to vanish, not
just for me either other people are just as unhappy about this.
Steve

--
"The UK SpeedTrap Guide"
http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk
"Weather Page"
http://www.btinternet.com/~swarren/wx.htm

"PaulK" wrote in message ...
"Bob" wrote in message
om...
"Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide" wrote in message
...


You certainly should not have the right to maintain that view!

It's pretty unreasonable to expect the inhabitants of the valley to
behave in such a way as to preserve your view of them. When you
bought your house you did not buy the rights to the view, or the land
that it is made from.

Why should someone living a mile away have to concern themselves with
what you want?


Interesting one:

TPO's are put on existing trees for their amenity value (the view?)
Walls and other structures are similarly controlled.

Yet not he planting of view destroying lines of Leylandii?

pk

But this is for people living close by (as in next door!) rather than
on top of a distant hill.

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
om...
"PaulK" wrote in message
...
"Bob" wrote in message
om...
"Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide" wrote in message
...


You certainly should not have the right to maintain that view!

It's pretty unreasonable to expect the inhabitants of the valley to
behave in such a way as to preserve your view of them. When you
bought your house you did not buy the rights to the view, or the land
that it is made from.

Why should someone living a mile away have to concern themselves with
what you want?


Interesting one:

TPO's are put on existing trees for their amenity value (the view?)
Walls and other structures are similarly controlled.

Yet not he planting of view destroying lines of Leylandii?

pk

But this is for people living close by (as in next door!) rather than
on top of a distant hill.

Bob

Well I am okay then as they are next door....
Steve

"Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide" wrote in message ...
"Bob" wrote in message
om...


You certainly should not have the right to maintain that view!

It's pretty unreasonable to expect the inhabitants of the valley to
behave in such a way as to preserve your view of them. When you
bought your house you did not buy the rights to the view, or the land
that it is made from.

Why should someone living a mile away have to concern themselves with
what you want?

Bob

Not quite a mile away more like 100ft and tell me if you were in the same
position as me and they decided to block your view, would you not be upset?
The planting they have done does not even add any additional privacy as they
were private anyway, so what's the sense in that.

Leylandii has its uses, I agree, but most of the time its used by gardeners
with no patience or creativity.
Steve

100ft could almost be next door, and is close enough to block the
entire view - I got the impression from your original post that these
trees were some distance away, and would therefore just affect part of
it - your concerns are not as unreasonable as I first thought!

It makes me wonder what the scope of this law will be. Obviously an
80ft tree could be a problem to more than just the immediate
neighbour, so I assume that anyone will be able to complain about high
hedges, not just the person living next door.

It also may affect other plants other than leylandii. What will it
mean for my 15ft lilac trees out front, or the 20ft plum tree at the
back? I also have a row of 30ft leylandii screening a factory whose
rear wall is the garden boundary (they don't shadow anyone's house or
garden). There are windows in that wall, and they have their fire
exit open in summer for a bit of air, so we would loose quite a bit of
privacy if the leylandii had to go.

Bob

"Steve wrote in message
Well it all boils down to the approate use of the law. Lets just hope they
use common sense in deciding the outcome.


My understanding is they are to use Planning Law in this instance, i.e. if
you wanted a fence more than 2 metres high you need planning permission and
it will just bring hedges into this structure.
This has the effect of allowing high hedges if the local planning officers
see no problem and refusing permission if they do, they will not just be
banned.
We will all be at the mercy (and honesty) of the Local Planning Officer in
this, oh dear.

--
Bob

www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in
Runnymede fighting for it's existence.

In message , Chris French and Helen
Johnson writes
In message , Kay Easton
writes
In article , Chris French and Helen
Johnson writes

The intended law isn't actually banning higher hedges. The intention is
for higher hedges to need planning permission. In the same way as high
fences need planning permission.

Does that apply to new higher hedges or existing ones?

No idea, i'm just going on what I have read in papers, websites etc.

I've since been a Googling.

For anyone interested you can download a .pdf of the bill at:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...203/ldbills/00
4/2003004.pdf

(there is supposed to be an online version but the link was broken)

I haven't read it yet. But apparently the Bill has recently been going
through the House of Lords (it was introduced on 14th November) and was
supposed to have it's second reading on 10th December. I assume it has
passed this and it will now be taken to the Commons by Stephen Pound MP.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Old 'Two Jags') has indicated
some sort of support for the bill and it's successful progress into law
looks quite likely.
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

In article , (Steve
Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide) wrote:

The houses were sold using the views as a
selling feature

The seller sold you something he didn't own. It's common - the estate
agent's particulars for my house mention various local amenities. I
never assumed I therefore had a right to them continuing. "Excuse me,
you can't close that Post Office because it's listed in me particulars!"

I remember viewing other houses right on the edge of town and having my
attention drawn to the "rural outlook". "Yes" I thought, "but for how
long?" and I was right.

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

In article ,
(david) wrote:

" If it becomes law, a special force of hedge-busters are to be set
loose on any Leylandii that top two metres in height. "

I hope not. I am planning to top my Leylandii at around 2.5 m. They will
nicely screen a fence and not reduce the light reaching any neighbouring
property by a single photon.

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

"Steve Harris" wrote in message
...
In article , (Steve
Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide) wrote:

The houses were sold using the views as a
selling feature

The seller sold you something he didn't own. It's common - the estate
agent's particulars for my house mention various local amenities. I
never assumed I therefore had a right to them continuing. "Excuse me,
you can't close that Post Office because it's listed in me particulars!"

I remember viewing other houses right on the edge of town and having my
attention drawn to the "rural outlook". "Yes" I thought, "but for how
long?" and I was right.

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

The view we have however is a SSSI so will never be developed, and as long
as the hedge never gets over 10ft we would never have a problem, however I
don't see this person ever keeping the hedge in order. Cutting the grass is
a rare event.
Steve

In article ,
"Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide" writes:
|
| The view we have however is a SSSI so will never be developed, ....

Where DID you get that idea from? It merely means that it is
unlikely to be development by small landowners or developers,
as recent history demonstrates. Yes, it is a slight impediment
to bigger ones and the government, but not enough to stop major
developments.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide" writes:
|
| The view we have however is a SSSI so will never be developed, ....

Where DID you get that idea from? It merely means that it is
unlikely to be development by small landowners or developers,
as recent history demonstrates. Yes, it is a slight impediment
to bigger ones and the government, but not enough to stop major
developments.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679



The fact that it has 4 berrial grounds on it, three caves, two still
standing iron age markers for some kind of entrance and Mr Lowmas who owns
the land and likes it as a back garden, for his rather large and very nice
home and pets. Plus the fact he has sold all the land he has been allowed to
develop. That was enough for me, but then maybe a major developer with
enough back handers may get the go ahead to build. But if that happens I
suspect pigs will have developed wings.

Its interesting though, just what kind of feelings a hedge and a law can
stir up though.

Steve

I understand your problem but at what point will you stop this hedge from
growing up and out?
If you do keep it trimmed neat now what about the future when you may be
unable too?
Or what about the Rsole you sell to who may deem it his/her duty to let it
grow with no concern for neighbours?

Have you seen the Hedgeline site?

There were other alternatives to Leylandii.

As a matter of interest , how far did you plant your hedge from your
boundary?

Steve R



Anne Middleton/Harold Walker scribbled:

The Leylandii crops up so much I feel I "must chip" in with a
comment......a wonderful, wonderful tree....a neighbor just would not
keep his garden tidy...looking at his bluddy mess all the time was a
pain in the butt......Leylandii solved the problem....now he is
complaining about the loss of light and I am taking the same action
as the neighbor did...nowt at all and laughing about it...good old
Leylandii, keep on growing and growing.....fortunately we have no
such laws........HW "Drakanthus" wrote in
message ...
Looks like neighbours will have one thing less to fall out about
soon...

According to the BBC news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2557749.stm


--
Drakanthus.

( Spam filter: Include the word VB anywhere
in the subject line or emails will never reach me.)

In article ,
(Chris French and Helen Johnson) wrote:

For anyone interested you can download a .pdf of the bill at:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...200203/ldbills
/004/2003004.pdf

So far as I can see, it's rather one sided. The complainer complains to
the Local Authority who may decide it's a good complaint and issue an
order. If the hedge owner doesn't like it, they have to appeal to the
Secretary of State.

It would seem sensible to me that the LA be compelled to notify the
hedge owner of the complaint, invite comment and allow time to do so, It
might then make a better decision.

Also, this bill seems to have the LA (IE, politicians) acting as judge,
jury and executioner. I thought it had been established under the Human
Rights stuff that that is bad.

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

In message , Chris French and Helen
Johnson writes

I've since been a Googling.

For anyone interested you can download a .pdf of the bill at:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...203/ldbills/00
4/2003004.pdf


I haven't read it yet.

I've now had a bit of a read, though not in detail, my take on the
proposals is this:

first what it isn't:

1. It's nothing to do with Planning Permission (though the planning
department might well be involved I guess)

2. It's not a requirement that hedges be restricted to a certain height.

However it would:

1. Give owners or occupiers of domestic properties the right to
complain the local authority about a high hedge. (note it's limited to
domestic properties - a neighbouring factory couldn't complain)

2. Grounds for complaint are that ' reasonable enjoyment of that
property is being affected by an unreasonable obstruction of light
caused by a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another
person.'
(Note, there is no automatic right to have a neighbouring hedge
controlled in height - the LA decide on the merits of the complaints -
the key bit seems to be 'unreasonable obstruction')

3. A high hedge is defined as two or more adjacent evergreen trees or
shrubs which form a barrier, of a height greater than 2 metres.

4. The act talks about neighbouring land but I'm not sure if
neighbouring mean adjacent or just nearby? (I think the latter)

5. When deciding on the merits of a complaint the LA must consider all
relevant factors, including the amount of privacy the hedge provides to
the owner of the hedge and the contribution to the amenity of the
neighbourhood.

6. If a compliant is upheld, but the owner of the hedge does not take
the required action then they can be fined, the courts can rule that
they must carry out the action, and the LA can do the work and bill the
owner if they don't do it.

There are of course lots more provisions to do with appeals etc.
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html