In message , Steve
Harris writes
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.

True it doesn't specify any sort of action like that. However it does
require the authority to consider all relevant factors, including the
one about the privacy afforded the owner of the hedge. They also need to
decide that other avenues such as amicable agreement on the hedge have
failed. I can't see how they could do that without being in contact with
the owner.

(Of course IANAL and could be talking out of my arse here...)

And of course the bill could well be amended in the Commons.
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

You have indeed highlighted one of the biggest cause for complaint
..........the maintenance of the trees/hedge that falls on to the gardener on
the other side

If the hedge grower plants it well inside his land so it cant encroach on a
neighbour and is considerate about the height then fine however i know quite
a few who have planted Leylandi right on the boundary without giving a fig
for the neighbour and then if they do decide to maintain the height all the
cuttings mess up the neighbours patch

These are the growers who refuse point blank to co operate with any
neighbouly discussion or Mediation UK
"Essjay001" wrote in message
...
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.)

If this only applies to evergreens then, if you wanted a hedge as a screen,
presumably you could use Beech and you'd be OK.

Jaqy

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:46 +0000 (GMT), (Steve
Harris) wrote:

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.

If you are fond of pulling the wings off flies, it never hurts to
ask a real estate agent (as we call them here) if the amenities
he points out are subject to easements, rights of ways,
restrictive covenants, or something of a generally "preservative"
nature registered on the title and enforceable.

Of course, the usual response is "no", but in this part of the
world, such things are not unheard of.

Such arrangements are in fact fairly common where someone
subdivides the property they live on, and places view-preserving
restrictions on the newly created lot.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

In message , MC Emily
writes
If this only applies to evergreens then, if you wanted a hedge as a screen,
presumably you could use Beech and you'd be OK.

It would seem so yes.

Though of course beech doesn't suffer from the problems caused by the
very rapid growth of Leylandii.

Note that the bill is not intended to stop anyone planting anything for
a screen, the limitation to 2m would only apply when a complaint was
made and upheld.

Also, there are provisions for the Secretary of state to modify the
definition of a 'high Hedge' without the need for new primary
legislation ( another bill isn't needed basically)
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

"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

I doubt it. Last year we were all getting excited about a
consultation paper from the 'Leylandii Working Group', which proposed
a fairly simple formula where the limit would vary according to the
distance from structures. The same hyperbole on the news reckoned
that Leylandii were finished then.

I'll believe it when I see it - and when the legislation is actually
enforced regularly 5 years after it is passed, rather than quietly
forgotten.

It's news management, not a real change.

"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.)

It is such a shame that a few idiots who cannot be bothered to control an
otherwise excellent fast form of hedging can cause so much trouble for
others. The largest part of the reason why I bought my current house was
because of it's excellent privacy, afforded entirely by it's having 8 foot
leylandii hedges either side. These I have kept to 8 foot high for six or
seven years now and it really is not that much work.

To be told they have to come down to 6 foot, will mean exposing my garden to
every upstairs window in the area.

So then anyone can see exactly what I have in the back garden, they can see
if anyone is around.

I am sure, this is going to be taken as a troll, but I genuinely believe
that this would be a truly stupid law to pass. I agree entirely that hedges
over 10 feet are excesive, and with leylandii reaching 40 feet or more I can
understand how that SHOULD be controlled. However to cut these trees down to
only 6 feet will almost certainly half if not quarter the population of wild
birds in my garden, and will leave me with a house which will be that much
harder to sell.

So, in conclusion who do I sue, when I find thousands of pounds being wiped
off the value of my home due to the inaction of some inconsiderant morons
who cannot even be bothered to control something as simple as a hedge.

Duncan

In article ,
"Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide" writes:
|
| 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.

That sort of thing made no difference in several recent cases.
Once someone has greased Whitehall's palms with the appropriate
currency (which is not usually sterling), all that will count
for naught. Look it up :-(


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 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.

That sort of thing made no difference in several recent cases.
Once someone has greased Whitehall's palms with the appropriate
currency (which is not usually sterling), all that will count
for naught. Look it up :-(


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

Oh well then, at least I get to watch them build a nice new power station...
Steve

In message , Druss
writes

It is such a shame that a few idiots who cannot be bothered to control an
otherwise excellent fast form of hedging can cause so much trouble for
others.

Indeed it is, as in so many things

The largest part of the reason why I bought my current house was
because of it's excellent privacy, afforded entirely by it's having 8 foot
leylandii hedges either side. These I have kept to 8 foot high for six or
seven years now and it really is not that much work.

To be told they have to come down to 6 foot, will mean exposing my garden to
every upstairs window in the area.

So then anyone can see exactly what I have in the back garden, they can see
if anyone is around.

Note that first a complaint will haven to be made by a neighbour, and
they will have had to try and resolve the issue before complaining to
the council, so it wouldn't be out of the blue.

The complaint would have to show that there is an unreasonable
obstruction of light and it is affecting the reasonable enjoyment of the
property.

There is also the provision for the council to consider the privacy you
get from the hedge as well.
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

In article , Sue & Bob Hobden
writes

"Druss" wrote in message
.

To be told they have to come down to 6 foot, will mean exposing my garden
to
every upstairs window in the area.

So then anyone can see exactly what I have in the back garden, they can
see
if anyone is around.

I am sure, this is going to be taken as a troll, but I genuinely believe
that this would be a truly stupid law to pass. I agree entirely that
hedges
over 10 feet are excesive, and with leylandii reaching 40 feet or more I
can
understand how that SHOULD be controlled. However to cut these trees down
to
only 6 feet will almost certainly half if not quarter the population of
wild
birds in my garden, and will leave me with a house which will be that much
harder to sell.


But my understanding is that high hedges are not to be simply banned, just
brought into the same planning laws as high fences. If you and your
neighbours want a 40ft hedge then it would be OK provided the Local Planning
Officer agreed.
Surely if you and your neighbour agree the Planning officer would not be
involved. In order to activate this law someone, living in a domestic
property has to complain to the LPO.
--
hugh

In article , Steve Warren - UK
Speedtrap Guide writes

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,

Not necessarily true. SSSIs don't have any specific protection.


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/

In article , Steve Warren - UK
Speedtrap Guide writes

The fact that it has 4 berrial grounds on it,

Burial grounds have been developed, where necessary re-burying the
people/

three caves,

sadly, caves are quite happily quarried, blocked etc.


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/

In article , Chris French and Helen
Johnson writes

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:

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)

That's sense.


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.

Two trees makes a hedge!!!
But evergreen, so the 15ft lilacs are OK :-)
Does that mean my cypresses aren't a hedge, because there's a small
deciduous Viburnum between them, so they are not adjacent?


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/

In message , Sue & Bob Hobden
writes



But my understanding is that high hedges are not to be simply banned, just
brought into the same planning laws as high fences. If you and your
neighbours want a 40ft hedge then it would be OK provided the Local Planning
Officer agreed.
If a neighbour didn't agree then the Planning Officer has to make a decision
which could fall either way or be a compromise.

That does not seem to be the case with the current High Hedges Bill that
is under consideration in Parliament at the moment (though that's what I
though as well)

All this legislation seems to be about is arrangements for dealing with
complaints about high hedges.

It does not mention anything about planning permission etc.

It would seem you can have as high a hedge as you want, it's only if a
complaint was made and upheld that you would have to do anything about
it.
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html