| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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.) |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
Celebrate when they pass the law... but they are going to please so many
people if they do. Me for one. Steve -- "The UK SpeedTrap Guide" http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk "Weather Page" http://www.btinternet.com/~swarren/wx.htm "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.) |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
You and me both
"Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide" wrote in message ... Celebrate when they pass the law... but they are going to please so many people if they do. Me for one. Steve -- "The UK SpeedTrap Guide" http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk "Weather Page" http://www.btinternet.com/~swarren/wx.htm "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.) |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
In article , Steve Warren - UK
Speedtrap Guide writes Celebrate when they pass the law... but they are going to please so many people if they do. Me for one. Steve Depends exactly what the law says, doesn't it? 'No hedges over 6ft' would be bad news for those people, like me, who live next to large unsightly public buildings, factories or car parks. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/ |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"Kay Easton" wrote in message
... In article , Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide writes Celebrate when they pass the law... but they are going to please so many people if they do. Me for one. Steve Depends exactly what the law says, doesn't it? 'No hedges over 6ft' would be bad news for those people, like me, who live next to large unsightly public buildings, factories or car parks. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/ I understand what you are saying but I would suspect you would not have a problem. The unsightly public buildings, factories or car parks you live next door to would they complain? Would it be fair to ask you to remove the screen, I think not. However I moved because of this and just as I thought I was safe, after talking to everyone around us before we bought the new house someone in a newer house down the valley puts up a row of Leylandii trees, several rows at that. This will over time spoil our view of the valley, which was one of the reasons we bought the house. I for one agree with the possible new law as long as its fair, i.e. they take into account both parties, reasons why etc. So in your case its fair to keep it as long as there is no risk of damage to property and so on. But in my case, for example it would ruin and very nice view across the valley which in turn may devalue our property because of someone's lack of knowledge or selfish behaviour. So we should have the right to maintain the view without some massive green mess spoiling it. Lets hope they use common sense, not easy for the Gov but you never know. Catch 22! Steve -- "The UK SpeedTrap Guide" http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk "Weather Page" http://www.btinternet.com/~swarren/wx.htm |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide wrote:
snip ........ we should have the right to maintain the view without some massive green mess spoiling it. I can just see John Prescott saying that while objecting to a National Park being planned next to his industrial estate. :-)) -- ned |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
I believe its only hedges between neighbours that would be encompassed
........your situation is very different and a good reason to grow Leylandi etc "Kay Easton" wrote in message ... In article , Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide writes Celebrate when they pass the law... but they are going to please so many people if they do. Me for one. Steve Depends exactly what the law says, doesn't it? 'No hedges over 6ft' would be bad news for those people, like me, who live next to large unsightly public buildings, factories or car parks. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/ |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
" If it becomes law, a special force of hedge-busters are to be set loose on
any Leylandii that top two metres in height. " Lets hope that it gets thrown out ......Whilst this sounds good just think... it could soon be "Any" hedge over 2 m.. Then where do you measure from? If you are on sloping ground is it high side or low side? So what of those that require a good wind break? Etc Etc.... I am afraid that once you let the Town Hall loose then anything can happen, and it probably will with the aid of the odd "Jobs worth" from the Council. I feel that if there was a move to bring Hedges into the law regarding Ancient Lights so that any hedge cutting out a substantial amount of light adjacent to a building could have action taken to remove it, this would do a lot to solve many of the problems. I am not a lover of Leylandii, but I do feel that there is a place for it in the right location, and as my reference says it is "unsurpassed for tall screens, but generally to vigorous to be used as a hedge in a small garden". But I am also not a lover of the never ending outpourings of new legislation that we have to put up with. It originates from several crosses of Cupressus macrocarpa x Chamaecyparis nootkatensis, the first seedling was grown at Restrevor, Co. Down in 1870, then 6 seedlings at Leighton Hall, Powys in 1888 then 2 more in 1911. Also 2 seedlings in Ferndown , Dorset in 1940. -- David Hill Abacus Nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
In message , david
writes " If it becomes law, a special force of hedge-busters are to be set loose on any Leylandii that top two metres in height. " Lets hope that it gets thrown out ......Whilst this sounds good just think... it could soon be "Any" hedge over 2 m.. Then where do you measure from? If you are on sloping ground is it high side or low side? Decent drafting of the legislation would sort that sort of thing out. So what of those that require a good wind break? Etc Etc.... 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. -- Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds urg Suppliers and References FAQ: http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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? presumably an existing one should be OK, just as we don't start worrying about breaches of planning regs by builders of earlier generations. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/ |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"Kay Easton" wrote
presumably an existing one should be OK, just as we don't start worrying about breaches of planning regs by builders of earlier generations. Just as well, otherwise our house would be condemmed immediately having been built in 1470!! Jaqy |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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. (and of course the bill hasn't even been introduced yet - let alone made it's way through parliament) presumably an existing one should be OK, just as we don't start worrying about breaches of planning regs by builders of earlier generations. That is they way it has been approached, but I can see an argument for not applying this to hedges. However in that case I assume that it would need someone to complain about a hedge first anyway. -- Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds urg Suppliers and References FAQ: http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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.) |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"Steve Warren - UK Speedtrap Guide" wrote in message ...
However I moved because of this and just as I thought I was safe, after talking to everyone around us before we bought the new house someone in a newer house down the valley puts up a row of Leylandii trees, several rows at that. This will over time spoil our view of the valley, which was one of the reasons we bought the house. I for one agree with the possible new law as long as its fair, i.e. they take into account both parties, reasons why etc. So in your case its fair to keep it as long as there is no risk of damage to property and so on. But in my case, for example it would ruin and very nice view across the valley which in turn may devalue our property because of someone's lack of knowledge or selfish behaviour. So we should have the right to maintain the view without some massive green mess spoiling it. Lets hope they use common sense, not easy for the Gov but you never know. Catch 22! Steve 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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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. |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
|
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
|
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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.) |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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.) |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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. |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
"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 |
Leylandii - Its days are numbered!
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter