Allotments 4 All
Produce => Non Edible Plants => Topic started by: tim on May 31, 2008, 18:44:43
-
.
-
Hi
I think they look lovely.
Are these trees yours, or your neighbors trees .
Bridgehouse
-
Well trees absorb Carbon Dioxide and omit Oxygen I love them and also they contribute to that comfy sheet in the lav ;D...Maybe your neighbour should re-think.
Cheers
Tony
-
Tim, you need to look in the Daily Telegraph page 3 of Thursday 29th May, re the loophole in the law. Where they are specimen trees, rather than a hedge, they are exempt.
Good luck with your efforts.
valmarg
PS, if you haven't got a copy of the article, I can send it to you.
valmarg
-
What exactly is your neighbour trying to do Tim? Are these his trees he's going to cut down?
Is he from Orkney? I always joke with my girlfriend who's from Orkney that she hates trees. She does have an odd attitude towards them, finding them claustrophobic because she's so used to the huge open treeless spaces up there. You should see an Orkney 'forest', its usually around 5 trees :)
-
But they are your trees aren't they Tim?
-
Yes please, Valmarg - only get the w/e Tel.
-
It's my understanding that the legislation only covers hedges that form a "continuous line"... so someone recently cut out the middle couple of trees in a hedge & hey presto, it became "some trees" instead - nothing the council could do... I suspect there may be better ways to get along with ones neighbours though!
-
I'll remember that one!
-
Oh dear Tim, let us hope they calm down, how can you possibly not like trees for heavens sake.
-
First they need to talk to you to attempt to resolve the problem. If a resolution can't be agreed on then they have to inform you that they are approaching the council to try to get them to intervene. The trees will have to meet the criteria set out by the council here:
http://www.gloucester.gov.uk/Content.aspx?URN=3376
They will also have to pay an administrative fee of £330.75 before the council will take any action, as stated here:
http://www.gloucester.gov.uk/Content.aspx?URN=3593
If the council decide that the trees do meet all the criteria set out they can insist the trees are reduced in height but not to an extent where it is likely to kill the tree & they cannot insist that they are pruned to less than 2m or removed completely. If you fail to carry out any work the council insist on they will do it & send you the bill.
If the council decide the trees don't meet the criteria set out then they will just suggest your neighbour follows the advice in this leaflet:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/overgardenhedge
While your neighbour is wasting his time trying to do all that you go to the http://www.gardenlaw.co.uk forum & find out exactly what your rights are which should leave you in a position where you get to keep your trees but will probably fall out with the neighbour.
-
He obviously wants to fall out with Tim, unfortunately. How many of those trees are evergreen or semi-evergreen?
-
You say "new" neighbour, Tim. If the trees were that much of a problem, why did he choose to live there? If he didn't check out the aspect of the trees in relation to his house/view/sunlight etc then he's a moron.
They're lovely trees, but if they were blocking the light from a house I was buying, I would not buy that house. Some people prefer shade, but those who don't like it should make sure they are not getting it when they buy their property.
Grrrrrr >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
valmarg, did you send that article? I have a copy sitting here beside me if not...
-
No OllieC, I haven't sent it because I'm no good at scanning and sending things :-[ :-[ :-[
If you can let Tim have a copy I'd much appreciate it. I can of course post the article, snail mail.
valmarg
-
The telegraph article is available online here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2044625/Couple-blame-hedgerow-hell-on-legal-loophole.html
-
Even better, mr. Baccy!
-
The only thing missing from the article on the telegraph web page is the picture, and I would have to say, by comparison, Tim's trees are 'dinky'.
Having said that, thanks for the link.
valmarg
-
Well - that's 1/2 an hour's work down the drain!! Try again. And replies are coming in faster than I can type!!
Thanks for some very succinct references - noted.
1. We've been here before, but I think that it's of general interest.
2. Dinky? The offending trees are 3 Evergreens, close together. 50 years old & 35'. They limit his pm sunshine but are 20' or so from his house.. That's the way the new houses were built 5 years ago. They are no greater nuisance than our other neighbour's garage! Chop that down?
3. He bought 'as is' but says they have grown since. Two years = 6"?
4. We have exchanged letters & have met over here. It is 6 months since he said he was 'taking advice'.
5. He is still a week-ender - doesn't move in for another year or so. Has contributed nothing to village life. I have no fear of offending.
6. So how much would he like cropped? 10% as the Council suggest? Would gain him nothing. 15'-20' would let in a bit of light. And kill the trees! I could offer to maintain them at the height as first seen. But it would cost me.
7. I like the idea of taking out one tree. He would be the one to suffer from our many grandchildren's play!!
Watch this space?
-
Tim,
You say that he has contributed nothing to your village and therefore you have no qualms about offending him. He lives in a newish built house next to yours,yes?
Can I respectfully ask if the building of that property/properties offended you and your established neighbours at the time? and if so could it be possible that somebody may have made this new family feel less than welcome perhaps and helped to bring about this unpleasantness.
It does seem strange that someone would buy a property and then decide to go to war with his neighbour over something that should have been considered before he spent his money.
If I am talking rubbish please say so as I have no wish to offend you or anybody else for that matter.
Gary.
-
Respectfully - or however you wish!!
The houses are, obviously, a bit more 'imposing' than the 'paddock' that had been there for centuries. But they are well built in Cotswold Stone.
We have always been on good terms with the person who built them - an active village member. She never complained about the trees.
We had never met any renter or owner before this latest one. The trees are a great barrier! We have added conifers (a repeat) - much as some hate them - to block direct view of windows - the houses are a storey higher than we are & thus 'overlook' us. This is the 'low' end of the houses.
Welcome to our peaceful village - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/photo04/villagepainting.jpg - all 11' of it!
-
Tim,
I think from reading your posts this time & previous ones that these trees have been allowed to grow for your benefit & no-one else.
I am plagued with leylandii in neighbours gardens, but in time, they realise the error of their ways & end up paying considerable money to reduce the crowns to an agreeable height for all concerned. If well done, the appearance is cosmetic, not detrimental.
My personal main objection is the loss of sunlight, particularly in the late afternoon/evening when one, I believe, has the right to sit & enjoy ones garden.
I trust your neighbour is not affected in such a way.
-
In my local paper, a while back, a couple bought a house next to a public footpath.
After they moved in, they complained of people looking into their house from the path and the late night noise.
Hence they wrote to the paper to raise a petition to have the footpath closed.
The said it devalued their house!
Did they not notice it when they bought the house ? Some people have some cheek !
-
I knew someone in Cornwall who built a house next to a field which was earmarked for a village hall. He then campaigned, fortunately in vain, to stop them building it.
-
They are beautiful trees Tim,I would not want to remove them.
We have a static caravan and it was sited next to a long row of trees that bordered the large garden of an old house.The site has been there for years.
The house was sold and a small estate was built.The trees all gone and a 6 feet wooden fence in place.House looming over us.The new owners do not like caravans.You can not reason with people like this.
One thing about village life,we moved to a village nearly two years ago and it is hard to make friends and join in.The cliques are enormous.People who have lived in the village for years and all know each other well seem to resent newcomers.
Give me inner city Birmingham anytime,we had lots of friends and people were cheerful and friendly.Green field and pleasant environment do not make up for any of this.
We plan to move back when possible.
Anyway,stick to your guns and save the trees,good luck :)
-
Sad thought, Betula?
Indeed,Telboy - everyone should have sunshine in their garden. And a garden!
But there are times when some of us long for shade from the 'Scorching British Sun'! Hence our large expenditure on the Maple replacement for our tour-ex Bramley. [attachment=1][attachment=2]
I'm biding my wee on all this - but it makes for a useful discussion?
1. Yes, as mentioned, our neighbour is affected. But the person who built the house had no complaint. And the new chap acknowledges that he bought 'as is'. Presumably in the knowledge that he has the Law on his side!
2. Yes - we planted trees because we wanted our nook in the otherwise open country. Adjoining farmland was much higher than ours. An interesting point - 2 other neighbours have for years happily accepted our 12' hedges - in one case with a 'copse' to boot!! [attachment=3][attachment=4]
An old book we have advises that, however small your garden, you should set aside 10 acres for woodland, They knew their onions in those days!!
-
Gosh.....ten acres for woodland, I was born in the wrong century. ;D
-
Me and you both :)
-
If you'd been born in the 'right' century you'd probably have been dirt poor, living in half a room (if you were lucky) with your entire family, and working 12 hour days at the mill for a wage you couldn't even eat on. Meanwhile, you'd have been enriching the greedy few with the ten acres to spare. So much of it was based on chattel slavery on one side of the Atlantic and wage slavery on the other.
-
The good old days then!!!! ;)