Checking the law to replace trees

Checking the law to replace trees

Postby reccy_10 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:18 am

Hello All

We've just moved in to a new house. We bought it partly due to the lovely mature garden with huge trees screening all the way around.

Sadly today, the neighbors at the bottom cut off the tops of their evergreen hedge, when I say tops I mean the top half!

We've gone from seeing no house, to having the top 4 windows of the housing staring right at us and it's just completely changed the feel, put it this way, I dont think we'd have bought the house if we'd have seen it like this. I can now see their patio etc. from our top windows which i dont really want to see, trees were much prettier!

Now I know they had every right to do this (assuming no TPO etc.) but obviously we want to get our privacy back ASAP. So just wanted peoples feedback in to what they think is fair / acceptable / legal. I had a bit of a trespass law vs ownership law tiff with the tree surgeons in that they were leaning in to our garden to cut the hedge and him saying but its not your hedge so we can lean in to your garden etc. etc. but haven't spoken to the neighbours directly. I assume they cut trees down due to their light being cut off so I want to make sure everything we do is within the law so they cant come back at us, but also doesn't take the piss either.

I know we cant replace a tall hedge due to the high hedge law, but im thinking to put a leylandii (not the huge type, a small more 'normal' varient of tree and a single specimen) to the one side to block their neighbours from seeing in (atm only 2m high but know they grow fast), it will be about 1m from boundary, but as on their side they have 2m of hedge, it will be about 3m from their usable garden space and I think will be more than 10m from their house. I have also bought 2 acer campestre at about 4m high one which I was going to plant again about 1m from boundary in between our house and theirs, and then another in a bed about 3m from the boundary.

I don't think their house is old enough to have the 20 year right to light issue, and the tree they just cut down was blocking their light anyway so they havent had 20 years uninterrupted. I'd arrange the trees so they basically blocked the view from the windows to our seating area.

IN between I was going to plant buddleiya which i know will be about 4m high in a year too from experience at my last house, but wont form a continuous screen (and can of course be aggressively cut if it gets too much)

Does everything I've said above seem something that would 'fair enough' in this situation. I don't want them being able to come back at us (maybe they wont at all) as the last thing I want is a neighbour dispute. I can understand that they want more light, but having their 2 kids hanging out the window and pointing saying look they've got xx in their garden etc. is a bit too much really esp. as its created a house we wouldn't have bought.

Wanted to ask as obv 4m trees are v expensive and also will already create an albeit small area of screening 2m above their new hedge height, so will be very obvious what we are doing v quickly. Of course the leaves will be lost soon but we wont really be out in the garden much over winter months anyway.
reccy_10
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:25 am

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: Checking the law to replace trees

Postby reccy_10 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:25 am

Complete side comment but the most annoying thing was after they cut the trees down they ended up closing all the curtains on the back of their house as the sun was shining in too much!
reccy_10
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:25 am

Re: Checking the law to replace trees

Postby MacadamB53 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:41 am

Hi reccy,

IMHO you need to give it more than a few hours before deciding this is as awful as you first think.

unless your property is well below their property a 2m hedge is a perfectly good screen - and it will likely be a +3m hedge again before you know it.

perhaps they gave it an annual/biennial trim?

as for the kids - could it be you're being a touch hypersensitive...

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Checking the law to replace trees

Postby APC » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:03 am

If they have reduced their hedge in their garden, that is 100% up to them. Perhaps you could plant your own hedge at the bottom of your garden so you can maintain it as you see fit (although please be aware of high hedges legislation).
APC
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:37 pm

Re: Checking the law to replace trees

Postby APC » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:12 am

To add to that, rather than going in all guns blazing with leylandii then potentially getting into an extended neighbourly conflict, plant a hornbeam and/or beech hedge. It'll hold it's leaves in the winter, has a high value for wildlife (especially the hornbeam) and will be much nicer to look at than a screen of thick green. I'm presuming the sun is reaching your side of the hedge rather than coming from their side?

Good choice on the Acer campestre, although must say buying in large is often a false economy, so make sure you plant it properly in a decent pit and water it regularly for at least 2 years.
APC
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:37 pm

Re: Checking the law to replace trees

Postby despair » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:03 pm

Beech hedges need maintenance
why not plant clump forming bamboo along with your other ideas

Portuguese Laurel is a good choice for height without being solid /light restricting

mucg better than any leylandi types
despair
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: Checking the law to replace trees

Postby reccy_10 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:34 pm

Thanks for comments all, though think some didnt read what I said fully - :-) - Not intending to grow a new hedge as dont wnat to risk falling foul of high hedge law and don't want to risk it so thinking of some well placed trees which will grow large but not too large. And also very aware it's up to them what they do, just looking how to get our privacy back with a good species that is reasonable to us and them but also if for any reason they were annoyed, wont be done in such away they could bring any sort of case against us (have no reason to think they would but dont want to do anything that could cause nastiness) I went for the leylandii as though tall they are quite thin and so would just grow relatively 'up' in the corner of the garden. There's a fairly large (but dead) tree of some sort slightly in front of where we would put it so though it would afford us more protection visually from the neighbours, from their point of view they wouldnt be losing any more sun due to the existing tree. The dead tree is in our side neighbours land and they've said they are keeping it for privacy, non of know what it is as it's covered in years of bind weed.

If people think the the leylandii is a really awful idea then we can change our order still, I had considered hornbeam but felt that having 3 trees that have a wide canopy could affect them more than having 2 more forward of the boundary and 1 that goes straight up in the corner. As I say I've avoided the large crazy growing variety. Just to give a bit of context most of the gardens around us have very very mature trees, in fact our garden is the only one without but the previous owners have planted a few which are probably around 5m now to the sides of the garden but hadn't planted anything to the rear as didn't need to with their neighbors a large hedge.

Regarding the height issue someone mentioned, we're at a higher level and the patio / house is stepped up further so we're pretty much sitting nearer the top the new hedge line, agree totally that this would normally be an ok height as our side neighbours have a hedge of around 2m and this is absolutely fine but of course they are on the same level as us.

Wouldnt want to go with bamboo, neighbours in old house had a non invasive bamboo which still managed to invade our lawn so think we could risk more of a problem in that case!!
reccy_10
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:25 am

Re: Checking the law to replace trees

Postby reccy_10 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:50 pm

The type of leylandii that i went for grows to a max of 10m when fully mature btw and as I say going for a single specimen to the side rather than aiming to make a leylandii hedge

Also thought of laurel but is was over double the cost so wansn't viable, would have been lovley
reccy_10
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:25 am

Re: Checking the law to replace trees

Postby Treeman » Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:10 pm

reccy_10 wrote:The type of leylandii that i went for grows to a max of 10m when fully mature btw and as I say going for a single specimen to the side rather than aiming to make a leylandii hedge

Also thought of laurel but is was over double the cost so wansn't viable, would have been lovley



That's definitely NOT a leylandii
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Return to Trees

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests