branches disposal

Re: branches disposal

Postby Treeman » Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:22 am

Anthony Westoby wrote:
Treeman wrote:
Anthony Westoby wrote:In the end, this landowner was given the choice of paying a fine or cutting his trees down to a lower height, which IMHO was a stupid decision, knowing as I do, that these particular trees were, indeed, planted deliberately with definite, stated and witnessed, malicious intent. They were cut down a bit under threat of an 'ASBO'
.


I think you are reporting heresay and rumour and have picked up a few errors along the way.

Treeman,

Yes, I probably did give that impression, I was trying to condense a very very long running saga involving the LA who should probably have contacted your good self for advice, as I'm sure they didn't know which way was up at the time.

Enforcement officers were becoming a way of life at this time, trying to get the guy to give these people alongside him some light in their houses. His reply to their verbal complaints was "If you can't see to read in your kitchen, go in your front room!"

That's not hearsay, or rumour, that's witnessed, I won't make a statement on here that I can't back up with written facts.

As 'Despair' said at the time, on here, "The High Hedges Law isn't working!" and she was absolutely correct.


TonyW.



Thats not true either, the HH legislation is working but it isn't working how someone as polarised as despair would like it to.
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.
 

Re: branches disposal

Postby arborlad » Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:46 am

Anthony Westoby wrote:As 'Despair' said ..............TonyW.



Oh dear, considering the level and frequency of correction this poster requires, probably not the wisest of choices to achieve this:


Anthony Westoby wrote:...............absolutely correct. TonyW.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7387
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: branches disposal

Postby TO » Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:01 pm

Hi

Anthony Westoby wrote:We have one such tree bully in our road and the saga of the blight of these monsters is a horrendous tale ---- residents have actually moved away or died, not necessarily as a consequence but during the ponderous complaints machinations, deliberately 'hung out' because of the fear of counter suing by tree owners claiming their trees had died as a result of local authority interference.
If residents have moved or died NOT as a consequence of the existance of the Leylandi why do you think it relevant to say they've moved or died? I also doubt they moved or died because the tree owner, are we talking single or plural here, threatened to sue the Council if their trees died. The Council would get good arboricultural advice and issue its decision in the full knowledge that it can't order the destruction of the trees and the consequences if it does.

Anthony Westoby wrote:In the end, this landowner was given the choice of paying a fine or cutting his trees down to a lower height, which IMHO was a stupid decision, knowing as I do, that these particular trees were, indeed, planted deliberately with definite, stated and witnessed, malicious intent. They were cut down a bit under threat of an 'ASBO'
It's not either or once a remedial notice is issued. If the hedge isn't cut down then the hedge owner could be taken to Court and fined. If they still don't cut the hedge down they can be taken to Court again and given a fine for every day they don't comply with the remedial notice. Should the Council wish, it can do the work and recover costs, either through the Courts or as a land charge against the property. ASBO's don't come into it at all. And why was it a stupid decision to try and give the complainant some relief from the problems they were experiencing because the trees were planted with malicious intent.

Anthony Westoby wrote:They should have been removed completely
But the Council Can't order that to be done

Anthony Westoby wrote:Recently, I spoke to a local authority legal bod about this method of making complaints about high hedges to a LA and she said that it was free to complain. I had to assure her that it was just the opposite, some councils charging as much as 5 or 6 hundred pound per complaint.
I think 2 out of over 300 Councils charge £600 or more, an awful lot don't charge at all, it just depends where you are.

Treeman wrote:The only legislation that can be used to enforce a reduction in height is the HH legislation, that act has no scope to levy fines.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/38/section/75

Level 3 is £1000

TO
TO
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: branches disposal

Postby Treeman » Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:04 pm

Sorry, the point I was addressing read that it was either pay a fine or cut the trees which is not the option, there is no either or option and any fines are for non compliance. You will have to comply withe the action height one way or another.
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Re: branches disposal

Postby Anthony Westoby » Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:39 pm

Gentlemen,

Arborlad, I see you have joined forces, yet again,with 'Treeman' to have a go at 'Despair' I also see that 'Treeman' is convinced that she is - quote - 'polarised'.

I find remarks like this tantamount to the bullying nature of people who plant these trees, for reasons best known to themselves.

Do I take it then, that this means you two, too, have property ringed about by this monsters? If so, it can only be, that you agree with these bullies who exist purely to make their neighbours lives a living hell.

This HH Law isn't working properly and hasn't since it was implemented, much like the Anti - Social - Behaviour law it was tacked on to the back of. Much the same as the Fox - Hunting fiasco.

By the way, I'm totally beyond being 'corrected' by so - called 'helpul' posters on this site and like once before, after searching high and low doe help with my local nutcase I had to take direct acrion and my advice, polarised or not is for others to do the same. make sure of course that you have the cameras in place before you do.

TonyW.
Anthony Westoby
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:23 pm

Re: branches disposal

Postby Sudynim » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:41 pm

Anthony Westoby wrote:I find remarks like this tantamount to the bullying nature of people who plant these trees, for reasons best known to themselves.

Do I take it then, that this means you two, too, have property ringed about by this monsters? If so, it can only be, that you agree with these bullies who exist purely to make their neighbours lives a living hell.


Calm down Tony. Just because they don't agree with you, that doesn't make them members of A'l-Bildahejere (the International Conifer Terrorism Army).

The High Hedge law provided a means for councils to interfere in the enjoyment of private property, to force landowners to accommodate the wishes of their neighbours. It is right that such powers should be used reluctantly, because an Englishman's home is his castle etc.
Sudynim
 
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:31 pm

Re: branches disposal

Postby TO » Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:38 pm

HI

Sudynim wrote:Just because they don't agree with you, that doesn't make them members of A'l-Bildahejere (the International Conifer Terrorism Army).
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it's a matter of fact. That's the problem with the high hedges legislation is both parties expect you to agree with them on the basis that they are right, and lets not forget the complainant has paid, so they are definitely right.

Sudynim wrote:The High Hedge law provided a means for councils to interfere in the enjoyment of private property, to force landowners to accommodate the wishes of their neighbours. It is right that such powers should be used reluctantly,
It's not interfering, after all the Council has been invited, indeed paid to act as an independent third party adjudicator to sort out a problem that the parties can't.

The Council should not be reluctant to act, it has no choice. Once a valid complaint is received it must act.

And herein lies many of the problems in relation to the advice advice on this, and other similar sites. I have no axe to grind, or view one way or another. Others see things as they want to see them and take the opportunity to grind their axes, espouse their opinions, and urge Posters to ever more ways to up their neighbour dispute as an extension of their own dispute.

TO
TO
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: branches disposal

Postby despair » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:14 pm

TO

As you have to administer it ...........If you could change anything about the HH Law what would it be ?
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: branches disposal

Postby arborlad » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:19 pm

Sudynim wrote:[...................... members of A'l-Bildahejere .


Love it :D
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7387
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: branches disposal

Postby Sudynim » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:25 pm

TO wrote:
Sudynim wrote:The High Hedge law provided a means for councils to interfere in the enjoyment of private property, to force landowners to accommodate the wishes of their neighbours. It is right that such powers should be used reluctantly,
It's not interfering, after all the Council has been invited, indeed paid to act as an independent third party adjudicator to sort out a problem that the parties can't.


The council may wish to perceive it's role that way, but it's a rather rose-tinted view. In reality, Citizen A comes to the council asking that statutory powers are exercised to scalp Citizen B's hedge, and (as you say) he pays a fee for this. Citizen B invites nothing of the council except that he is left alone, but the matter is forced upon him regardless of his wishes.

It's an ugly mess of a law. Victims of noisy neighbours or burglary don't have to pay a charge, and the effect of this provision is (IMHO) far more trouble than it's worth. It creates a confusion between exercise of an enforcement power and the sale of a service.
Sudynim
 
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:31 pm

Re: branches disposal

Postby TO » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:27 pm

Hi

Sudynim wrote:The council may wish to perceive it's role that way, but it's a rather rose-tinted view.
It's not a perception or rose tinted view. If the local planning authority receive a valid complaint they must deal with it. The local planning authorities role is as an independent third party adjudicator that is set out in the guidance we work to.

The hedge owner may not invite the involvement of the local planning authority, but as individuals we don't invite all the intrusions of the many laws, standards, codes, or morals by which society works and which interfere with our lives. However, the hedge owner is governed by the laws of the land just the same as anyone else. If a valid complaint is made the local authority must consider it.

despair wrote:TO
As you have to administer it ...........If you could change anything about the HH Law what would it be ?
I invite anyone to answer this. I would be more than interested in all views, especially yours Sudynim as you seem torn between the problems caused by high hedges and that some means of resolving such disputes is necessary, and the right of the hedge grower to do as they please irrespective of the problems their hedge causes to the neighbour.

What would I do? Well as we have the legislation I would set a standard fee, probably around £350 to £450. Other than that, as the legislation hasn't been anything like the resounding success that the small but vocal anti-hedge lobby thought it would be I'd scrap it. There have been an awful lot fewer complaints than predicted and I for one in these straightened times have better things to do with my time and Council Tax payers money, (£450 would just about cover a complaint), than deal with neighbour
disputes.

TO
TO
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: branches disposal

Postby Sudynim » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

TO wrote:
despair wrote:TO
As you have to administer it ...........If you could change anything about the HH Law what would it be ?
I invite anyone to answer this. I would be more than interested in all views, especially yours Sudynim as you seem torn between the problems caused by high hedges and that some means of resolving such disputes is necessary, and the right of the hedge grower to do as they please irrespective of the problems their hedge causes to the neighbour.

I wouldn't describe myself as torn. The HH Law seems to me to be quite straightforward in principle, and not significantly different to other LA duties like noise abatement -
- I complain that your hedge or music is an unreasonable intrusion upon my enjoyment of my property.
- The council's officers assess this, using objective measurement and guidance as far as possible.
- If your hedge or music is deemed to be excessive, enforcement powers are used to require abatement.

The factors which cause the problems are (in my view) -
- the narrow criteria for HHL eligibility, leading to silly anomalies which bring the law into disrepute.
- the power to charge a fee to a complainant/victim, which is unprecedented and morally offensive.
Sudynim
 
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:31 pm

Re: branches disposal

Postby Anthony Westoby » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:33 am

Calm down Tony. Just because they don't agree with you, that doesn't make them members of A'l-Bildahejere (the International Conifer Terrorism Army).

The High Hedge law provided a means for councils to interfere in the enjoyment of private property, to force landowners to accommodate the wishes of their neighbours. It is right that such powers should be used reluctantly, because an Englishman's home is his castle etc.[/quote]

Sudynim,
'Conifer Terrorism Army' Ha Ha, that's Air Training Corps backwards. I belonged to the ATC for a short while, but I left to join the Boy Scouts and to learn about trees and things. Couldn't stand all that Brylcreem. Can't recall ever recognising a blasted Leylandii though, I don't think they existed then, like a lot more things ------- streetcraft, greed and the rule of the bully.

I don't need people to agree with me but I object to being patronised.

One thing that is clear, though is that a servient landowner cannot ride roughshod over his neighbours and beat them up by allowing his trees to overshadow a whole row of houses!

TonyW.
Anthony Westoby
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:23 pm

Re: branches disposal

Postby Sudynim » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:26 am

Anthony Westoby wrote:One thing that is clear, though is that a servient landowner cannot ride roughshod over his neighbours and beat them up by allowing his trees to overshadow a whole row of houses!

If they are servient (eg they are subject to an easement relating to tree height) then clearly this is right. However I suspect that would be rare.
Sudynim
 
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:31 pm

Re: branches disposal

Postby WILL*REMAIN*STRONG » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:32 am

Just because they don't agree with you, that doesn't make them members of A'l-Bildahejere (the International Conifer Terrorism Army).

:lol: :lol: So good.

All this talk empowers the all great Leylandii, and soon they will be even more powerful. They will take over in the destruction of all mankind from cats. :mrgreen:
User avatar
WILL*REMAIN*STRONG
 
Posts: 6214
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Home Sweet Home

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.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Hedges

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests