Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby jdfi » Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:28 pm

Another thought: can he do a deal with developer then insist on a clause going in the purchase agreement that the hedge agreement is acknowledged?
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

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: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby arsie » Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:21 am

The OP has by now decided his strategy.

I doubt he is in any position to insist on legally binding clauses on the developer. This issue is not a big deal show stopper to the developer, I imagine. Only the local authority can set conditions - and they decide for themselves on those, generally. And I don't think that they have any 1 metre rule Mac, whatever you think about how trees 1 metre apart might appear ...
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:17 am

Hi arsie,

And I don't think that they have any 1 metre rule Mac, whatever you think about how trees 1 metre apart might appear ...

I know they won't - that would be silly.

and for the last time - it is the dual combination of the trees being both 1m apart and 40ft tall that will mean they look awful.
40ft trees set further apart (ie a row of trees) - fine
shorter trees set 1m apart (ie a hedge) - fine
40ft trees set 1m apart (ie a hedge that has been neglected) - awful

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

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby arsie » Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:31 am

From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hedge-height-and-light-loss
In the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, "high hedge" means ‘so much of a barrier to light or access as:
(a) is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and
(b) rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.'

There is nothing in the legislation about how far apart the trees are.
Distance apart = Mac's Law :roll:
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:17 am

Hi arsie,

is that your witty way of acknowledging that my point was not referring to the 'high hedge' legislation? (something I made clear at the outset).

if we're to stick to the 'high hedge' topic - the OP's 'row of trees' would without doubt qualify as a 'high hedge' if next door was a domestic property.

the legislators also made provision for developers in the circumstances being discussed:

[i](1) This Part applies to a complaint which—
(a) is made for the purposes of this Part by an owner or occupier of a domestic property; and
(b) alleges that his reasonable enjoyment of that property is being adversely affected by the height of a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person.

(2) This Part also applies to a complaint which—
(a) is made for the purposes of this Part by an owner of a domestic property that is for the time being unoccupied, and
(b) alleges that the reasonable enjoyment of that property by a prospective occupier of that property would be adversely affected by the height of a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person, as it applies to a complaint falling within subsection (1).

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

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby arsie » Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:05 pm

At present the field is in agricultural use and so the 'high hedges' legislation isn't relevant. Only the occupier of private domestic property may apply or, if a house is empty (but already in private domestic ownership) an application may be made.

So, as I read it, the developer himself cannot apply.

However, a canny developer will know that these trees reduce the chances of selling or value of some plots and will seek to mitigate the possibility. In this case, the developer (or his surveyor) is trying to fool the OP that 2 metres is the height that these trees 'ought' to be. Whereas the OP realises very well that 2 metres is the 'actionable' height.

I posted some time ago on and agreed with the OP what the actual height must be, using the published information at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/high-hedges.

The OP's choice is, to act now and hopefully get the developer to pay for the work, or to sit tight and wait and see. The latter is not in the developer's interests so 'plan A' has a good chance :wink:
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby Roblewis » Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:28 pm

Have to agree with arsie that in the agricultural setting lines of Poplars 1m apart are very common and make a truly awesome lane along what were medieval roads. The OP is unfortunately caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. When a LA permits extension of the urban environment these issues will always arise at the boundaries of old and new.
Roblewis
 
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby mr sheen » Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:36 pm

Don't think anyone is arguing about poplars ...they are truly spectacular...and not subject to HH legislation.
This is about non-native conifers that cut out 70-80% light for 100% of the year....ie a nuisance!
People have to live somewhere. If everyone planted lines of conifers at the edge of every field to prevent development.... :roll:
mr sheen
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:54 pm

Hi arsie,

you've added the word 'private' in order to make your point stick - it isn't in the legislation which also contains a definition of 'domestic property' for clarity:

(1)In this Part “domestic property” means—

(a)a dwelling; or

(b)a garden or yard which is used and enjoyed wholly or mainly in connection with a dwelling.

(2)In subsection (1) “dwelling” means any building or part of a building occupied, or intended to be occupied, as a separate dwelling.

(3)A reference in this Part to a person’s reasonable enjoyment of domestic property includes a reference to his reasonable enjoyment of a part of the property.


Mac
edit: Rob - 40ft poplars 1m apart? really? I've seen plenty set 2-3m apart or more, but 1m??? (from the trunk centres...) don't suppose you could post a link to a photo of this "very common" occurrence?
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby arsie » Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:19 pm

Agreed, mr sheen, Roblewis: the 'high hedge' law is for urban situations. Almost all farmers are averse to conifers because they block the light 100% of the year. There are few native species.
The only conifers which are generally recognised to be native to Britain are Scots Pine, Juniper and Yew. Coniferous woodlands in Britain are mostly planted woodlands (plantations). The vast majority are made up of introduced conifer species.
.
The conifers that the OP inherited must have been planted by someone who didn't want the rabbits to see them ;) Personally, I can never understand this desire for walls - Mac's analogy - to block out the sight of open countryside, whether arable or let to pasture (as this probably is, the OP said the land next to him slopes up quite a bit.)

We've a similar field behind our garden and I cut back the farmer's hedge to 8 feet (asked him first.) Now we get to see the four seasons from our balcony. Luckily, the field is included in our local Conservation Area, as there is a picture-postcard view coming in to the village from that direction, of the old church and the tall (deciduous) trees of the rookery, barns, etc.

edit:
Mac I relied on the information you first quoted. Nothing wrong with my assessment though: I've never heard of a developer applying for a 'high hedge' order, have you? (Quote fully though ;))
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:33 pm

Hi arsie,

The conifers that the OP inherited must have been planted by someone who didn't want the rabbits to see them

I rather fancy the intention was to have a hedge but someone has neglected it - maybe the same with your neighbour? (assuming his were also planted out 1m apart and not thinned out as the height increased...)

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

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby arsie » Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:36 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi arsie,

The conifers that the OP inherited must have been planted by someone who didn't want the rabbits to see them

I rather fancy the intention was to have a hedge but someone has neglected it - maybe the same with your neighbour? (assuming his were also planted out 1m apart and not thinned out as the height increased...)

Kind regards, Mac


1) As usual with your penchant for part quoting and not using the site facility to quote you have - probably deliberately to make a point? - missed a bit
:wink:


2) Possibly the OP has also neglected to maintain - once Leylandii go large, you can only savage them back, which is what is going to happen here ultimately. And yes, my neighbour hasn't trimmed the bottom hedge (I assumed his property) in ages and isn't bothered. It's east of us.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Multiple High Hedge Complaints

Postby arsie » Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:48 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi arsie,

The conifers that the OP inherited must have been planted by someone who didn't want the rabbits to see them

I rather fancy the intention was to have a hedge but someone has neglected it - maybe the same with your neighbour? (assuming his were also planted out 1m apart and not thinned out as the height increased...)

Kind regards, Mac

1) As usual with your penchant for part quoting and not using the site facility to quote you have - probably deliberately to make a point? - missed a bit :wink:

2) Possibly the OP has also neglected to maintain - once Leylandii go large, you can only savage them back, which is what is going to happen here ultimately. And yes, my neighbour hasn't trimmed the bottom hedge (I assumed his property) in ages and isn't bothered. It's east of us.

edit: sorry this post replaces the one above I was too late to correct it!
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

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.
 
Previous

Return to Hedges

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests