Getting round the law

Getting round the law

Postby sxtree1 » Tue May 31, 2005 3:58 pm

I scanned this site but although theres an awful number of pro-hedgers on here it seems there isnt too much advice for them. Seems to me that the legals on here should take note of this! What i also didnt see is a single topic on possibilities for getting around the law; maybe none of the following are valid but i would be interested in any comments on them or even more so additions:

Of course im a pro hedger, not hard to tell. But then again if you have a hedge at the bottom of your garden and buy the house for the privacy it offers and then someone builds another years later and feet away from your hedge and then demands in reduced...who wouldnt be

1.Is the anti-hedger (spit) against the land or the tree. For example if its my land and someone elses tree what then. What if ownership changes periodically
2.What if the tree and the land under each is owned by a different person. Is this a hedge or not
3.I understand i can build a shed in the gaps between trees to make it a non continuous hedge....ones with flourscent red backs i read on another site - will this work
others...
sxtree1
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:45 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.
 

Some more

Postby sxtree1 » Tue May 31, 2005 4:27 pm

4.What if the nosy-neighbour takes action, goes down the trail, and a notice is issued and then the landowner sells that piece of land. Would everything have to restart? at more expense to them? Is it expensive to sell a small part of land?
5.What if there is a small strip of land between the anti and your hedges - ie is it only neighbouring land they can take action agains
sxtree1
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:45 pm

Re: Some more

Postby Maverick.uk » Tue May 31, 2005 8:21 pm

sxtree1

Contrary to your observation my perception is not that anybody on this forum is a pro hedger. Most that frequent the site try and offer advice based on current law and sometimes opinion.

On reading your post i gather you may be suffering an issue with a neighbour?

For what its worth i think again most regular posters on this forum would tell you that if you live in an area that is built up then the possabilities of having a neighbour with a differing view point to yours is inevitable. Somthing else thats quoted is that if you really desire the privacy that you seek then you could always buy i house in the middle of no where or on a plot large enough so that you can have hedges as high as you like without affecting the neighbours with whom you have to try and live in harmony together.

A tall order i know but that is how it is with the denser population that exists today. it will not get any easier i can assure you.

Regards

Mav
Maverick.uk
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:36 pm
Location: Suffolk, UK

Nail on the head

Postby sxtree1 » Tue May 31, 2005 9:49 pm

Hi Mav

I think you hit the nail on the head. Thats exactly what i did do. Some one built one of these micro garden estates on it and then the best suggestion is that i move. That seems fair!!!

Its a bit like some one moving next door to heathrow airport and then asking the airport to move on because its too noisy. Fair enough if you moved there in 1920 or whatever and they said there would be one flight a day

scx
sxtree1
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:45 pm

Re: Nail on the head

Postby Maverick.uk » Tue May 31, 2005 10:23 pm

I understand exactly where you are coming from but you fail to understand that everbody has a right to enjoy their amenity.

Unless you have such a lerge plot and live right in the centre you will always have your problem. It goes back to the argument over a right to a view. If you really want that view then you must own it....

Cheers

Mav
Maverick.uk
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:36 pm
Location: Suffolk, UK

Right again

Postby sxtree1 » Tue May 31, 2005 10:30 pm

Right again. Their amenity had a big hedge in it when they bought it. Just like the people who moved next to heathrow had a lot of planes. its reasonable not to expect the amenity to change (for the worse) but not reasonable to expect it to change to serve you for something you never paid for or expected in the first place.

scx
sxtree1
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:45 pm

Re: Right again

Postby Maverick.uk » Tue May 31, 2005 10:38 pm

Land in this country always belongs to someone (generally) and could be subject to change over the years. But you would have, that because you were there first you expect preferential treatment in your favour? Sorry this will never happen.

The law has been brought about to try and enable both sides of adjoining land to enjoy reasonable use of the same.

Regards

Mav
Maverick.uk
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:36 pm
Location: Suffolk, UK

Postby Cytania » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:38 am

Most people on this site don't fall into easy pro/anti brackets Sxtree and in seeing complicated issues in this polarised way you will miss out on alot.

I get the impression from your questions that you would like to evade HighHedges by some legal ruse to do with transferring ownership. However I would caution you that this may just be a recipe for you giving solicitors alot of money.

In general a tree on someone's land is assumed to be owned by them. The reason for this is that trees spring up naturally* (my mother gets several saplings from her borders each year the range of species is fascinating), they aren't always purchased and planted.

As regards selling the land a hedge is on I would expect the ongoing dispute/HighHedges mediation process to sour any such deal and non-declaration to be something that you could easily be sued over. In a similar vein transter of small tracts of your land would need a deed alteration and this could cast a real cloud over any future house sale. Imagine you were a house buyer and then learnt that the hedge was a seperate purchase - alarm bells would ring, no?

* Seeds in bird poop :D
They cut down all the trees, put 'em in a tree museum and charged all the people just to see 'em
Cytania
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:17 pm
Location: East Midlands

No?

Postby sxtree1 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:42 pm

Re No - Not really, id just buy it back when the time is necessary

Re Ruse - Tax evasion = illegal, Tax Avoidance = legal - same deal

Mediation - see it, done it, bought the T-shirt. Id have them higher, they would have them at zero and are reliant on the 2m as their compromomise!. I compromise on gutter height so the spectre of prying, nosy neighbours from all windows doesnt intervene
sxtree1
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:45 pm

Re: No?

Postby Maverick.uk » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:15 pm

It sounds as though your neighbour will then be possibly going down the LA route to help resolve this issue.

According to treeman, if my memory serves me correctly, the height is calculated dependant on situation. So your gutter height may be acceptable, do the maths to see.

Not quite sure how you would evade by selling, as whoever it was sold to would also be approached to resolve. All land sold must be registered so therefore the proprietor would be known.

Regards

Mav
Maverick.uk
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:36 pm
Location: Suffolk, UK

Postby xoggoth » Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:11 pm

Rather on the side of the original poster. One cannot sensibly conduct one's affairs with one eye on what might happen in the future. Why not plant trees/hedges if they affect nobody?

Then along comes a building development. One is supposed to remove a treasured part of a garden's landscaping at possible enormous cost (up to a £1000 a tree sometimes) for no return whatsoever?

Consider the profit that developers make. £10s or £100s of k per dwelling. It seems reasonable, if they consider that adjacent trees will affect value, that they should approach existing owners and offer some compensation for removing them. After all, they may well recover the cost in increased value of their properties.

Consider the house purchaser. If that row of trees or high hedge is really a major problem then he has probably purchased his property at a lower value than if they were not there. To take advantage of that and then to get high and mighty about "selfish" neighbours is a bit rich.
xoggoth
 
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:36 pm

selling land?

Postby sxtree1 » Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:20 am

Coming back to one point before...

Well, you can of course still get 'traced' if you sell but generally the 'legal' process takes time, and when it hits a dead end (eg the land has been sold) for simple affairs the theory is that everything has to start again from the beginning with more cost and time
sxtree1
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:45 pm

Re: Getting round the law

Postby sxtree1 » Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:15 am

well i was hunting for some other advice on this site and came across my original post. So its 10 years on and perhaps an update is due. This all happened just as the high-hedge (double spit) act was coming in to progress, perhaps 1-2 years before it. So our nosy neighbour started off with some legala which i just stalled and did myself at no cost. Then their lawyer obviously said to them wait for the high-hedge act since was costing them and then it will be easy....so a couple of years later the two neighbours at the back paid 300-400 quid each to the council and then we started the new process. What fun. I would have meant taking them down to around 2m since there garden was only 5-6m long so no chance. After several delaying tactics on my side the neighbours eventually won...or thought they did. But i appealled to the planning inspectorate. Just before i did this i took out every other tree (they were 7m conifers at around 0.5-0.75 m spacing so they could easily take it) and the cut not the top off but the lower greenery out up to a height ofaround 3m leaving a space which was in anycase behind 2m fence and there were some other pushes as well. The PI came said it wasnt a hedge and the neighbours lost their money. Party...you bed i did. The hedge grewback in about 2 years at the bottom and we planted further trees in front the hedge to fill the gaps should this happen again. All in all it irritated the crap out of me so whilst i would have cut to gutter height have no problem with moon height now and if they try it again i wiwouldll go down exactly the same route. So for all people in their who dont want that airport this is your escape. And yes the lefty interference and social brigade im sure will complain of unneighbourly behavior but 1 neighbour moved, the other is still there and nothing was ever said again. Actually he came round after about 4-5 years and asked in a very nice way if we could take back to gutter level again and in my old age i said yes - i even offered to split the payment with him ;-)
sxtree1
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:45 pm

Re: Getting round the law

Postby despair » Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:58 am

Given your case with some idiot developer building houses with gardens only 5 to 6m long behind your hedge I consider it entirely unreasonable for you to be forced to cut them down ................the planners are at fault in the first place for allowing houses to be built that close but of course you can guarantee that during the planning your hedge will have featured in the officers appraisal as being a screen that therefore allowed the development ............crazy decision making

however there are always going to be instances where hedges like your have been grown out of sheer spite and are wrecking the lives of the neighbours plus if they overhang the boundary all the considerable cost of cutting back year on year and that's where legislation is needed

A similar problem occurs with deciduous tree that were small when planted yet 30 or 40 years later totally dominate and dwarf all around and the neighbour refuses to see that their tree is now blighting a neighbours life

Selling and moving is now a very costly business so some form of compromise on all sides is needed
despair
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: Getting round the law

Postby Roblewis » Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:29 pm

What is a serious problem is the LA tree planting schemes of the 60s and 70s - round here Willows were highly favoured only now they over power all the houses in the streets and they need constant pruning to allow traffic including buses along the roads. The problem as I see it is that the intention was I believe to manage Spite Hedges and totally uncontrolled growth but it became a useful tool for every situation. Developers saw an opportunity to build in inappropriate places knowing the legislation could be used by buyers. It really is a Law of Unintended Consequences.
Roblewis
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:41 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.
 
Next

Return to Hedges

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest