High hedge regulations

User avatar
thin and crispy
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:57 pm

High hedge regulations

Post by thin and crispy » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:25 am

Interesting story:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/n ... ailsignout

It doesn't look like 39 feet high to me, but maybe that's just perspective.
If the order has been made (partly) on the basis that properties on the opposite side of the road are affected, that might give some of us hope. My neighbours used to have a hedge almost 20m high running along our side boundary but our LA did nothing.
Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument. Samuel Johnson.

TO
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:05 pm

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by TO » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:56 pm

High hedge complaints are determined on their merit, not on what a complaint thinks ought to be the outcome. If you don't like the council's decision you can appeal.

Collaborate
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by Collaborate » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:15 pm

This case is very fact specific.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.62730 ... 312!8i6656

This is the street map view. You can see the homes opposite are bungalows down the slope of the hill. Big difference.

TO
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:05 pm

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by TO » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:30 pm

Collaborate wrote:This case is very fact specific.
They all are. And account is taken of the reasons put forward by the complainant.

SJC14
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:23 pm

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by SJC14 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:34 pm

Collaborate wrote:This case is very fact specific.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.62730 ... 312!8i6656

This is the street map view. You can see the homes opposite are bungalows down the slope of the hill. Big difference.
Looks like the hedge is for privacy as the back garden faces onto other properties. The hedge is no were as bad as the moaning old women in the article have made out.

Collaborate
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by Collaborate » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:47 pm

It's more than twice the height needed. Entirely reasonable that they are forced to reduce its height.

arborlad
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by arborlad » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:45 pm

SJC14 wrote:Looks like the hedge is for privacy as the back garden faces onto other properties. The hedge is no were as bad as the moaning old women in the article have made out.


There is nothing correct in this post............
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

despair
Posts: 16185
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:07 am

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by despair » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:50 pm

Geez Arborlad that hedge us a true monster and hardly nessecary for privacy

User avatar
thin and crispy
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by thin and crispy » Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:11 pm

TO wrote:High hedge complaints are determined on their merit, not on what a complaint thinks ought to be the outcome. If you don't like the council's decision you can appeal.
Appeal? Who sits in judgement during this appeal?

In my case the facts were:
  • Leylandii hedge 18m-25m high x 40m long.
    Hedge began 4 metres from the south west corner of our conservatory.
    Hedge overhang our side of the boundary by 2 metres and pushed out fence posts over at an angle of about 75 degrees to the vertical (I know that's not relevant to a HH complaint).
    Hedge and our house were on same ground level.
    Most of our garden and the rear widows of our house were in shade for much of the day.
All those facts were conveyed to the person manning the LA's drop-in advice desk who advised us that, although we could pay almost £500 for them to look into it, it would be unlikely they would find in our favour. She was, personally, very sympathetic but said the inspectors just go through the motions and the council use the whole thing as a money-making measure. (That was a surprise to hear.) So, rather than giving the neighbour the satisfaction of another "win" (he'd also got away with periodic low-level harassment since 1998) we decided to shelve our complaint until the neighbour moved out. Fortunately the new neighbours seem to be more considerate and have since had the trees felled.
Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument. Samuel Johnson.

TO
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:05 pm

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by TO » Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:42 pm

thin and crispy wrote:Appeal? Who sits in judgement during this appeal?

All those facts were conveyed to the person manning the LA's drop-in advice desk who advised us that, although we could pay almost £500 for them to look into it, it would be unlikely they would find in our favour. She was, personally, very sympathetic but said the inspectors just go through the motions and the council use the whole thing as a money-making measure.
Appeals are dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate.

Your comments about the Councils customer services are odd. How could they state what the outcome was likely to be. Theyre not in a position to comment on how the officer would go about the complaint. Councils don't make money from high hedge complaints. By and large they cost more to undertake than the fee. And as most councils might do a couple a year they'd hardly be a money spinner.

User avatar
thin and crispy
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by thin and crispy » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:31 pm

I guess only she can say what motivated her advice. I took it to be a mixture of concern and her personal experience. Perhaps you would have questioned that advice, but I think most ordinary members of the public would have been deterred from pressing ahead with a complaint.

Whether councils make money on HH complaints is another matter. I find it very hard to believe that a site visit, a couple of letters and a bit of form filling costs them almost £500. If council employees are that expensive and their procedures that financially inefficient, it's no wonder that so many councils are in such dire straits at the moment.
Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument. Samuel Johnson.

TO
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:05 pm

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by TO » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:22 pm

thin and crispy wrote: Whether councils make money on HH complaints is another matter. I find it very hard to believe that a site visit, a couple of letters and a bit of form filling costs them almost £500. If council employees are that expensive and their procedures that financially inefficient, it's no wonder that so many councils are in such dire straits at the moment.
If only it was that simple. But it also begs the question, what do you base your assumptions on. Well what would I know you might ask. In answer I'd say: I asked half the Councils in England, by way of Freedom of Information requests, that very question, amongst others. Their responses, almost all did respond, informs my view. I also used to keep tabs on my own Councils costs in relation to high hedge disputes.

To paraphrase Samuel Johnson. Predjudice, like ignorance, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument.

APC
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:37 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by APC » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:21 pm

At least half of a high hedge complaint is social work. Most complainants and hedge owners need their heads knocking together.

Collaborate
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by Collaborate » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:54 am

TO wrote: To paraphrase Samuel Johnson. Predjudice, like ignorance, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument.
*Mic Drop

User avatar
thin and crispy
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: High hedge regulations

Post by thin and crispy » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:26 pm

TO wrote:
thin and crispy wrote: Whether councils make money on HH complaints is another matter. I find it very hard to believe that a site visit, a couple of letters and a bit of form filling costs them almost £500. If council employees are that expensive and their procedures that financially inefficient, it's no wonder that so many councils are in such dire straits at the moment.
If only it was that simple. But it also begs the question, what do you base your assumptions on (a). Well what would I know you might ask (b). In answer I'd say: I asked half the Councils in England, by way of Freedom of Information requests, that very question, amongst others. Their responses, almost all did respond, informs my view. I also used to keep tabs on my own Councils costs (c) in relation to high hedge disputes.

To paraphrase Samuel Johnson. Predjudice, like ignorance, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument (d).
a) What assumptions? My statement was based on the fact that if I charged my own clients so much for doing so little work, I'd be out of business.

b) I didn't ask, but thanks for your opinion. I don't doubt that councils state that their costs are high (they have to in order to justify their income), but it's absurd to say that the amount of work involved in (as I said) a site visit, a couple of letters and a bit of form filling actually costs them that much.

c) As a private individual or as an employee of your council?

d) I'm not sure why you paraphrased this quote from my "signature", unless your choice to do so was meant to be inflammatory. Are you accusing me of prejudice because my opinion differs from yours? Do you hope that the quote and the implicit accusation of prejudice means you don't need to present a convincing argument in favour of your opinion? Effectively, all you have said so far is that most councils say their costs are, or have to be, that high. You obviously choose to believe them. I don't (point (a)).
Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument. Samuel Johnson.

Post Reply