Fish Blood & Bone, which is a slow release organic fertiliser, applied as directed on the pack, will be more beneficial .... but the most important thing for that tree between now and the end of September is water, gallons of it.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I'm very surprised your council said it isn't a hedge. Technically, more than two trees together [especially if they're the same] constitutes hedging, but I expect it will often depend on the experience and knowledge of the people involved. Perhaps the neighbour has that bit of info and has therefore decided to act [illegally] on it though. The trees were there when they moved in - so they should have thought of that before buying, and looked elsewhere instead of being aggressive and removing one.
It's very unpleasant for you that they did that. They're lucky you aren't having them done for trespass and criminal damage. I hope they don't try it again. Just keep adding some nourishment round your new conifer in the way of compost or well rotted manure etc. Keep the trunk clear though - you don't want to put anything up against it, as that can create problems. A nice thick layer in the immediate area is the way, with a space between it and the trunk. It's quite a large specimen so the care is vital. Conifers [apart from leylandii] naturally grow slowly in their first 5 to 10 years, and then grow more quickly
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
I'm very surprised your council said it isn't a hedge. Technically, more than two trees together [especially if they're the same] constitutes hedging, but I expect it will often depend on the experience and knowledge of the people involved. Perhaps the neighbour has that bit of info and has therefore decided to act [illegally] on it though. The trees were there when they moved in - so they should have thought of that before buying, and looked elsewhere instead of being aggressive and removing one.
It's very unpleasant for you that they did that. They're lucky you aren't having them done for trespass and criminal damage. I hope they don't try it again. Just keep adding some nourishment round your new conifer in the way of compost or well rotted manure etc. Keep the trunk clear though - you don't want to put anything up against it, as that can create problems. A nice thick layer in the immediate area is the way, with a space between it and the trunk. It's quite a large specimen so the care is vital. Conifers [apart from leylandii] naturally grow slowly in their first 5 to 10 years, and then grow more quickly
Thanks very much. We did make a police report that day, which had the result of a policeman going round to their house a week later and verbally but informally warning them not to do it again.
We did look into pursuing this matter legally at the time with a solicitor, but legal costs proved much more weighty than the cost of replacing the tree.
Not only did these people give no notice when they did what they did, but they even tried to sway us away from our garden on the day they did it. They slipped a note through our door that morning which said “we are simply going to be cutting some branches down today, if you hear any noise this morning it’s just that”. They didn’t even press the bell to speak to us, and we didn’t even see the note under our door till afterwards. We were watching tv when they cut our tree down.
I do feel that these people did get away lightly, which is why I am still considering taking this matter to court. Even if it costs me, atleast I’ll know that they are facing some consequences. A friendly visit from a policeman telling them not to do it again doesn’t quite cut it!
Let's hope the 'visit' might be enough to make them realise you aren't going to lie down and be walked over. It can be a very difficult situation - there have been lots of threads on the forum over the years about neighbour problems, and it's never straightforward. I really hope you don't get any more trouble.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Without beating about the bush, I’m with
the neighbour on this. I wouldn’t have had
the guts to cut it down, but I can understand why they felt driven to it.
You’ve let the Leylandii grow to an
enormous height that they must be blocking out light to his garden and possibly
house. The shadow and gloom those trees cast can be oppressive and mentally
very debilitating so as not to be able to enjoy their garden. It’s like The Berlin Wall. But you know this already.
I agree with others, your trees would constitute
a hedge, an unneighbourly, unnecessarily tall hedge. Why not just cut and keep them
to a reasonable height – your neighbours can enjoy their garden and you can
still enjoy your privacy.
If you involve the council or the court (you
don’t need a solicitor - just use the small claims court - it isn’t costly) but
they’ll probably order you to reduce them and to maintain them at that height.
High hedges impacting on neighbour’s
property can cause bitter disputes and upset - that’s why a law on high hedges was brought
in. It comes under Part 8 of the
Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003.
----------------
Guidance. High hedges complaining to the council…
3. What sorts of complaint can the council look at?
If you’ve taken
the steps listed in Over
the garden hedge and can answer ‘yes’ to all the points listed below, the
local council is likely to be able to consider your complaint.
Is the hedge (or the part of it that’s causing problems) a ‘high hedge’?Is the hedge:
growing on land owned or occupied by someone
else?
made up of a line of
2 or more trees or shrubs?
mostly evergreen or
semi-evergreen?
more than 2 metres
tall?
a barrier to light or
access (even if there are gaps)?
Does this hedge’s height harm the reasonable
enjoyment of a home you own or occupy and/or its garden or yard ?
Yes @pipip - but the trees were already there when the neighbours bought the house. They didn't suddenly grow or get put in after that. The onus is therefore on the neighbour to make the decision whether to buy or not. It's also not up to the owners of the trees [who have been there for over twenty years, along with the trees] to suddenly accommodate a neighbour after they buy a house.
If you read the OP's posts from yesterday, the details are there about how the situation came about. The council was contacted, and was happy about the trees. The neighbour decided they'd just cut it down. Not acceptable at all.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Well, I disagree.
He is perfectly entitled to buy the house and then ask for the trees/hedge to
be reduced.
Just as a new
neighbour could ask a neighbour to mend their guttering, a bowing wall or dilapidated
fence if it is impacting on their property, and
vice versa - it doesn’t matter that the previous owner put up with it for
twenty years.
It happens all
the time and some neighbours are perfectly accommodating and neighbourly, i.e.
they would just reduce the trees. I would, or rather I wouldn’t have let Leylandii
get to that height.
“It's also not up to the
owners of the trees [who have been there for over twenty years, along with the
trees] to suddenly accommodate a neighbour after they buy a house.”
Well it absolutely
is if it’s impacting on the neighbours’ property or their amenity. Just as it would be if they asked him to
repair that leaking gutter that was affecting their property. With ownership comes
responsibility, and as the owners of the trees they have a responsibility to
maintain them and that may mean keeping them to a reasonable height, [it isn't relevant if the height didn't bother the previous neighbour].
And it doesn’t matter that the trees were there before the law came into
being. The law clearly applies to pre-existing
(that is why the law was brought in) as
well as high hedges that come after the law.
And why should
the OP be allowed to let his Leylandii (Leylandii,
for crying out loud!) grow to that height that could very well affect the
sale / price of their neighbour’s house. Note, the
law was brought in with particular regard to Leylandii.
From the photo – if you look at the law and it’s definition of a “high
hedge” – it’s a “high hedge”. So the law would be on the side of getting them
reduced to a more reasonable height. It
wouldn’t be surprising if the person from the council was a prize turnip, 9
times out of 10 that is my experience. On
another day he might have got someone different who considered that they were a
problem.
Anyway…why won’t the OP
reduce them?
There’s a point when the height of them doesn’t increase his privacy,
so why not reduce them to a reasonable height to accommodate the neighbour [and
the law]. For a start that would have been the way to
get them to branch out lower down and grow thicker and denser.
I just don’t
think the solution is to re-plant the space with another “fast growing conifer”, which was his original question. It is not
going to end the dispute but rather perpetuate it.
So I don’t think
the problem is what to replace the gap in the tree line - the problem is how
to resolve the dispute over the height of the trees.
Anyway, there are two sides to the story and we haven’t heard the other
neighbour’s side.
However, you and
I will (amicably) disagree on this.
While someone can certainly 'ask' if a hedge or tree can be reduced in height, that doesn't mean they can expect it to happen. Perhaps if there had been some open dialogue in a civilised manner, things would have been different. It certainly doesn't justify the actions of the neighbour. If they weren't happy, they could have approached the council themselves to get clarification. The council looked, and no action was taken. I said I was surprised at that, but that's how it is. There's often no accounting for the actions of councils, as most people know if they've owned houses for any length of time and done any building work or similar.
It would also be different if the trees were dangerous in some way. That would be comparable with gutters or walls or any other part of a building, but again, if the council said they were ok, that's that. The usual objection that's raised is this so called 'right to light' . It's a myth and simply doesn't exist - or it certainly doesn't up here.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Perhaps the neighbour has that bit of info and has therefore decided to act [illegally] on it though. The trees were there when they moved in - so they should have thought of that before buying, and looked elsewhere instead of being aggressive and removing one.
It's very unpleasant for you that they did that. They're lucky you aren't having them done for trespass and criminal damage. I hope they don't try it again.
Just keep adding some nourishment round your new conifer in the way of compost or well rotted manure etc. Keep the trunk clear though - you don't want to put anything up against it, as that can create problems. A nice thick layer in the immediate area is the way, with a space between it and the trunk. It's quite a large specimen so the care is vital. Conifers [apart from leylandii] naturally grow slowly in their first 5 to 10 years, and then grow more quickly
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
We did look into pursuing this matter legally at the time with a solicitor, but legal costs proved much more weighty than the cost of replacing the tree.
It can be a very difficult situation - there have been lots of threads on the forum over the years about neighbour problems, and it's never straightforward. I really hope you don't get any more trouble.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
@rinimuksz1HWKtca
Without beating about the bush, I’m with the neighbour on this. I wouldn’t have had the guts to cut it down, but I can understand why they felt driven to it.
You’ve let the Leylandii grow to an enormous height that they must be blocking out light to his garden and possibly house. The shadow and gloom those trees cast can be oppressive and mentally very debilitating so as not to be able to enjoy their garden. It’s like The Berlin Wall. But you know this already.
I agree with others, your trees would constitute a hedge, an unneighbourly, unnecessarily tall hedge. Why not just cut and keep them to a reasonable height – your neighbours can enjoy their garden and you can still enjoy your privacy.
If you involve the council or the court (you don’t need a solicitor - just use the small claims court - it isn’t costly) but they’ll probably order you to reduce them and to maintain them at that height.
High hedges impacting on neighbour’s property can cause bitter disputes and upset - that’s why a law on high hedges was brought in. It comes under Part 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003.
----------------
Guidance. High hedges complaining to the council…
3. What sorts of complaint can the council look at?
If you’ve taken the steps listed in Over the garden hedge and can answer ‘yes’ to all the points listed below, the local council is likely to be able to consider your complaint.
Is the hedge (or the part of it that’s causing problems) a ‘high hedge’? Is the hedge:
Does this hedge’s height harm the reasonable enjoyment of a home you own or occupy and/or its garden or yard ?
In full: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-hedges-complaining-to-the-council/high-hedges-complaining-to-the-council
and
https://www.hopesgrovenurseries.co.uk/knowledge-base/what-is-the-legal-height-of-leylandii-trees/
It's also not up to the owners of the trees [who have been there for over twenty years, along with the trees] to suddenly accommodate a neighbour after they buy a house.
If you read the OP's posts from yesterday, the details are there about how the situation came about. The council was contacted, and was happy about the trees. The neighbour decided they'd just cut it down. Not acceptable at all.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Well, I disagree. He is perfectly entitled to buy the house and then ask for the trees/hedge to be reduced.
Just as a new neighbour could ask a neighbour to mend their guttering, a bowing wall or dilapidated fence if it is impacting on their property, and vice versa - it doesn’t matter that the previous owner put up with it for twenty years.
It happens all the time and some neighbours are perfectly accommodating and neighbourly, i.e. they would just reduce the trees. I would, or rather I wouldn’t have let Leylandii get to that height.
“It's also not up to the owners of the trees [who have been there for over twenty years, along with the trees] to suddenly accommodate a neighbour after they buy a house.”
Well it absolutely is if it’s impacting on the neighbours’ property or their amenity. Just as it would be if they asked him to repair that leaking gutter that was affecting their property. With ownership comes responsibility, and as the owners of the trees they have a responsibility to maintain them and that may mean keeping them to a reasonable height, [it isn't relevant if the height didn't bother the previous neighbour].
And it doesn’t matter that the trees were there before the law came into being. The law clearly applies to pre-existing (that is why the law was brought in) as well as high hedges that come after the law.
And why should the OP be allowed to let his Leylandii (Leylandii, for crying out loud!) grow to that height that could very well affect the sale / price of their neighbour’s house. Note, the law was brought in with particular regard to Leylandii.
From the photo – if you look at the law and it’s definition of a “high hedge” – it’s a “high hedge”. So the law would be on the side of getting them reduced to a more reasonable height. It wouldn’t be surprising if the person from the council was a prize turnip, 9 times out of 10 that is my experience. On another day he might have got someone different who considered that they were a problem.
Anyway…why won’t the OP reduce them?
There’s a point when the height of them doesn’t increase his privacy, so why not reduce them to a reasonable height to accommodate the neighbour [and the law]. For a start that would have been the way to get them to branch out lower down and grow thicker and denser.
So I don’t think the problem is what to replace the gap in the tree line - the problem is how to resolve the dispute over the height of the trees.
Anyway, there are two sides to the story and we haven’t heard the other neighbour’s side.
However, you and I will (amicably) disagree on this.
The council looked, and no action was taken. I said I was surprised at that, but that's how it is. There's often no accounting for the actions of councils, as most people know if they've owned houses for any length of time and done any building work or similar.
It would also be different if the trees were dangerous in some way. That would be comparable with gutters or walls or any other part of a building, but again, if the council said they were ok, that's that. The usual objection that's raised is this so called 'right to light' . It's a myth and simply doesn't exist - or it certainly doesn't up here.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...