I have a 40 foot row of dreaded conifers across end of garden, just on the neighbours garden. Now about 30 feet tall, and overhanging my side by about 6 feet in places. I have not yet approached them, but feel they will refuse to trim them, do not appear to be gardening types. If I cut them back my side only, am I within the law to pass the cuttings back onto their land?
When you cut conifers they do not regrow, so you will be left with a brown and ugly mess.
If you really want to stir up trouble, that's certainly a good way of doing it, whether it is legal or not. It's no wonder that disputes between neighbours are such a big problem in Britain.
If you were joking, I apologise.
Take a look here. You should be able to get the them taken down at the expense of the owner. Note that you have to try and get them to do it voluntarily first.
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk
Sure, there are better ways to start but the poster would be within his rights to trim to the boundary, and *must* pass the cuttings back (otherwise it could be construed as theft).
Wars start because people are prepared to ignore all logic in pursuit of what they believe to be their "rights".
That applies to whole countries, groups of people (large and small) and individuals. And especially to neighbours.
Assert your "rights" and you make enemies. In the end, everyone loses.
The law is pretty clear ... you are allowed to trim any tress that overhang your property, as long as they do not have a preservation order on them. You must offer the cuttings back to the owner, as they are not your property.
Can't see many wanting them, but that is the law.
Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise - and lobbing cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you have to fight to preserve your rights.
Like being able to express a view in a newsgroup like this one. Only pacifists, who wouldn't exist if others weren't prepared to fight on their behalf, are stupid enough not to understand that.
Andy
Your language displays hostility, which is not a good place to start from. The use of the word "compromise" means you are automatically assuming that the neighbours have opposing objectives, and that each must give up some of those objectives in order to avoid conflict with the other.
In fact it would be better to try to find common ground based on shared objectives, by communicating with them.
For example, just because the neighbour hasn't cut the conifers doesn't mean that they will stoutly defend their "right" not to. It may well be that they would be quite happy to cut them, or even actively want them to be lower, but the hedge has grown beyond the point where it is simple and inexpensive to do it themselves. Or perhaps it hasn't occurred to them that their tall hedge is not liked by the neighbours, because they are not keen gardeners.
Instead of starting a conflict without even speaking to the neighbours, why not try to understand them and even get to know them? Treating people with suspicion and avoiding contact with them is a guaranteed was to ensure that unnecessary problems will occur.
If the first real conversation you have with your neighbours is about something they do that upsets you, then stand by for fireworks. I repeat, with emphasis:
"Assert your "rights" and you make enemies.
In the end, everyone loses."
Nearly right. You must offer to give back the cuttings. If the neighbour doesnt want them, then it is up to you to get rid of them, you cannot chuck them over the fence/boundary. Alan.
What does the law say about chucking your next door neighbour over the boundary when they object about the pruning and try to stop you pruning?
Adam
Of course, I agreed with you, I made that perfectly clear, but if they refuse ?
The point I was making is that sometimes you can not come to an agreement. You then resort to law. If the other party isn't law abiding, then you must turn to brute force.
As in the case of Mugabe for example, do you just wait for him to die? Meanwhile millions of people are condemned to have utterly miserable lives.
Some things ARE worth fighting for.
Andy
"Brute force" seems to occupy your mind more than perhaps it should.
There is another alternative, which is to weigh up whether the stress of an adversarial relationship with your neighbour makes resorting to law worthwhile. Then just forget about it.
I am not going to fight Mugabe, and (I suspect) neither are you.
Some people just enjoy fighting. Others resort to it because they are not intelligent enough to find an alternative.
For whatever reason, the threshold where "brute force" starts to be used seems to get lower and lower with each passing year.
It depends how you do it.
Each year, for a Christmas tree, we cut off the leader from our c.leylandi and other branches grew to take its place. We don't do it any longer for logistical reasons but we intend taking down a large limb this year after the birds have finished rearing young. We're confident that he rest of the tree will be fine.
Mary
So you are simply prepared to gradually surender your garden to the neighbours and then when you come to sell it, no one is interested. Very charitable, I'm sure.
That doesn't surprise me. I live in a country which exists because people were prepared to lay down their lives, at least we could be grateful.
Some people simply avoid the issue by not answernig the question !
Rubbish. We have been privileged to enjoy possible the longest period of peace in history. The trouble with that is that some choose to stick their head in the sand and pretend that there are not those, who would have things differently.
Andy
Are you fighting for Mugabe's victims?
Mary
Nobody is fighting us here but our troops have been involved in war after (illegal invasion) after war when there was no threat to us.
You're in the armed forces of course so you know, I only have a serving son
I think you are in grave danger of confusing an individual's relationship with his/her next door neighbour with the issue of whether and/or how the international community should deal with a despot such as Robert Mugabe.
As for the UK going to war in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, that has only served to make the UK into far more of a terrorist target than it ever was before, or would have been had our armed forces not become involved. There can now be no doubt that the invasion of Iraq was in breach of international law. The legal position in Afghanistan is also very uncertain, as what was a NATO peacekeeping force is now fighting a ferocious war. Any peacekeeping mandate for this force is therefore invalid.
If wars are being fought to prevent breaches of international law by despots such as Saddam Hussein, it is doubly important to make sure that any action our country takes does not itself breach international law, otherwise we are in danger of becoming the problem. Coming back to the neighbour issue, the onus is on everyone to behave reasonably. Your starting point is to advocate violence ("brute force") even before any negotiations have begun. That doesn't seem reasonable to me, and I thank God that I don't live next door to you.
I believe Leylandi are an exception to this rule. I have topped several isolated trees here when they were threatening the gutters and found that the remaining top branches turned upwards and became new leaders.
regards
Martin Luther King didn't 'fight' Gandhi didn't 'fight' The Dalai Lama isn't 'fighting'
The IRA 'fought' The Tamil Tigers and ETA are 'fighting'
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.