Tree pruning

[Bruce]

Please be more careful with your attribution. I did not write the above text starting "Whilst I ..."

In fact I agree with you!

[geoff]

In message , OG writes

Bit of a bugger, boundary disputes, eh ?

[OG]

What is the problem? Who has the problem? Is it possible that other people share the problem?

What possible solutions exist to the problem? Are you making some assumptions about the problem that are restricting the range of solutions available? What other solutions might be available if you discard some of the assumptions?

[The Medway Handyman]

Have you been reading those self help books?

[The Medway Handyman]

Amazing how a few trees can get Mugabe, ETA & the Tamil Tigers involved. Where is this garden?

[OG]

I don't have a problem with that; I responded to Andy Cap

[OG]

No but the approach is rational.

Do you honestly think that "I have not yet approached them, but feel they will refuse to trim them" is the best basis for getting all aeriated and legalistic is the best approach?

Since the OP hasn't even talked to them, why not go around to say, "Hi, I'm your neighbour - can we talk about the trees, because they are a bit too tall for the situation and I'd be happier if we took them down about

15 ft, is that a problem? I'll be happy to halve the cost since i'll be benefitting as much as you would. Otherwise I don't mind doing it myself if you're OK with me coming in your garden one weekend"

[Andy Cap]

Trust a woman to personalise the argument !

I do believe that servicemen should sign up separately for international conflicts i.e. be a member of a UN force, rather than at the behest of the British governement for foreign forays. However presently, if you sign the forms you accept the liablity.

Having said that, like so much of modern advertising, I do accept that advert that concentrate on a career and travel, should be banned.

It's also true that the British people in general have been extremely fortunate to have live during the few preceding decades.

[Andy Cap]

No, but my point was that I wouldn't condemn anyone who chose to i.e some things ARE worth fighting for, like freedom of expression, which we too readily take for granted. Negotiation simply doesn't always work.

Andy

[Andy Cap]

It's true that where there is mass injustice, there is more chance of an eventual resolution.

Clearly many have never had the experience of an iintransigent neighbour, who is quite willing to make you life a misery and seriously damages the prospect of a sale either directly through neglect or by havnig to admit the conflict.

Andy

[Andy Cap]

Agreed. We WERE lied to but that doesn't mean in future situations we should or would be able to do nothing.

Agreed. There should be an International Force, which people can sign up to, separate from their National Services.

I think you have a serious problem with reading and avoiding questions.

Me: "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."

Me: "Of course, I agreed with you, I made that perfectly clear, but if they refuse ?"

You: "Your starting point is to advocate violence"

You: "and I thank God that I don't live next door to you."

Believe me, you could do a LOT worse.

Andy

[Mary Fisher]

Trust a man to veer from the point.

[Andy Cap]

ALL I was saying, was that compromise is not ALWAYS an option.

If you think diferently, then we can agree to differ.

Andy

[Bruce]

Clearly you have an extreme unwillingness to see other people's points of view, through an extreme willingness to believe that only your point of view is valid because you are always right, of course.

It is an attitude that is entirely typical of the military, the ex-military and members of paramilitary organisations such as the police.

It should be no surprise that ex-military personnel are heavily over-represented among the failed members of society, requiring a wholly disproportionate level of support from social services, drug rehabilitation services and the NHS.

[Bruce]

It is in Andy Cap's mind, ITYF.

[Bruce]

Well said, OG.

It is slightly better than calling in the Army, I think. Using NATO forces to overthrow the dictator with the conifers is overkill.

[Dan Smithers]

I few times I've been approached about trees on my land. so far I have agreed to them carrying out the work and said "please dispose of the trimmings". They have always been put back onto on my land.

Contrawise, when working on other peoples plants overhanging my land, I ask whether they want them back or if I should dispose of them and always get told to get rid of them.

According to the hedging laws they are (and remain) the property of the landowner.

his plants are overhanging your land, and you are within your rights to trim back to the boundary, and you must return his wood to him if there is no other arrangement.

I think the best thing to do is to talk to your neighbour. He may be quite happy for you to proceed; he may even be willing to share the cost, but he doesn't have to. If you don't even talk to him you are bound to cause resentment and conflict.

Consider how you would feel if the situation was reversed and you found that a neighbour had pruned overhanging trees and then left the prunings on your drive.

As Churchill said, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war". I don't think he avoided confrontation if it was necessary. This one just doesn't sound necessary yet.

The problem with most conifers is that if you trim them back on one side, they take a very long time (if at all) to grow back, so you will probably be better off trimming them back progressively over a few years.

[Andy Cap]

After my next door's lads were repeatedly coming into my back garden to retrieve their football, I compromised by saying they could do so just three times a day.

Do you believe I was being unreasonable or do you think I should have given them unlimited access. My point being that you have to set a limit somewhere, else it becomes a public park and not your garden.

I would suggest YOUR limit, would have been somewhat lower.

If you are suggesting, as appears to be the case, that you do not have a limit to such invasive activity, then Sir, I suggest you are a liar.

Andy

[The Natural Philosopher]

RELY on a woman to always veer from the point. About the only thing you CAN...

[Ed Munton]

Seeing how quickly your innocent little question came close to starting WWIII on this forum (from Llelandei to weapons of mass destruction in three easy steps), just imagine the result if you were to trim off everything on your side of the fence and just toss it over. If I were your neighbour I would feel inclined to toss a dead cow over in return -- and I'm part pacifist.

You are certainly within your rights to trim up to the boundary line, and you are required to offer the debris to its owner. But why not start with a "good neighbour" approach instead of a confrontational one? Tell them you intend to trim your side of the fence, and ask if they want the trimmings or would they prefer you to take them for recycling.

I'm not sure how you tell whether or not people are "gardening types" from their appearance, but I am sure that a person doesn't have to be a gardening type to give a positive response to a polite neighbour who wants to tidy up his own garden.

If the height is also an issue then the law is on your side there, too... but before you line up the mortars, I recommend OG's 1038 post -- except that I wouldn't be quite as quick to offer to dig in to my own pocket.

imo you got off to a bad start with the assumption that "they will refuse to trim them".

I do hope you will post to tell us what approach you took, and what response you received.