Unstable tree

[Mark Bolam]

I like them as standalone trees, just not as scruffy monstrous hedges.
We've all been sat in the middle of the dead tops looking 20' to each side at the regrowth wanting to plunge a topper into our heart and end it all....

[Stubby]

6 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

I like them as standalone trees, just not as scruffy monstrous hedges.
We've all been sat in the middle of the dead tops looking 20' to each side at the regrowth wanting to plunge a topper into our heart and end it all....

Agreed . As a stand alone they can be magnificent .

[Marc]

1 hour ago, Mark Bolam said:

I like them as standalone trees, just not as scruffy monstrous hedges.
We've all been sat in the middle of the dead tops looking 20' to each side at the regrowth wanting to plunge a topper into our heart and end it all....

The only thing I like about a Leylandii hedge is the sound it makes going through a Bandit chipper.

 

Although don’t mind a bit of Conny bashing, it’s about all I seem to do now on the weekends when I still work for others.

[treebark]

1 hour ago, Stubby said:

Agreed . As a stand alone they can be magnificent .

Rare to see unfortunately.  I recall reading the actual maximum height they can grow to is still to be determined as they are such a relativley new variety still?

[Mark Bolam]

That seems to be the consensus.

[daltontrees]

This is largely a legal question, and if the original poster wants to confirm he is still interested in an answer I will have a shot at it.

[daveatdave]

if its on a public foot path the council will tell you to cut it back to clear it or they will do it and charge you 

[Gary Prentice]

14 hours ago, Toriuscowus said:

When it destabalises the trees, is he liable? Or for any further damage to our property, trees and cars if one was to come down in winds? Or do we have to actually wait for something to come down for it to cause damage before we can sue? 

At the end of the day they are your trees. If you keep them in a condition that makes them unstable, knowingly, then it's down to you. The tree surgeon would make a great witness for the developer if the trees were cut back to your boundary and then fell over (whether they would or wouldn't is another matter and an unknown on the details provided) and then you tried to sue him.

 

To establish where they may be be cut back to, under common law, you'll need to establish ownership of the footpath. Saying that the footpath has been given over to the council could be that he still owns the land and there's a right of way (maintained by the council) on it. If this is the case he has a common law right to cut back to the boundary between your property and the footpath.

 

If he has 'gifted' the land and it's owned by the council, then the 'right' is the councils, not his.

 

Generally, the neighbouring landowner can't force you to cut your trees back, they can exercise their rights and do it themselves, unless the nuisance is 'actionable' - the encroachment is causing actual, physical damage; and in that situation they actually need a County Court injunction of abatement.Edit: The local authority/highways authority operate under different legislation where there is a statutory duty to maintain passage, so they can tell you what to do or do it themselves, a different circumstance altogether.

 

Others might (will) disagree, but my take on it is that the neighbouring landowner doesn't or shouldn't have to suffer the nuisance of encroaching limbs and roots, whether ordinary or actionable. They have a common law right (in the absence of statutory protection) to self help/abate it. If this then leads to loss of the trees, which you have (admittedly) allow to 'trespass', who is at fault?  

 

I'll borrow Daltontrees disclaimer, if I may?

I post on Arbtalk for free mainly to help further my and others' understanding of trees, without prejudice to any of my professional work. Quote and rely on my postings at your own risk

Edited October 4, 2017 by Gary Prentice
Additional information.

[Khriss]

Hate them.... with a passion,  pointless things to plant,k

[matelot]

tbh, if I was a developer building a new house I wouldn't want a 25m high hedge next to it... Who wants to look out a window at a dark green hedge over towering your house...

 

As others have said he can only cut the branches to his boundary (not your fence). If you wanted to play hardball you could ask him to pay for a tree surgeon to trim the hedge?

 

I cant help thinking the trees should just be cut down. If you trim them now the job will just have to be redone every few years (at a fair cost). If they are trimmed and they fall down you could spend tens of thousands on legal fees.

 

If it was me, I'd meet the developer and if I thought he was an OK guy I'd just cut the hedge down. If I thought he was a knob I would only send a legal letter saying "you can cut the tree down to the boundary but if it falls down we will sue".