Yew hedge with tpo

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

No. In England the Act says "... property is being adversely affected by the height of a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person."

 

 

 

And this is the philosophiocal point I am making. If it was someone else's hedge you could apply and the HH notice would trump the TPO. But if it's your own hedge you have to suffer it. Most unfair. Primary legislation would be needed to change it. But such cases are so rare it will probably never get acted upon.

 

 

 

In theory you could rent out your house but exclude the hedge from the leease. Then get your tenant to apply for a HH notice.

 

 

I'm with you!

[Chris at eden]

It may be an obvious question/answer, and I haven't looked at the detail yet, but can you put a HH complaint in about your own hedge??

 

The council enforcement officer wouldn't take this on as you have to exhaust every other avenue before getting them involved. You would basically be saying I can't come to an agreement with myself therefore can you mediate.

[Chris at eden]

No. In England the Act says "... property is being adversely affected by the height of a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person."

 

And this is the philosophiocal point I am making. If it was someone else's hedge you could apply and the HH notice would trump the TPO. But if it's your own hedge you have to suffer it. Most unfair. Primary legislation would be needed to change it. But such cases are so rare it will probably never get acted upon.

 

In theory you could rent out your house but exclude the hedge from the leease. Then get your tenant to apply for a HH notice.

 

This is an interesting point. I don't personally think the council can enforce a tpo on something that is clearly a hedge. But can you apply HH legislation to any row of evergreen trees? for example, an avenue of Douglas fir with connecting canopies. The wording is a row of two or more evergreen trees or shrubs as far as I am aware. What you think Jules?

[daltontrees]

The council enforcement officer wouldn't take this on as you have to exhaust every other avenue before getting them involved. You would basically be saying I can't come to an agreement with myself therefore can you mediate.

 

A tree officer with a psychology degree could have fun with a scchizophrenic hedge owner

[daltontrees]

This is an interesting point. I don't personally think the council can enforce a tpo on something that is clearly a hedge. But can you apply HH legislation to any row of evergreen trees? for example, an avenue of Douglas fir with connecting canopies. The wording is a row of two or more evergreen trees or shrubs as far as I am aware. What you think Jules?

 

You definitely can apply the HH legislation to any row of evergreen trees. Trees can make a hedge, a hedge can be made of trees, trees can be TPO'd, hedges can become trees, trees can be trimmed to a hedge. Personally I don't have any difficulty at all with trees and hedges not being mutually exclusive. Conversely I do have a problem with them being mutually exclusive. And when the canopies aren't convincingly touching, the ASB Act makes the distinction.

 

I have a couple of HH cases on the go involving lines of evergreen and deciduous trees, time will tell whether I can persuade councils or reporters that the distinction between hedges and trees is somewhat arbitrary and legally indefensible.

[Chris at eden]

A tree officer with a psychology degree could have fun with a scchizophrenic hedge owner

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Hi

 

 

 

 

 

I am aware of an instance where a Council sucessfully prosecuted for damage to TPO'd leylandi that were in a row. It was claimed they were trees as the top third of the tree didn't merge with its neighbour.

 

 

 

The Councils argument will be they are trees as a tree is anything you would ordinarily call a tree, e.g. yews, and trees can be of any size and shape.

 

 

 

A row of evergreen trees could fall foul of the high hedges legislation if it was a barrier to light or access, at least in England, Scotland is slightly different in so much as the legislation doesn't include access, and it also includes deciduous trees, I think. Whether or not such a row of trees is a barrier to light or access and therefore constitutes a high hedge which a Council can adjudictae on is a matter of judgement for the Council to decide. Castelli, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Merton [2013] EWHC 602 (Admin) (05 February 2013)

 

 

 

I'd stick to proving the row of trees is, or isn't, (depending on who your client is), affecting the reasonable enjoyment of the property. By the time a decison has been reached to adjudicate, or not as the case may be, it's already been decided if it's a hedge to which the law applies.

 

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

But you can't have a HH issue with YOUR OWN hedge which surely makes the whole HH approach a complete red herring....??

[waz77]

If you've got a neighbour get them to put a HH complaint in.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

If you've got a neighbour get them to put a HH complaint in.

 

 

I see the logic, but it would require the neighbour to prove they were actually troubled by the hedge and that they had exhausted all means of negotiation prior to going forward to council for action, it's the sort of faff only a really good neighbour / friend would undertake - therefore rather clutching at straws, and still irrelevant if the LA consider it a row of TPO'd trees rather than a hedge....

[daltontrees]

I'd stick to proving the row of trees is, or isn't, (depending on who your client is), affecting the reasonable enjoyment of the property. By the time a decison has been reached to adjudicate, or not as the case may be, it's already been decided if it's a hedge to which the law applies.

 

Ed

 

I have come to respect your discernment in many matters, but it sure as heck doesn't work that way in the scottish Act. I consider it a very large part of the service I provide to argue that a line of trees is or is not a hedge and then that a hedge is or is not a hedge and then is or is not adversely affecting enjoyment. then and only then can the extent of adversion be quantified and the first stab at an action hedge height be tested. And then there's appeals...