Has anyone heard of:

[10 Bears]

Yes this is all intended as being good natured for the very same reasons you raise - through debate and (dare I say it!) interpretation, we all gain better insights. As I'm sure you recall, we have had other discussions on various different matters, and for my part I always find the exchanges useful. I hope that our ramblings also provide some insight for others too.

 

There are a couple of points to go over from your last post, so to recap I did state that 'no other deciduous are' exempt (and this bewildered you!) and that I had referred to the guidance document when using terms as legislation/regulations interchangeably. To be honest this second issue may have been simply lazy writing on my behalf so I understand the confusion.

 

I referred to the guidance to show where the comments were written that BE/HB were exempt as I knew I had seen it written here. I understand the difference between the legal weighting of acts, regulations and informative guidance documents intended to allow the legislature to be applied in practice (which also supports my comments about the common practice of avoiding precise definitions in legislature, hence the need for the guidance documents). The point I was trying to make was nicely presented in the guidance so I used it as a reference. The issue is though - this got my interest up as to what the intended use was for this information.

 

So, I referred back to part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act (2003) in order to satisfy my curiosity as to why you would be confused by my comments about deciduous trees. I did read this Act several years ago, so it was useful for me to refresh. In any case, within the Act it defines hedges as:

 

"66 High hedges

 

(1)In this Part “high hedge” means so much of a barrier to light or access as—

(a)is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and

(b)rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.

 

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) a line of evergreens is not to be regarded as forming a barrier to light or access if the existence of gaps significantly affects its overall effect as such a barrier at heights of more than two metres above ground level.

 

(3)In this section “evergreen” means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semi-evergreen tree or shrub. "

 

...and that is it for the entire act. No definition of evergreen or semi-evergreen, but importantly, no mention of BE/HB or any other deciduous trees. It seems that with the wider general meaning of 'what is a hedge' that is used in the Act, the interpretation of which was issued by the ODPM in the HH complaints document. I now believe that the comments on BE/HB hedges most likely have been included after consultation with practitioners/LATOs in order to provide some practical insight into applying the legislation. Herein lies some interest though - was this not an interpretation in practice of the original Act? On my re-reading of the wording of the original Act though, 'I am satisfied in my mind' (thanks for the line Jules, I will use that again!) that there is not a question over deciduous trees in reality and it is merely the sanctioned interpretation of the legislation as shown in the ODPM guidance, that gives rise to the potential grey area.

 

I don't think we have different opinions on what interpretation means - perhaps just how it is applied. I believe that for an individual (i.e. the judge) to consider the benefits of one argument over another and to apply a weighting to the seriousness of each element of the argument even within a legally defined framework, will require a degree of interpretation and subjectiveness - no matter how objective they try to be. In my view, this is simply part of the human condition and in a legal context, the very reason why we have precedent and counter-precedent for almost every legal situation or potential case that can be thought of.

 

Apparently, judges are human too...

[Gary Prentice]

So is there agreement on the inclusion or exclusion of beech and hornbeam in the (English) HH legislation?

[tree79]

wow

great debate, its something I know little on, but by reading your posts, theres some great information

 

great stuff

[slack ma girdle]

Holy cow peoples, i leave you alone for a while, and look what happens.

Thankyou for all the input, luckily none of the trees onsite are beech or hornbeam.

I am having as little as possible to do with this, as it is involving solicitors. But i think that i can now offer some helpful advice to the person concerned

[daltontrees]

So is there agreement on the inclusion or exclusion of beech and hornbeam in the (English) HH legislation?

 

Yes:biggrin:

[daltontrees]

Apparently, judges are human too...

 

Yes, and damn them for it! You spotted the one weakness in the otherwise happy ending. It never ends.

 

Up here in Hootsland, we have a ridiculous situation. The Act contains one definiton. The Act says that Councils must have regard to the guidance. The guidance contains a different definiton. There's an unresolvable conflict! I wrote to the Minister, but he doesn't get it.

[Gary Prentice]

Yes:biggrin:

 

Thanks Jules, that's of great help.

 

I'm really going to find some time to read a little further into this.

[daltontrees]

Thanks Jules, that's of great help.

 

I'm really going to find some time to read a little further into this.

 

Oh, come on, I answered your question hyper-literally but I didn't really answer it in spirit.

 

The Act says "“high hedge” means so much of a barrier to light or access as ... is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens" and that "“evergreen” means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semi-evergreen tree or shrub".

 

No hedges that are mainly or wholly non evergreen then.

[daltontrees]

Y As I'm sure you recall, we have had other discussions on various different matters, and for my part I always find the exchanges useful. I hope that our ramblings also provide some insight for others too.

 

 

It has taken me a while to remember, it was something about trees on boundaries, with more latin than a vatican mass...

 

To be honest, I find it hard to rmember who is who on Arbtalk, because it's all just forum names that mean nothing to me. Then I realised this morning there can't be more than 1% of people on Arbtalk who use or disclose their real name. Some people on Arbtalk, (and I exclude you from this) seem to enjoy the anonimity so that they can talk absolute nonsense or be downright rude. Ideally people would be prepared to stand by their views by putting their name to their postings. But, it's just an internet forum...

[Ruskins Trees]

The Right to Light Law was written in Victorian times when homeworkers in cities were having the light the needed to undertake their work denied by new taller and closer buildings (visualise Victorian slums). Therefore you have no right to light unless the room which is in shade is also the one where you undertake your main source of income and the shade is sufficient to stop you doing your work.

 

The human rights bill allows anyone to complain about anything and a solicitor could argue that it his clients right to have light, also he could argue anything is his clients right, as far as I am aware a successful prosecution has never happened on this under this stupid law.

 

High hedges only applies to two or more conifers close enough to form a hedge (clapham omnibus definition applies to hedge). It does not apply to deciduous trees, even though Beech can hold its leaves or bamboo (grass). You can plant eg/de/eg/de or as individual specimens in a double staggered row (with a a decent gap between each row / each specimen.