High hedges - applicable or not?

[Gary Prentice]

A client has been sent a letter from a neighb our threatening Asbo's etc if they don't cut their hedge. On arrival, my first impression is that the legislation is not pertinent. The hedge is at the bottom of the clients garden, but the complainants house is not beyond it, but is the house to the left of that. I.e, there is no shared boundary.

 

Reading the ODPM's report " Hedge height and light loss" the 'effective hedge length' is the part of a longer length that runs along the common boundary of both properties, so in this case there isn't any.

 

But reading Mynors last night, there was a statement that the hedge didn't need to run along a boundary if it was reducing light to the garden, so I'm now thoroughly confused.

Clarification anyone?

[Gary Prentice]

From 'High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure;

 

4.23 Although the Act describes where the hedge is growing as “neighbouring land”, the use of the word neighbouring has no special significance here. In particular, the hedge does not have to be next door. It could, in theory, be several gardens down the road. Though, in practice, the farther away a hedge is, the less its impact and the less chance that a complaint will be successful. Nor does the hedge have to be wholly on a neighbour’s property. It could extend over several properties.

 

Having now established that the hedge can be included, how do the calculations of the action height work out, as the HH&LL seem to exclude hedges that don't share boundaries from the calculations?

[daltontrees]

From 'High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure;

 

4.23 Although the Act describes where the hedge is growing as “neighbouring land”, the use of the word neighbouring has no special significance here. In particular, the hedge does not have to be next door. It could, in theory, be several gardens down the road. Though, in practice, the farther away a hedge is, the less its impact and the less chance that a complaint will be successful. Nor does the hedge have to be wholly on a neighbour’s property. It could extend over several properties.

 

Having now established that the hedge can be included, how do the calculations of the action height work out, as the HH&LL seem to exclude hedges that don't share boundaries from the calculations?

 

HHLL cannot be used for non-contiguous hedges. It is not only impossible to erfor m the calculation, the whole basis for the method relies on the hedge an garden situation being approximately adjacent because thae's how the model was tested by BRE.

 

You need to fall back on BS8206-2 for light calculations. BRE's 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight' gives tools that can be used to apply BS8206-2 to high hedges, with one important exception - skylight to gardens. It covers the other aspects of sunlight to gardens, daylight to buildings and sunlight to buildings. I've developed a method for skylight to gardens which uses the equivalent of a Waldram diagram for sampling points int eh garden, but there is no actual agreed threshold of acceptable garden skylight levels. Can send you a link to a successful scottish appeal that shows it.

 

Meantime onus is on the potential HH applicant to demonstrate adverse effect on reasonable enjoyment. If it's a window argument, they have objective ways of doing it but if it's a garden argument they haven't. Ask what action hedge height they propose and how they arrived at the figure.

[Gary Prentice]

Hi Jules, I'm not surprised that you're the first poster on this.

 

I think that the diagrams in HHLL had left an idea in my mind that the hedge actually had to be in a directly adjacent garden. (sharing a boundary) Hence my confusion on reading Mynors.

 

I'm not even sure if a action height has been proposed. The client, a secretary of one of our commercial clients, had planned to contact us anyway but then arrived home to find a letter threatening ASBOs on the doormat. I've suggested that since the proposer is attempting to bully her into cutting the hedge, which IMO isn't at an unreasonable height considering that there is a garage situated in the nearest corner of the objectors garden, that she seeks a contribution towards the costs.

 

I think the objector/complainant is a chancer, using the legislation - or attempting to, to achieve his own ends. Considering that the LAs last published fee is £400 to intervene and I believe non-refundable or unlikely to be reclaimable from my client and the cost of pruning is somewhat less, he may be now situated between a rock and a hard place

 

On this occasion, I don't believe the use would be within the spirit of the legislation and knowing the TO, can imagine his feelings on its evocation. Unfortunately every occasion, so far, that I've been involved in has been a pedantic/difficult/vexatious objector who almost certainly would have been better off knocking on the door and talking to the owner before threatening the owner.

 

Please do send a link for the appeal case, this is subject I should improve my knowledge of.

Gary

[MATTMOSS]

who almost certainly would have been better off knocking on the door and talking to the owner before threatening the owner

 

Reasonable discussion is always the best way in these situations:thumbup1:

[Gary Prentice]

who almost certainly would have been better off knocking on the door and talking to the owner before threatening the owner

 

Reasonable discussion is always the best way in these situations:thumbup1:

 

'Over the garden fence', the advisory leaflet, should be far better promoted.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Everyone was waiting to see what Jules had to say!

 

Sounds like a classic "people management" rather than tree / hedge management situation.

 

From a distance it seems ludicrous that the neighbour has gone straight to the letter / threats of ASBO approach especially since they are not empowered to issue an ASBO and the route to get there (if at all) would likely be more expensive than offering part or all of the cost of remedial trimming.

 

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war

[daltontrees]

Please do send a link for the appeal case, this is subject I should improve my knowledge of.

Gary

 

The document have been removed from the appeal website, as the case is more thna 6 months old. I have sent a copy directly to you by email.

[daltontrees]

Everyone was waiting to see what Jules had to say!

 

Sounds like a classic "people management" rather than tree / hedge management situation.

 

From a distance it seems ludicrous that the neighbour has gone straight to the letter / threats of ASBO approach especially since they are not empowered to issue an ASBO and the route to get there (if at all) would likely be more expensive than offering part or all of the cost of remedial trimming.

 

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war

 

The Act says that "If the authority consider ... that the complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matters complained of without proceeding by way of such a complaint to the authority ... the authority may decide that the complaint should not be proceeded with."

 

High Hedge cases are rarely nice, but I had one last week where the parties are on first name terms and each have good reason to support their case. An arbiter was therefore needed. These situations are more likely when the guidance (HHLL or equivalent) can't be applied to non-standard layouts, so there is no way of the parties agreeing on what the height outcome would be if a HH notice was applied for. One could argue tha that is what has happened in Gary's case.

[Gary Prentice]

The document have been removed from the appeal website, as the case is more thna 6 months old. I have sent a copy directly to you by email.

 

I didn't finish work til nine, so although reading it, don't fully comprehend everything you sent. But thank you. It's yet another area of Arb that I need to delve more deeply into and understand better.

 

We'll get there in the end