Polling Day Notice. Sorry as Candidates we love speaking with you outside of the polling station but due to covid we will stay away and avoid the awkward questions why we sold green belt land to developers when elected last time on promise to protect it. So It's not the Conservatives are so great the rest are so rubbish.
Couple win battle to keep their 62ft leylandii hedge. ?
"Hedge" u sure, but better to get along with your neighbours who are being reasonable than start a war.
Leylandiihttps://www.leylandii.com › leylandii-law The current legislation on high hedges comes under Section 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003). This allows councils to take action where the hedge has grown to a height where the hedge is adversely affecting the complainants reasonable enjoyment of their property. Couple win battle to keep their 62ft leylandii hedge after neighbour blamed it for ruining his fruit and vegetable crop Andrew Clarke claimed 62ft leylandii cast a huge shadow over his Veg garden He applied to council to get trees reduced after talks with Beales collapsed Council order Beales to reduce trees to 6.5ft this was overruled by government on appeal . A couple whose massive trees were blamed for ruining their neighbour's crop of fruit and vegetables have won a battle to stop them from being axed. Andrew Clark claims the 62ft leylandii belonging to Richard and Laura Beales in Tain, Ross-shire are casting a huge shadow over his garden and having a 'detrimental' impact on his ability to properly grow crops.
He applied to Highland Council under high hedge legislation to get the trees reduced after peace talks between the neighbours collapsed because he wanted the Beales to pay cost. The council later issued a notice ordering the leylandii to be reduced to 6.5ft - only to be overruled by the Scottish Government after the Beales appealed the decision. Andrew Clark claims the 62ft leylandii belonging to Richard and Laura Beales in Tain, Ross-shire are casting a huge shadow over his garden The couple claimed that the 20-year-old trees do not restrict light and reducing their height for Mr Clark would impact their privacy.
In his application, Mr Clark said: 'I tried growing crops through the last season to see if it was possible but the lack of light had a profound effect on the crop. The height of the hedge reduces my growing season to three months, I grew a fair range of vegetables last year and despite all efforts with great soil, well fertilised, the bulk of the crop was almost a total waste.'
The Beales claimed that the 20-year-old trees do not restrict light and reducing their height for Mr Clark would impact their privacy. In their appeal, the Beales said: 'We completely dispute the allegation that as stated in section 5 of the notice 'the high hedge at its present height is causing an unacceptable reduction of light which is adversely affecting the enjoyment of the domestic property and land'. We have always been happy for Andy Clark to reduce the tree height if he wished, but at his expense. We are still happy for him to reduce the height by one half, which I believe would be significantly more than what would be prescribed on any notice.'
Overturning the council ruling, government reporter Andrew Fleming said: 'I conclude that the hedge does not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighbouring domestic property and that there is no justification for imposing an obligation on the hedge owner to reduce and maintain the height of the hedge.
'I have taken all matters raised into account, however, there is nothing which would lead me to alter my conclusion. I uphold this appeal and quash the notice.'
Who pay's the bill for the reduction in size. Andy wanted the Beales to pay but the Beales were happy with the trees as they were. If you want enlargement or reduction you pay, was their reply. If you want to Google it's free.
Comments
So
It's not the Conservatives are so great the rest are so rubbish.
Cracks are beginning to appear in the "Rail"
Dragons' Den tycoons embroiled in off-air fight over million pound business venture
You can Never have enough money.......... cough!
"Hedge" u sure, but better to get along with your neighbours who are being reasonable than start a war.
Leylandiihttps://www.leylandii.com › leylandii-law
The current legislation on high hedges comes under Section 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003). This allows councils to take action where the hedge has grown to a height where the hedge is adversely affecting the complainants reasonable enjoyment of their property.
Couple win battle to keep their 62ft leylandii hedge after neighbour blamed it for ruining his fruit and vegetable crop
Andrew Clarke claimed 62ft leylandii cast a huge shadow over his Veg garden
He applied to council to get trees reduced after talks with Beales collapsed
Council order Beales to reduce trees to 6.5ft this was overruled by government on appeal .
A couple whose massive trees were blamed for ruining their neighbour's crop of fruit and vegetables have won a battle to stop them from being axed.
Andrew Clark claims the 62ft leylandii belonging to Richard and Laura Beales in Tain, Ross-shire are casting a huge shadow over his garden and having a 'detrimental' impact on his ability to properly grow crops.
He applied to Highland Council under high hedge legislation to get the trees reduced after peace talks between the neighbours collapsed because he wanted the Beales to pay cost.
The council later issued a notice ordering the leylandii to be reduced to 6.5ft - only to be overruled by the Scottish Government after the Beales appealed the decision.
Andrew Clark claims the 62ft leylandii belonging to Richard and Laura Beales in Tain, Ross-shire are casting a huge shadow over his garden
The couple claimed that the 20-year-old trees do not restrict light and reducing their height for Mr Clark would impact their privacy.
In his application, Mr Clark said: 'I tried growing crops through the last season to see if it was possible but the lack of light had a profound effect on the crop.
The height of the hedge reduces my growing season to three months, I grew a fair range of vegetables last year and despite all efforts with great soil, well fertilised, the bulk of the crop was almost a total waste.'
The Beales claimed that the 20-year-old trees do not restrict light and reducing their height for Mr Clark would impact their privacy.
In their appeal, the Beales said: 'We completely dispute the allegation that as stated in section 5 of the notice 'the high hedge at its present height is causing an unacceptable reduction of light which is adversely affecting the enjoyment of the domestic property and land'.
We have always been happy for Andy Clark to reduce the tree height if he wished, but at his expense. We are still happy for him to reduce the height by one half, which I believe would be significantly more than what would be prescribed on any notice.'
Overturning the council ruling, government reporter Andrew Fleming said: 'I conclude that the hedge does not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighbouring domestic property and that there is no justification for imposing an obligation on the hedge owner to reduce and maintain the height of the hedge.
'I have taken all matters raised into account, however, there is nothing which would lead me to alter my conclusion. I uphold this appeal and quash the notice.'
At some stage there must be a cutoff. Ah,exactly.
The ‘ tree’ on the left is social distancing.
Less than two metres,you’re a hedge.
then when does a tree not become part of a hedge? Answer; When it's 63ft high.
It becomes woodland Forest. cough!! But Hey ! not me complaining.
Be Happy and spot the Hedge from the Tree's.