Neighbour Planting Trees blocking light

Morpork

I think everyone who was involved in this originally have long since passed away. But maybe their great grand children are still fighting the issue and will read this.

Sundew

We really need a " what happened next " thread like the Joe Duffy tv show, to follow up on fascinating threads.

On a side note: As somebody who has been on the other side of the coin and has seen the devastating consequences of 3 storey Celtic tiger homes been built beside an elderly relatives cottage, with complete disregard for privacy etc. I can understand why trees now have to be planted. Do not agree with leylandii and these should be banned from being planted. Somebody seems to be thinking ahead and possibly future proofing their privacy from future development !

Lumen

Sundew wrote: »

Do not agree with leylandii and these should be banned from being planted. Somebody seems to be thinking ahead and possibly future proofing their privacy from future development !

It would make more sense for species-agnostic height restrictions at or near to boundary.

e.g 3m at boundary and then +1m for every 1m inside the boundary.

Then you could have a 6m tree at 3m from boundary, which wouldn't be so bad, even if it was a Lleylandii.

Amalgam

Leylandii are obnoxious on every level, heavy timber with sap beads that get everywhere. I was 'gifted' Leylandii timber to burn a few years back, out of ignorance I took it in, never again.

Remember, 'salting' or poisons don't respect boundaries, if you have any plans to grow fruit bushes, vegetables, you might be sowing a problem that will affect you, further down the line.

exaisle

Lumen wrote: »

Then you could have a 6m tree at 3m from boundary, which wouldn't be so bad, even if it was a Lleylandii.

If it's a Leylandii it's crap anyhow because you can't easily cut them back without leaving bare patches which look unsightly.

I agree with the earlier poster who said that Leylandii (and Lawsonia) should be banned. In fairness, they are banned by certain local authorities so it might be worth while checking if the OP's local authority allow them...

GreeBo

exaisle wrote: »

If it's a Leylandii it's crap anyhow because you can't easily cut them back without leaving bare patches which look unsightly.

I agree with the earlier poster who said that Leylandii (and Lawsonia) should be banned. In fairness, they are banned by certain local authorities so it might be worth while checking if the OP's local authority allow them...

If you keep them cut every year they make a very nice solid hedge for privacy.

We stumbled upon the fact that if you grow ivy across the top of them they will no longer sprout and grow up, which is very handy.

The problems occur when people let them get out of hand, they can grow 3M in only 2 years and quickly move from a DIY job to needing a couple of €100's to get someone in to tame them.

Deciding to cut them back after only a year of neglect will leave you with exposed brown wood that will not re sprout.

Oldtree

exaisle wrote: »

I agree with the earlier poster who said that Leylandii (and Lawsonia) should be banned. In fairness, they are banned by certain local authorities so it might be worth while checking if the OP's local authority allow them...

Can you put up a link to an Irish local authority that has banned them please?

magicbastarder

you mean those fancy silent chainsaws that won't wake the neighbours in the dead of night?

Oldtree

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean those fancy silent chainsaws that won't wake the neighbours in the dead of night?

How did you know about them?
I thought the double silencer on the baffle was a well kept tree doctor secret!!!

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

It would make more sense for species-agnostic height restrictions at or near to boundary.

e.g 3m at boundary and then +1m for every 1m inside the boundary.

Then you could have a 6m tree at 3m from boundary, which wouldn't be so bad, even if it was a Lleylandii.

Oh, it turns out this 45 degree rule I've just made up is actually a thing.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103990825&postcount=13

recedite

That 45 degree rule is only for planning permission for new buildings, not trees. And its the UK, although BRE guidelines are also considered good practice in Ireland.

If you were making a new rule for trees, in Ireland, the exact angle could be based on latitude. Most people in Ireland are a bit further north than London. Dublin is 53 degrees north and London is only 51. So that implies Dubliners would need a slightly shallower angle, to ensure enough light. People who set the elevation angle of satellite dishes are familiar with this concept.

But your original idea is simpler to measure in practice, and works out as the same thing anyway. You could convert metres as measured out from the boundary to degrees buy using cosine, if you really wanted to.

Gangu

I would sign a petition to ban leylandii in Ireland.

looksee

Leylandii are still on the list of trees you cannot cut down without permission, unless they are within 30m of a boundary etc, but those rules apply to all trees. They should be designated 'weeds'.

lawred2

padi89 wrote: »

Not much you can do really, if the trees start to overhang your property then you can cut them back to the boundary but you must offer the clippings back, or else you can be accused of stealing :rolleyes:
I know how much of a problem this is as i live with it. My rear garden is south facing so we had beautiful light from early morning until evening time. That is until my difficult neighbor planted bloody light blocking Leylandii. They are completely out of control over 50ft high now (my garden is 25ft deep) and stretch another 30ft either side of our garden and go down either side of their house, so now we get a slither of light each day. Its really no different to having a 50ft concrete wall surrounding your property only you don't need planning permission.There is a law in the UK now for this situation.
Hopefully for your sake they ain't Leylandii.

I hate those ugly b@stard trees