Evergreen Recommendation

Block (8

Can anyone recommend an evergreen for a garden that grows to a maximum height of around 80ft (2.5m)?

Want to use it as a border at the back of the garden for privacy. Don’t want to plant hedges because of the maintenance just want to plant and forget.

looksee

Most things that will get to 8 ft will be inclined to keep going. There are dwarf shrubs that would take much longer to get to that height, or not even get to that height, but generally you are going to have to cut whatever you grow, especially in the early stages.

gozunda

Block (8 wrote: »

Can anyone recommend an evergreen for a garden that grows to a maximum height of around 80ft (2.5m)?

Want to use it as a border at the back of the garden for privacy. Don’t want to plant hedges because of the maintenance just want to plant and forget.

I'm glad you clarified with equivilent metric measurement- a border 80 feet high would be a sight indeed

Photinia (from 2 to 5 metres depending on cultivar chosen) might be suitable

https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=145

Edit: Here's a photo of a photinia hedge / screen - gives quite decent cover if planted right



Each to their own however I would run a mile from Laurel or Rhodendron - both have a habit of taking over if left unchecked ...

macraignil

Block (8 wrote: »

Can anyone recommend an evergreen for a garden that grows to a maximum height of around 80ft (2.5m)?

Want to use it as a border at the back of the garden for privacy. Don’t want to plant hedges because of the maintenance just want to plant and forget.

You might find a rhododendron variety to meet that size requirement.

Block (8

Thanks for the suggestions and looking into them.

What about those evergreen trees that look very posh in some gardens I see. The ones that are thin not the wide spreading ones that grow higher than a 2 storied house? I don't usually see them growing very high, would they be suitable?

gozunda

Block (8 wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestions and looking into them.

What about those evergreen trees that look very posh in some gardens I see. The ones that are thin not the wide spreading ones that grow higher than a 2 storied house? I don't usually see them growing very high, would they be suitable?

Are you referring to Italian Cypress?



They are a relitively fast growing tree which can grow to a maximum of 21 metres and should be planted at least 3 metres away from houses due to root spread. They an be prunned back to reduce overall height if necessary...

Lumen

There are loads of options, depends on what you want.

Maybe don't discount a hedge entirely. Hedges are just shrubs or trees that are planted very close together.

Problems arise when people are in too much of a hurry, plant a load of super-vigorous plants (Lleylandii, laurel) and then have to control them. I have a laurel tree which is about 6m tall.

I wanted berries, flowers, smallish dark green leaves and limited height. So I'm currently about to plant viburnum tinus and eleagnus ebbingei, as a hedge.

The viburnum is slower and should top out about 2.5m, the eleagnus is going where I need privacy so I'll probably let it run up to 4m. Neither will go higher. Eleagnus and viburnum are both amazing genus (genii? genuses?). The deciduous Eleagnus will fix nitrogen in the soil and help other things grow, but I couldn't get that cos I wanted a screen year round.

These varieties are suitable for hedging as they have that sort of "habit", but there are others which are more suitable to standalone trees or bushes.

You have more choices if you pick things that are recommended for an "informal" hedge.

Anyway, this is how my thought process goes: find a plant you can eat, if that fails get something the birds and squirrels can eat, and if that fails just get something that looks good.

Lumen

Re: photinia it likes full sun and can be a bit straggly. I have a nice hedge of it in front of a wooden fence but would NOT use it as a standalone screen.

This might help:

Don’t downsize your trees, upsize a shrub
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/howtogrow/9131409/Dont-downsize-your-trees-upsize-a-shrub.html

Other suggestions:

- Strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo)
- Holm oak (Quercus ilex), maybe controversial

macraignil

gozunda wrote: »

Each to their own however I would run a mile from Laurel or Rhodendron - both have a habit of taking over if left unchecked ...

I'm guessing you are talking about rhododendron with laurel as being plants that grow big but I want to clarify my post with the link to rhododendron varieties was in favor of using one of the smaller varieties. Rhododendron are not just one type of plant and while it is possible to get varieties that will grow big and take over there are others that stay reasonably small.

I have one for the last few years that I got from my grandmothers garden and it has only grown about one or two feet taller in the last three years. It was a fairly small sapling to start with. The one in my grandmothers garden was a few decades old and still only about 2metres tall. Wikipedia claims there are 1024 varieties of rhododendron and they are not all monsters as you make out. The RHS list is broken down by flowering time rather than size but I can testify to have seen some that do not grow bigger than 2.5metres and the RHS list agrees with this.

Block (8

I guess I have to face the fact of requiring to prune one way or another. So far I have avoided hedges because the thought of doing it myself seems scary and would prefer not pay for a gardener twice a year I see my neighbours do.

The land behind my backgarden was an open field and is being currently built up so new neighbours will be overlooking into the garden. My intention was to plant a line of semi mature slow growing evergreen trees that maxed out at about 2.5m but I guess that doesn't really exist.

If I really need to go with hedges I think I'll choose something with less thick branches to make pruning easier but still prefer evergreen trees because of the slower growth and less garden waste from yearly pruning (one of my major headaches from gardening)

Lumen

Block (8 wrote: »

I guess I have to face the fact of requiring to prune one way or another. So far I have avoided hedges because the thought of doing it myself seems scary and would prefer not pay for a gardener twice a year I see my neighbours do.

The land behind my backgarden was an open field and is being currently built up so new neighbours will be overlooking into the garden. My intention was to plant a line of semi mature slow growing evergreen trees that maxed out at about 2.5m but I guess that doesn't really exist.

If I really need to go with hedges I think I'll choose something with less thick branches to make pruning easier but still prefer evergreen trees because of the slower growth and less garden waste from yearly pruning (one of my major headaches from gardening)

I think you're missing the point about trees, hedges and shrubs.

For your purposes there is no difference between a tree and a shrub except size.

A hedge is just a load of shrubs OR trees planted very close together so that the crowns/foliage overlap to form a continuous screen.

So looking for a 2.5m tree doesn't necessarily make sense, because that's shrub size.

But you don't have to plant a hedge of shrubs, you can just plant standalone shrubs.

Hedges "require" pruning for two reasons: shape and height.

If you plant a shrub that tops out at the height you want, you'll never need to prune it. But it may take some time to get there.

If you plant a fast-growing shrub (e.g. laurel), that will probably end up higher than you want.

Regarding pruning for shaping, you only need to do that if you need to keep it very narrow (i.e. not deep) or if you want to keep a very formal hedge.

If you plant an informal hedge then you can leave it be to a greater extent because you're not aiming for neatness.

In any case it's not hard to go over a line of hedge with a pair of clippers.

Block (8

Lumen wrote: »

I think you're missing the point about trees, hedges and shrubs.

For your purposes there is no difference between a tree and a shrub except size.

A hedge is just a load of shrubs OR trees planted very close together so that the crowns/foliage overlap to form a continuous screen.

So looking for a 2.5m tree doesn't necessarily make sense, because that's shrub size.

But you don't have to plant a hedge of shrubs, you can just plant standalone shrubs.

Hedges "require" pruning for two reasons: shape and height.

If you plant a shrub that tops out at the height you want, you'll never need to prune it. But it may take some time to get there.

If you plant a fast-growing shrub (e.g. laurel), that will probably end up higher than you want.

Regarding pruning for shaping, you only need to do that if you need to keep it very narrow (i.e. not deep) or if you want to keep a very formal hedge.

If you plant an informal hedge then you can leave it be to a greater extent because you're not aiming for neatness.

In any case it's not hard to go over a line of hedge with a pair of clippers.

Thanks for that I'm starting to understand. Was talking to someone who came over to take a look at my garden and his advice was beech or hornbeam trees. I have a 5ft wall along the back and he said he recommends single stem trees so no pruning at wall height.

Did a bit of googling and I like the look of the hornbeam trees and using only the top part of the trees for screening.

Not sure how difficult it is to prune at over 5ft but from looking at pictures online they look very tidy but I guess that depends on the person maintaining them.

Lumen

Block (8 wrote: »

Thanks for that I'm starting to understand. Was talking to someone who came over to take a look at my garden and his advice was beech or hornbeam trees. I have a 5ft wall along the back and he said he recommends single stem trees so no pruning at wall height.

Did a bit of googling and I like the look of the hornbeam trees and using only the top part of the trees for screening.

Not sure how difficult it is to prune at over 5ft but from looking at pictures online they look very tidy but I guess that depends on the person maintaining them.

Ok, so hornbeam and beech are both deciduous, although beech tends to hold on to the dead leaves for a long time and so you get almost year-around cover of some sort. Beech can look lovely in winter, or it can look really scrappy. A thin beech hedge in winter looks awful, IMO.

I'm no expert on beech hedging but maybe consider planting a staggered double row if you have space, and make sure you plant a good distance (e.g. 3 feet) from the wall or else it won't get enough water and the roots will be restricted by the wall foundations.

Hornbeam is often used in difficult situations, it's rarely a first choice plant.

When I was choosing my hedging last month I went down to Cappagh Nurseries near Aughrim. They have a hedging area where you can see loads of different varieties, and now is a great time to look because you get to see how things look in winter. I'm sure there are other places with similar setups.

I know this is subjective but I think beech hedging is a bit of a missed opportunity. There are loads of varieties which have flowers and berries which give more seasonal interest. With beech you get a green wall in summer and a brown wall in winter, that's it.

One of the problems with internet research is that only pictures of the best possible examples go on pinterest or houzz or whatever. I have never seen a real beech hedge looking like this...

Block (8

Many thanks to all for your posts I now have a better idea, at least what to google.

After your last post Lumen I think I'm leaning towards beech because of the bush holding onto the leaves better. I will update the thread on what I get in the end just to close it off.

Lumen

I saw some lovely beech out on the roads of Leitrim today. Depth is definitely the key.

gozunda

macraignil wrote: »

I'm guessing you are talking about rhododendron with laurel as being plants that grow big but I want to clarify my post with the link to rhododendron varieties was in favor of using one of the smaller varieties. Rhododendron are not just one type of plant and while it is possible to get varieties that will grow big and take over there are others that stay reasonably small.

I have one for the last few years that I got from my grandmothers garden and it has only grown about one or two feet taller in the last three years. It was a fairly small sapling to start with. The one in my grandmothers garden was a few decades old and still only about 2metres tall. Wikipedia claims there are 1024 varieties of rhododendron and they are not all monsters as you make out. The RHS list is broken down by flowering time rather than size but I can testify to have seen some that do not grow bigger than 2.5metres and the RHS list agrees with this.

No and you presume incorrectly. I refer to the habit of these species to spread horizontally and grow rampantly. Yes - I am aware there are many varieties of Rhodendron. I find however as a plant species they are generally unsuited for the average garden as a screen or hedge unless the gardener / owner is cognizant of the plants requirements over the lifespan of the plant.

Over time the limbs of Rhodendron can become quite large and as detailed by the OP they are l looking for "something with less thick branches to make pruning easier". Therefore both Rhodendron and laurel are not suitable in this instance in my opinion

gozunda

Lumen wrote:

 I have never seen a real beech hedge looking like this...

Lumen wrote: »

I saw some lovely beech out on the roads of Leitrim today. Depth is definitely the key.

Depth is achieved by staggered double planting as you detailed and prunning. Not particularly difficult to achieve given time ime.

macraignil

gozunda wrote: »

No and you presume incorrectly. I refer to the habit of these species to spread horizontally and grow rampantly. Yes - I am aware there are many varieties of Rhodendron. I find however as a plant species they are generally unsuited for the average garden unless the gardener / owner is cognizant of the plants requirements over the lifespan of the plant.

Over time the limbs of Rhodendron can become quite large and as detailed by the OP they are l looking for "something with less thick branches to make pruning easier". Therefore both Rhodendron and laurel are not suitable in this instance in my opinion

I needed to say I'm guessing about what you were trying to say as your post said rhodendron rather than rhododendron. You may have experience of rhododendron varieties that grow "rampantly" and I agree these are not suitable for the average sized garden. I am aware of what was detailed in the OP and again I am not suggesting that the larger more rampant varieties of rhododendron are suitable for the situation described. I have a variety of rhododendron that is not rampant and seen details of other varieties that have a full sized growth within the dimensions given in the OP and therefore would not require pruning as was suggested.

The variety I have from my grandmothers garden never required any pruning over the decades it was in my grandmothers garden and it remained at about a height of 2metres. It did produce one small sapling about a foot from the main plant and if this is the horizontal growth you are referring to I can tell you it was easily controlled by me digging it up to plant in my own garden where there has been no more such horizontal growth. I have no problem with you having your own opinion, but my opinion is that your post does not take into account some of the more refined varieties of rhododendron that I think would be a valuable addition to many gardens. I think you are spreading unfair prejudice against a plant just because of the vigor of some of the varieties. Since the OP has now said they would accept plants that grow over the 2.5metre target size I would also make the suggestion of viburnum tinus, pieris and photinia red robin which would naturally grow over the 2.5metre target but not by much.

gozunda

macraignil wrote: »

I needed to say I'm guessing about what you were trying to say as your post said rhodendron rather than rhododendron. You may have experience of rhododendron varieties that grow "rampantly" and I agree these are not suitable for the average sized garden. I am aware of what was detailed in the OP and again I am not suggesting that the larger more rampant varieties of rhododendron are suitable for the situation described. I have a variety of rhododendron that is not rampant and seen details of other varieties that have a full sized growth within the dimensions given in the OP and therefore would not require pruning as was suggested.

The variety I have from my grandmothers garden never required any pruning over the decades it was in my grandmothers garden and it remained at about a height of 2metres. It did produce one small sapling about a foot from the main plant and if this is the horizontal growth you are referring to I can tell you it was easily controlled by me digging it up to plant in my own garden where there has been no more such horizontal growth. I have no problem with you having your own opinion, but my opinion is that your post does not take into account some of the more refined varieties of rhododendron that I think would be a valuable addition to many gardens. I think you are spreading unfair prejudice against a plant just because of the vigor of some of the varieties. Since the OP has now said they would accept plants that grow over the 2.5metre target size I would also make the suggestion of viburnum tinus, pieris and photinia red robin which would naturally grow over the 2.5metre target but not by much.

Thanks for the spelling advisory and the long post. Yes I have a somewhat deranged autocorrect thingy going on with my phone and a dodgy barstool lol. As a qualified horticultarist - no I'm not 'spreading unfair prejudice'. It's my professional opinion. But there you go... I recommended species suited to that which the OP had detailed not just height but also vigour, ease of maintenance and suitability as a screen / hedge. I'm sure the granny's garden is lovely btw.