High Hedge Act - unusual case needs advice

Richard_RM

I have an idea for your neighbour: Plant another row of conifers much nearer her own house. Then she can cut the other ones down when told to do so. Once the new trees have been allowed to grow unchecked to a stupid height she will have a good privacy screen and consequently regain the supposed loss in value of her house. Problem solved.

I was actually thinking along similar lines but doing it with bamboo.... ;-)

That is the very definition of NIMBYism.

What, objecting to a development that's clearly unfit for purpose and breaches multiple planning guidelines and current best practice? Good to know! ;-P

Doozergirl

Richard_RM wrote: »

I was actually thinking along similar lines but doing it with bamboo.... ;-)



What, objecting to a development that's clearly unfit for purpose and breaches multiple planning guidelines and current best practice? Good to know! ;-P

You were so concerned about the quality of life that the future tenants would be subjected to, with little rooms and little gardens that you campaigned not to build them.

Now you're campaigning to keep the 12 metre trees that block the light to those little living rooms? How thoughtful of you. It's all about the tenants, obviously.

I think your neighbour is on a hiding to nothing. If the acceptable height is 2 metres, 12 metres is way off that. There are specialists who deal on a daily basis with modelling light issues etc and if these trees are so close as to affect the quality of light that we are all entitled to, then your neighbour is going to be spending more than £20k defending the undefendable.

The developer has been savvy and is using legislation to their advantage. Planning legislation is always farcicle when you're on the wrong end of it.

By the way, I completely agree with davesnave; a series of incredibly high confiers in my potential back garden would put me off buying a house. Awful, ugly things that suck light from every direction and cause neighbour disputes!

They should have been maintained correctly.

Doozergirl

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/5181542/family-ordered-to-hand-their-600000-home-to-neighbours-in-fence-row-reveal-they-have-no-idea-what-will-happen-to-them/amp/

Do you have your neighbour's best interests at heart? Who is paying for the solicitor's fees? Are you contributing, given that you have a vested interest in a pensioner fighting this battle for you as well?

I think that a good friend would advise their pal to take a pragmatic view and cut their losses. Mediate, compromise, minimise costs.

sevenhills

Doozergirl wrote: »

I think that a good friend would advise their pal to take a pragmatic view and cut their losses. Mediate, compromise, minimise costs.

I tend to agree, but we aren't all flexible of attitude.

Richard_RM

I'm actually only helping her because she's old and I'm hoping she'll leave me something in her will. OBVIOUSLY.

Doozergirl

Richard_RM wrote: »

I'm actually only helping her because she's old and I'm hoping she'll leave me something in her will. OBVIOUSLY.

?

It didn't even cross my mind. I was concerned that she would be fighting a battle that on the face of it was hers, but would benefit her neighbour. The problem is apparently hers alone, but your encouraging her to fight an expensive and very risky battle perhaps doesn't come from the purest place. Her winning benefits you, yet the likelihood is low and the reasonable thing to do to benefit the majority is to compromise somewhere, not pay lawyers. In a case like that, no one wins, only the lawyers.

Maybe you didn't realise that and I hit a nerve but what you just said has totally wierded me out. Why would you be thinking about that? You don't say something if you aren't thinking it.

troffasky

Doozergirl wrote: »

Maybe you didn't realise that and I hit a nerve but what you just said has totally wierded me out. Why would you be thinking about that? You don't say something if you aren't thinking it.

If that weirded you out, you must find the internet a very scary place.

AndyMc.....

Doozergirl wrote: »

?

It didn't even cross my mind. I was concerned that she would be fighting a battle that on the face of it was hers, but would benefit her neighbour. The problem is apparently hers alone, but your encouraging her to fight an expensive and very risky battle perhaps doesn't come from the purest place. Her winning benefits you, yet the likelihood is low and the reasonable thing to do to benefit the majority is to compromise somewhere, not pay lawyers. In a case like that, no one wins, only the lawyers.

Maybe you didn't realise that and I hit a nerve but what you just said has totally wierded me out. Why would you be thinking about that? You don't say something if you aren't thinking it.

You obviously missed the sarcasm.

Richard_RM

lol well I was only kidding. OBVIOUSLY. ;-)

Doozergirl

troffasky wrote: »

If that weirded you out, you must find the internet a very scary place.

Er, no. The internet is awesome.

I understood it as an attempt at some sort of sarcasm immediately, but without any of the success of a good comment well made.

In order for sarcasm to have some sort of impact it needs to have some sort of relation to the conversation. It didn't. It was neither clever, nor funny. It just comes across as sinister. Why would anyone even think that to comment on it, sarcasm or not?

To give it credit, it does come a step up from people who pretend to laugh when they've got nothing left to say. Like this :rotfl:. Poorest use of a good resource but a good way of ending a discussion when you have nothing sensible to add.