High Hedge Act - unusual case needs advice

Aylesbury_Duck

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.

My reading of the situation is that the OP is using the neighbour's situation to fight the developers by proxy. It's clear he objected to the development and unfortunately for him it was approved and completed anyway. This is perhaps a way of continuing the battle at someone else's risk.

moneyistooshorttomention

Richard_RM wrote: »

Kitchens are habitable rooms according to the relevant LA's UDP. Kitchen to Lounge window distance should be min. of 18 metres according to their own guidance. In this case it's more like 8m.


.

How are they getting away with that?

Are they trying to say "Oh well it's only 'guidance' - it's not an enforceable rule"?

Is their some higher "body" that can insist they follow their own "guidance"? - ie the threat these places could be pulled down again - but you'll shut up if they shut up iyswim.

moneyistooshorttomention

Richard_RM wrote: »

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

I was talking to her earlier on today actually. Suggested best course of action is to compromise. Issue is that the Developer wants to her to cut the trees down from 12m to 2m (which would probably kill them) and they are pretty much intimidating her with "we can make you do this using the High Hedge Act so you'd be best doing it now before you have a criminal record". I suggested she tell them she'll reduce by 30% or thereabouts if they pay for it.

That phrase about "criminal record" is nasty and I can't see that it would be true.

Anyway - so what if it were? She owns her own place and doesnt need a job any longer - and so, quite frankly, I can't see that it matters if she had a "criminal record" per se anyway - as the only hold anyone has over a retired home-owning person is if they're able to find a way to grab some of their money for a fine basically. "Criminal record" is just words if one owns one's own home and doesnt need a job to keep income coming into the household.

I wouldnt bat an eyelid at someone "having a criminal record" if they hadnt done anything (really) criminal - only something that had been (mis)labelled "criminal".

*********

On a different tack - if you are using her to fight your battle for you = that is naughty. Those of us who are strong enough to fight battles if need be - and realise that someone else has put us up to fighting a battle that was actually rightfully theirs to fight - do sometimes realise eventually that we've been used....and it's not without consequences (voice of experience - having had a weaker person use me to fight a battle I can now see they thought was really theirs, but they didnt want to fight it, so put "stronger me" up to it.......). Sooner or later - the stronger person probably realises that "weaker person" still retains their reputation as "nice person", whilst strong person is seen by some as "awkward" - because they fought weaker persons fight for them....and they don't forget...

Davesnave

The nature of guidance is that it's just that; not some inalienable law that cannot be transgressed at any cost.

As for people receiving criminal convictions, it's a nonsense.

Perhaps this will help:

http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/environment/planning-and-building-control/trees-and-hedges/high-hedges/

Doozergirl

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

How are they getting away with that?

Are they trying to say "Oh well it's only 'guidance' - it's not an enforceable rule"?

Is their some higher "body" that can insist they follow their own "guidance"? - ie the threat these places could be pulled down again - but you'll shut up if they shut up iyswim.

No, there is not. Once planning is granted, it is granted. No one is going to be pulling any houses down and the threat is laughable.

DaftyDuck

If high hedges could be ignored by president, that the hedge was there before the new house, then pretty much all housing could gain such exemption. It's rare for anything but estate properties to all be erected at once. We'd all be leaping up and down, stating ..." we were here first, built in 1815, yours built in 1843, so s0d off".

There is one common loophole, where planning was granted, owing to screening from such a hedge. Then, its often part of the permission that the hedge or trees remain.

Davesnave

Meanwhile :

https://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21173

No time to look now myself, but it may be enlightning to see others' perspectives.

Richard_RM

Doozergirl wrote: »

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?

Oh well I guess I obviously don't get sarcasm then and it goes completely over my head... :dance:


Ps :rotfl:

Richard_RM

Davesnave wrote: »

The nature of guidance is that it's just that; not some inalienable law that cannot be transgressed at any cost.

Yeh pretty much. I get that guidance has to be flexible, e.g. if min. distance between habitable room was say 18m and there was a proposed development where it was 17m, I don't think anyone would rightfully argue over the 1m difference. You get cases like mine though where it's less than half the distance and the Council clearly want the development to go ahead so pull the "it's just guidance" card out. If they didn't want it to go ahead though I bet they'd be using it the other way around. ;-)

rach_k

I won't pretend to know anything about planning/development/right to light etc, but has the lady considered that the value added by the trees (since they weren't always there, they are something her mother added herself) may have caused loss of value to the land? It's really not the case that she has planted some harmless trees that affect nobody else and now evil people are trying to make her lose value from her home. The money she 'gained' by having the trees came at a cost to others - the owners of the land. It doesn't matter who owned it. I'm sure there was no malicious intent but she devalued their land (and now the homes built on it) for her own benefit.

I wouldn't suggest going and shouting at her that's she's a horrible old lady trying to steal money, but perhaps you could help re-frame the current position. She has been lucky to benefit from so much privacy for however many years, but now she has to share again. The cost of paying for the work to the trees is the price of all that extra privacy for so long. The decrease in value of her house isn't a loss, it's just taking her back to where she should have been.

From what others have said, it doesn't seem that she will win this. I would try to help a friend come to terms with it and try to maintain good relationships with the neighbours. If it isn't allowed to get very antagonistic between them, she may well find that the neighbours would like more privacy too once the trees are gone - perhaps some kind of screening that doesn't block so much light but does help with the feeling of being watched. They're never going to work with her if she's been 'that selfish old woman who stole our light'.