Back garden privacy

[Deleted User]

Laz123 said:

We planted leylandii to hide our nasty neighbour. It grows about 3 feet every year. It's also good for cutting out noise.

I'm a fan of them too.
In the right place and with the right care they're great.
Perfect until future owners won't prune it and it gets totally out of control though !

Grenage

Leylandi make a great hedge if regularly maintained, but it won't grow back from old wood.  Drop the ball and it's game over.

Slow-growing plants such as yew, beech, holly, etc are good choices.

Like most things in life: cheap, fast, and good - pick any two.

Laz123

Ectophile said:

Laz123 said:

We planted leylandii to hide our nasty neighbour. It grows about 3 feet every year. It's also good for cutting out noise.

I once visited an arboretum where they had a Leyland cypress that had been allowed to grow. Really elegant tree, and it had kept its distinctive candle flame shape.

But it was absolutely massive. Far too big for the average garden.  The only way you can keep them under control is to keep hacking them back. And eventually they look a mess.

I don't know how you hack them to make them look a mess but if you prune them sensibly they look good.

Section62

Bendy_House said:

Why? Because, IF the addition of trellis was enough to do the job, AND if it was very unlikely that anyone would be inconvenienced or wish to complain, then it's a simple, fast, cheap, effective and attractive option.

A 'no-one will mind' and 'low-risk' option.

The point is you don't know that. It is just a guess based on your interpretation of the information San_Jose has provided so far.

In which case it is important to for San_Jose (and other people reading this thread) to also hear about the risks associated with that approach so they can make an informed decision.

For example, a "communal car park" on a new build development could be adjacent to a road, in addition to forming part of the public realm.  Assuming that nobody will complain in this situation would be very different to making the same assumption about a back garden fence hidden away from public view on an established development.

Newish developments give planning enforcement officers a fair amount of work because (a) there is a churn of owners each wanting to put their individual stamp on the property, and (b) there is a lack of awareness of the restrictions often applying to new builds which aren't found so frequently on properties elsewhere.

And a key issue relating to the risk level is whether or not the developer is still on site building houses. Without knowing that, and what covenants apply to San_Jose's property, the level of risk is almost impossible to accurately guess.

Bendy_House said:

If, instead, you didn't 'break the law' (eyeballs rolling...) by first asking the carpark owners about heightening the fence, there is a very good chance they wouldn't actually mind, but would quote 'No' because it's the regs.

That's reality. Because they cannot be seen to be adding grey areas. It's rools, innit.

The "rools" don't work that way.

I also find it really odd that often on this board some folks encourage other forum members to do something unlawful and then get funny [e.g. "(eyeballs rolling...)"] when the associated risks are pointed out by others.

On the finance boards it wouldn't be acceptable to advise people not to declare income to HMRC because they will never find out if you don't tell them, or on the benefits board to not declare a live-in partner because they almost never check up on your living arrangements.

So why would anyone consider it Ok to trivialise the risks of planning enforcement or action for breach of covenant on a new development when most of us on this forum know the reality is that this does sometimes happen, and even if the breach is ignored by the authorities then the property owner may still have to shell out for indemnity policies when they come to sell?

There are obviously situations where people get away with planning breaches.  But I would rate the boundary with a communal car park on a new development as a situation where the risk is higher than typical. Not necessarily because of the car park owner would mind, but because of the higher number of people who could potentially see what the OP has done if they raise the fence to 2.5m.

Bendy_House said:

Anyway, we're keeping the OP from their task - they have 5 seating areas, so a lot of directly adjacent screening to do.

If they did then it might be a case of prioritising the one(s) where privacy is more important to them.

But I'm not sure that is the case here?

Bendy_House

Section62 said:

The point is you don't know that. It is just a guess based on your interpretation of the information San_Jose has provided so far.

In which case it is important to for San_Jose (and other people reading this thread) to also hear about the risks associated with that approach so they can make an informed decision.

No, I don't know that. And nor do you. San Jose does.

And he also knows the 'risks', such as they are. And he should also be aware whether doing this trellis thing could inconvenience or impinge on others, and possibly modify their proposal accordingly.

These are all options -the OP is being informed. I don't think the trellis one is 'wrong' in the scheme of things. Especially when an alternative - almost certainly not restricted - is to plant laurels/leylandii/other tall bushes along their boundary.

I wonder which option anyone on the other side would actually prefer?

I think SJ has the info he needs to make that decision, and it's always good to hear any more details that could impact on their decision. And, hopefully, their chosen path.

Section62

Bendy_House said:

No, I don't know that. And nor do you. San Jose does.

And he also knows the 'risks', such as they are. And he should also be aware whether doing this trellis thing could inconvenience or impinge on others, and possibly modify their proposal accordingly.

This is an advice forum, people reading threads like this don't always know the risks, but they do need to be aware before taking action.

And at the risk of repeating myself, the issue isn't just about whether something will "inconvenience or impinge on others" - what matters more in most cases are the legal restrictions on alterations (particularly on new build developments).

Bendy_House said:

These are all options -the OP is being informed. I don't think the trellis one is 'wrong' in the scheme of things.

It depends how you define 'wrong'.  If we are talking about 'unlawful' then you are mistaken.

Depending on the details in the OP's case it could be 'wrong' for several reasons.

Bendy_House said:

Especially when an alternative - almost certainly not restricted - is to plant laurels/leylandii/other tall bushes along their boundary.

Planting on new developments is very often restricted. Either by the developer through covenants, or by the local planning authority through planning conditions. (see my first post on this thread)

Failing that, predominantly evergreen hedges are subject to height restrictions by legislation, but that is a whole other discussion topic and not an immediate concern to the OP.

Bendy_House said:

I wonder which option anyone on the other side would actually prefer?

Again, it isn't just about what a neighbour might prefer.

The situation is a lot more complicated than that, particularly on new build developments.

Rosa_Damascena

[Deleted User] said:

Laz123 said:

We planted leylandii to hide our nasty neighbour. It grows about 3 feet every year. It's also good for cutting out noise.

I'm a fan of them too.
In the right place and with the right care they're great.
Perfect until future owners won't prune it and it gets totally out of control though !

I'm not a fan, they are too expensive to maintain (ie having a professional in every year - I've got better things to spend hundreds of pounds on). Leylandii would put me off buying a property.

Bendy_House

Section62 said:

Bendy_House said:

No, I don't know that. And nor do you. San Jose does.

And he also knows the 'risks', such as they are. And he should also be aware whether doing this trellis thing could inconvenience or impinge on others, and possibly modify their proposal accordingly.

This is an advice forum, people reading threads like this don't always know the risks, but they do need to be aware before taking action.

And at the risk of repeating myself, the issue isn't just about whether something will "inconvenience or impinge on others" - what matters more in most cases are the legal restrictions on alterations (particularly on new build developments).

Bendy_House said:

These are all options -the OP is being informed. I don't think the trellis one is 'wrong' in the scheme of things.

It depends how you define 'wrong'.  If we are talking about 'unlawful' then you are mistaken.

Depending on the details in the OP's case it could be 'wrong' for several reasons.

Bendy_House said:

Especially when an alternative - almost certainly not restricted - is to plant laurels/leylandii/other tall bushes along their boundary.

Planting on new developments is very often restricted. Either by the developer through covenants, or by the local planning authority through planning conditions. (see my first post on this thread)

Failing that, predominantly evergreen hedges are subject to height restrictions by legislation, but that is a whole other discussion topic and not an immediate concern to the OP.

Bendy_House said:

I wonder which option anyone on the other side would actually prefer?

Again, it isn't just about what a neighbour might prefer.

The situation is a lot more complicated than that, particularly on new build developments.

The situation certainly can be made complicated, as you have shown.

San Jose has his usual options, and an extra one. There is obviously an onus on them to carry out due diligence.

GDB2222

The reason it’s low risk is because a few bits of trellis are not very expensive or difficult to erect. If the planners want it taken down, you just take it down, and you can use the trellis elsewhere in the garden. The whole 'project' may well cost less to do than the cost of applying for planning.

Section62

Bendy_House said:

The situation certainly can be made complicated, as you have shown.

Great that we are finally on the same page - that the situation isn't as straightforward as you imagined it to be up thread.

Increasing the height of fences and walls should only be done in possession of knowledge about the relevant restrictions applying to each individual property.  Not guesses, and hoping to get away with it.