NOT to want to chop down my leylandii?

[morningpaper]

OK OK I know it is a scourge etc.

I have a long garden and two old leylandii (60 footish) at the very back. They used to block the view of the council scrap yard which backed onto us.

Two years ago they erected four squillion houses on the old scrap yard. Including 4 along the back of our garden - with foundations TEN FEET from the leylandii.

Of course, the gardens there are only 10 feet long and nothing will grow. The leylandii branches touch the back of the houses.

One of the residents has now asked me to remove my leylandii.

What is the right thing to do?

There are laws governing the height I think. Contact your local council who will tell you what they are.

I loathe and detest leylandii personally

Just wanted to pop on and say that reading your OP made me feel as though I am hanging around with real "grown-ups"

I would never have heard such a query 10 years ago

I think the laws don't cover two trees, only a hedge, and I'm not sure that counts as a definition

I am wondering what is morally right though, rather than legally

The trees were there first

By law you have to chop it down to 2 metres as it would be blocking their sunlight. it's not their fault the council built their house there. Imagine what it would be like if you had to live in a house that had no sunlight because of someones tree.

The neighbourly thing is to find a nicer, lower, less light-blocking tree or hedge.

Oh, difficult one.

It's not your fault that the houses were built so close to your trees. And presumably the people who bought the house knew about the trees when they bought it.

If you want the trees there to block the houses from your view, then I think you are within your rights to refuse.

It might make things a bit sticky with your neighbours, but if doing them a favour inconveniences you then that can't be right either!

Can some judicious pruning be done, by way of a compromise?

Another tree will take 10 years or so to grow

We will then be overlooked by 3 houses and one small block of flats and the children are in the garden all the time

IT WILL BE AWFUL

The trees have a special place in the tree legislation as they grow very quickly and very big. As they are a nuisance it's irrelevant how long they have been there. sorry. You'll have to cut them, if you don't, they can take the matter further (they will have to pay though) and you may get an ASBO!

It is a total light-blocker; it would be inconsiderate (at the very least) not to remove it.
Am at your long garden.. if I had I'd replace with something beautiful, like magnolia or cherryblossom in it's place, something you can really enjoy

I don't see why you and your trees should have to suffer because the houses were built there

I am going to be in the minority I think but surely it should be caveat emptor.

I read in the paper recently that the rules concerning leylandii are only relevant if it is a hedge, so you are ok then .

Technically it doesn't come under the legislation because there are only two fo them, apparently

leylandi are just awful depressing trees that sap all teh goodness from the ground.

I would remove them. I lived next door to two leylandii for five years which blocked out sun coming from the west. I hated the dark monsters. A reasonable person would go for the chop.

I've had quotes and they've come in around 300-500 quid

And my currently-private garden will be directly overlooked by about 20 windows

Problem with leylandii is that the people who bought the houses may not have realised they would grow so large.

6 years ago I bought my house and the leylandii next door were fine. Cut off the light at certain times of the day, but no problem. Last year, they had completely blocked all the sunlight from my garden from about 2PM onwards. My neighbours cut them down without me getting around to mention it.

TBH my feeling at the mo is that I will reduce the height until it's second-floor level i.e. so that it still blocks the windows so people can't look into the garden (that was what the quotes were for)

They only moved in 18 months ago, the trees haven't noticably grown since them

I objected to the original building work on the grounds that the leylandii would destroy the foundations

Well I'd be tempted to say to the neighbours that you don't need to shift them, the trees were there first. You realise their problem but shifting them is going to be a nightmare. How on earth will you get them out? If the neighbours are prepared to help with that, I'd swap them for something a bit more attractive, and happier neighbours.

Don't lose your privacy.

Chop/prune as necessary.

You could always plant something else next to/in front of the Leylandii, and keep pruning/chopping them Leylandii until the other trees grow sufficiently?

I thought you had to have 3 in a row, as a hedge to be required by the council to keep them to a certain height?

I hate them though.

the branches are physically touching their houses? im naturally really averse to the chopping down of trees and we have had many a disagrement with our neighbour over our trees in our garden however we did meet half way and say we would reasonably cut them back which i think perhaps you could do. Cut them so you still retained privacy but looks like your taking their feelings into consideration.

Incidentally, Magnolias are pretty for a short while then a total mucky pain in the arse when it covers your grass in dead leaves.

I have put on my tree surgeon's wifes hat and asked DH what his thoughts are.

He says morally it would be best to fell them and plant some decidous trees in their place. They will take 5 years to grow tall and leafy enough to provide privacy.

Personally I'd go with the lopping the tops like you said.

people are obsessed by privacy and become anti-social in order to maintain it

agree with mega's dh. Get some pretty rowan

privacy is nice