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?

But what can you replace them with VVVQV? Thats the burning issue I think, if MP were to remove them what could go in their place to afford as much privacy?

sympathies - we had a lovely secluded garden which benefited from a leylandii hedge over the fence. Until they chopped them all down without telling us (they were their trees, but it was a bit of a shock when we heard the chainsaws). We now have a 1970s house looking into our kitchen.

I very carefully read the laws on trees, and we already had a conifer and a Eucalyptus, and I have planted a robinia, 2 rowans, and a hawthorn. Also an apple tree, 2 pears and a plum.

I'm hoping for lots of growth this year!

Chopping the tops off will do nothing to increase their light if their gardens are 10ft. So I would either leave them, or plan a different screening option.

Leave trees.

Let neighbours pay to get top 10-15ft lopped off, if they are going to get awkward about it.

Then the trees will be shorter than when they moved in to the property two years ago.

DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR PRIVACY THOUGH!

It will make you sad, and you'll feel like you are constantly being watched.

We are getting 4metre tall red robin trees for our garden. They are evergreen, and provide great screening, but cost a fortune - generally about £300+ for this height.

We have massive trees next to us, and they are a complete pain, although if they were pruned it would help. 60ft is pretty enourmous - topping them and facing them does sound like a reasonable thing to do. Do your neighbours want to contribute towards the cost?

I thought that people were allowed to prune the branches of trees which overhang their property, so long as it doesn't damage the tree.

I think a more burning issue is having a garden with no light, where nothing will grow.

A willow tree

To be honest, I dont know. Any other type of tree that wont go as tall and affords more light is going to have branches that will stretch out across this 10 foot gap. It's swings and roundabouts.

You could try a poplar tree I spose

yes they are allowed to cut all overhangin bits. The ongoing costs of that will be huge though as a scaffolding contraption is needed to safely reach 60 ft in the air with a chainsaw.

well said, scuff.

what's more important, light or privacy?

privacy, every time of course.

point this out to your neighbours.

plus, which way does their garden actualy face? if they have north/northish facing gardens, remind them that the sun comes from the south...how much more light will they actually have?

But pointy the flats were built and sold when the trees were already there and already v big.

I realise that is the only reasonable counter-argument. I find it grossly selfish, that's all.

But what are you doing that needs so much privacy in the garden? Aren't peoples activities in the garden too boring for other people to want to watch them? Cutting the grass, de-heading flowers, having a cup of coffee, wedding? I don't get it. I certainly don't want to watch anyone in their garden.

weeding or weddings - who cares, get a life.

now, that post of Stephen's sounds comical.

Pointy - why isn't privacy important? Genuine question. I ask because it's really important to me. (But hard to achieve in a London house with a pocket handkerchief garden)

pointy - which bit????

I also think privacy is massively important and I think especially so if you live in a town or city where you are often overlooked.
I want to potter about in my garden without an audience, as does the OP which is totally understandable IMO.

When you live in an area within sight of other people, then the slightly irrational and selfish desire to be completely private needs to be kept in check to some extent as the quest for complete privacy is bound to impact on other people.

It might be really important to you but you live in a major city so some things just aren't practical. I think consideration for others is hugely important.

Who on earth do you think is sitting watching you all the time as you potter in teh garden? Doesn't sound like anyone's idea of fun.

which bit. aye right

I couldn't agree more about consideration for other people. But MP is in a position where consideration for other people could mean that her needs aren't being taken into consideration.

pointy, i'm sure you're a very pleasant person, but you're clearly insane on this one!

take it from me, the sight of trees is much more pleasurable than the sight of other people's pebble dashed walls.

no one's watching, no one's being watched, but its a step backwards.

it's making things worse.

not being able to see other people's houses is the reason why big houses in large grounds cost considerably more than dingy terraces packed together like sardines, you dingbat!

i most certainly dont want anyone overlooking my garden when my babies are running round it naked as is their right in their home.

am now wavering between laughing and crying

It's not their right! fuck me