If It Wasn't For...
The Housing Association and "That" neighbour everything isn't so bad here.
It may seem hypocritical but we are OK with "Yes" the neighbours I had issues with.
The fence has two coats of paint. We should have no problem putting shrubs in the border, the wall is built up and it has stopped the pebbles falling into our border and the drain.
Our gardener has dug over the border and it looks as different again. And I can live with it.
If you talk with neighbours most of the time all is well. And its much better not to go through official channels be it authorities or having to use the legal profession.
So this tree situation is un-necessary.
I finally talked with our neighbours who were away on holiday and they have categorically said they have not complained and that they like trees. And if they had any issues they would come and see us directly so...it would appear it is "one" neighbour that complained. He talks supportingly but he has never actually said "I have not complained" "It wasn't me!" Everyone else has.
The person representing the HA is wrong when she said "Some" complaints had come in. After talking with everyone it is just one and I have had it verified but as the HA wouldn't disclose who complained, I won't divulge my sources.
Why is the HA so keen to have the trees cut down when his only complaint seems to be natural light is not getting into his garden when we all know that's not true and...you can only ask for a tree to be felled or drastically cut if it blocks light into a conservatory or house(It Doesn't!)It is so close to property that it will cause damage(It isn't)
And the person representing the HA said if she was asking for the trees to be cut down she would say so that means that she isn't.
And to labour the point the trees I thought may be a problem were not mentioned but she said "If you are doing those at the back of the garden, you may as well do them while you are on!" Saying that suggests they could be left as they are.
What baffles everyone is the ruling that all trees must be 8' feet. But as I cannot find my tenancy agreement I cannot check if that's right or wrong. But experts think that is incorrect and that applies to hedges not single trees.
Do that and all that will remain are tree trunks or if you could save any foliage it would kill most trees.
Many are saying I should not worry about how it affects our tenancy and look into having a Tree Preservation Order put on the tree most at risk.
I really can do without all this...
It may seem hypocritical but we are OK with "Yes" the neighbours I had issues with.
The fence has two coats of paint. We should have no problem putting shrubs in the border, the wall is built up and it has stopped the pebbles falling into our border and the drain.
Our gardener has dug over the border and it looks as different again. And I can live with it.
If you talk with neighbours most of the time all is well. And its much better not to go through official channels be it authorities or having to use the legal profession.
So this tree situation is un-necessary.
I finally talked with our neighbours who were away on holiday and they have categorically said they have not complained and that they like trees. And if they had any issues they would come and see us directly so...it would appear it is "one" neighbour that complained. He talks supportingly but he has never actually said "I have not complained" "It wasn't me!" Everyone else has.
The person representing the HA is wrong when she said "Some" complaints had come in. After talking with everyone it is just one and I have had it verified but as the HA wouldn't disclose who complained, I won't divulge my sources.
Why is the HA so keen to have the trees cut down when his only complaint seems to be natural light is not getting into his garden when we all know that's not true and...you can only ask for a tree to be felled or drastically cut if it blocks light into a conservatory or house(It Doesn't!)It is so close to property that it will cause damage(It isn't)
And the person representing the HA said if she was asking for the trees to be cut down she would say so that means that she isn't.
And to labour the point the trees I thought may be a problem were not mentioned but she said "If you are doing those at the back of the garden, you may as well do them while you are on!" Saying that suggests they could be left as they are.
What baffles everyone is the ruling that all trees must be 8' feet. But as I cannot find my tenancy agreement I cannot check if that's right or wrong. But experts think that is incorrect and that applies to hedges not single trees.
Do that and all that will remain are tree trunks or if you could save any foliage it would kill most trees.
Many are saying I should not worry about how it affects our tenancy and look into having a Tree Preservation Order put on the tree most at risk.
I really can do without all this...
posted by The Great Gildersleeve | 12:30 pm
5 Comments:
Indeed. I am reading all these in order so things are progressing!
I'd accept the pruning and shaping of trees and if needs be perhaps losing a third but 8"Feet!
That would appear to apply for a hedge not single trees so deliberately or by error the suggestion from a few people is that they are looking at the wrong legislation.
To take out mature trees especially if not near property at a time where we are told the environment is so important seems to fly in the face of what we are being told about encouraging wildlife back into towns.
The latest development is that though I have been told Councillors cannot help in matters to do with the Housing Association when I explained the situation this time a local Councillor felt that he could help and it will possibly be dealt with by the Town Council or County Council.
I hope it does not go against me and that I should've waited until after I see Citizens Advice on Tuesday but the deed has been done now.
But even he questioned the 8"feet rule and also without prompting mentioned that a tree cannot be taken out(I assume cut back too far either)because a garden suffers a lack of natural light.
Different matter if it blocks light from a house and/or Conservatory but it doesn't.
Well we'll just have to see what happens next, he has promised to phone me tomorrow so I must listen for the call.
I wanted him to visit but he said that he would look into it(Maybe that means walking past our house)or perhaps he can find out what he needs to know without calling.
We've nothing to lose. Things will remain the same, get worse or we may get a compromise going...
I keep writing 8" Feet that's only inches, I mean 8' Feet that one mark makes all the difference...
I was thinking over the years we have at our cost and for the welfare of our garden, property and neighbours because a tree was in poor condition or could cause damage etc...five trees so its not as though we are deliberately awkward.
As said previously our neighbour was told that he could take off branches causing him any unhappiness and I realise that he has taken off quite a lot hence the amount of light that gets through but if we wanted to be legal, any branch taken off should've been returned to me(they never were)
So even if we save the tree and we attempt to shape it what he has done may make that difficult.
The other two trees that have never been complained about though high do not block any light and were thinned out years ago at the top so they do not grow any higher. They have been as they are for maybe 40 years or more.
We only 3 trees remaining in our garden.
8 inches would be bonsai!
That's probably what they want!
Post a Comment
<< Home