Council forcing someone to cut a hedge

[Uncle Peter]

My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely this isn't allowed? If my hedge needs cut on my neighbour's side, she is legally allowed to cut it without asking me, but she can't charge me for it! Is the council above the law? If it makes a difference, it's Scotland.

[steve robinson]

What do the local bylaws say, is the property owned by your freind or
social / rental accomadation

[Martin Bonner]

On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 15:18:17 UTC+1, Uncle Peter wrote:
> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has
> apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement
> side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely
> this isn't allowed?

I'm pretty sure it is allowed in England.

> If my hedge needs cut on my neighbour's side ...

True. But your neighbour's property is not the public highway, and
different rules apply to the public highway. Before you ask "why?",
the answer is "because that's the law".

> If it makes a difference, it's Scotland.

It may well do. With luck August will be along shortly to confirm.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:18:17 +0100, Uncle Peter <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has
> apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the
> pavement side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him
> for it! Surely this isn't allowed?

I don't see why not.

Occasionally my council write to me saying something similar about my
front trees, though actually it's not my trees that are a problem - it
seems they get a complaint about overhanging vegetation on the stretch
of road and they write to every property along that stretch saying 'if
your trees are obstructing...'

I have no problem with the council requiring the owners of vegetation
overhanging the pavement to keep it trimmed such that pedestrians can
walk along without having to push through it - that's especially
unpleasant when it's wet from rain.

I don't want my council tax to pay for them not being bothered to
prevent their vegetation being a nuisance to passers-by. Are you
happy to pay for your neighbours gardening? If so, would you like to
pay for mine too?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:01:04 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>I have no problem with the council requiring the owners of vegetation
>overhanging the pavement to keep it trimmed such that pedestrians can
>walk along without having to push through it - that's especially
>unpleasant when it's wet from rain.

Indeed. I have a tree which overhangs the pavement at the front of my
house. I make a point of ensuring that it is trimmed back (and up)
regularly so that people walking along the pavement don't have to duck or
swerve to avoid it. I find it quite depressing that there are people out
there who seemingly think that maintenance of their property is the
council's responsibility.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[davi...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:18:17 PM UTC+1, Uncle Peter wrote:
> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely this isn't allowed?

Section 91 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1988 seems relevant, but I can't see power to demand reimbursement of the costs:

"91 Prevention of danger to road from nearby vegetation and fences etc. or from retaining walls being inadequate.

(1)Where a hedge, tree or shrub overhangs a road so as to--

(a)endanger or obstruct the passage of vehicles or pedestrians;

(b)obstruct or interfere with--

(i)road users' view of the road;

(ii)the light from a public lamp; or

(iii) a traffic sign; or

(c)increase the likelihood of obstruction of the road by drifting snow,

the roads authority may, by notice served either on the owner of the hedge, tree or shrub, or on the occupier of the land on which it is growing, require him within 28 days from the date of service of the notice to carry out such work on the hedge, tree or shrub as is necessary to remove the cause of danger, obstruction or interference. "

[Uncle Peter]

It's owned.

[AnotherJohn]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:18:17 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely this isn't allowed? If my hedge needs cut on my neighbour's side, she is legally allowed to cut it without asking me, but she can't charge me for it! Is the council above the law? If it makes a difference, it's Scotland.

The Council they will be saying that the hedge is obstructing the
public footway, which is a very different matter to hanging over a
neighbour's garden.

[A.Lee]

It certainly is allowed, and should be enforced more in my opinion.
It is 'blocking the footpath' or a similar sounding offence.

--
Alan
To reply by mail, change '+' to 'plus'

[Tim Watts]

On 17/06/14 21:12, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:01:04 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> I have no problem with the council requiring the owners of vegetation
>> overhanging the pavement to keep it trimmed such that pedestrians can
>> walk along without having to push through it - that's especially
>> unpleasant when it's wet from rain.
>
> Indeed. I have a tree which overhangs the pavement at the front of my
> house. I make a point of ensuring that it is trimmed back (and up)
> regularly so that people walking along the pavement don't have to duck or
> swerve to avoid it. I find it quite depressing that there are people out
> there who seemingly think that maintenance of their property is the
> council's responsibility.
>

I trimmed mine the other day to keep the height over the pavement.

Luckily we get endless buses and large lorries which clips the front of
the high bits off over the road.

[Uncle Peter]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:23:44 +0100, Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 15:18:17 UTC+1, Uncle Peter wrote:
>> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has
>> apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement
>> side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely
>> this isn't allowed?
> I'm pretty sure it is allowed in England.
>
>> If my hedge needs cut on my neighbour's side ...
>
> True. But your neighbour's property is not the public highway, and
> different rules apply to the public highway. Before you ask "why?",
> the answer is "because that's the law".

I'm not objecting to them cutting it. The pavement is council property, and they should have the right to remove things impinging on it. But to charge someone is preposterous. I'm wondering if there is actually a specific law that applies, or if the council are just being mean and threatening him into doing their work for them. What next, I'm responsible for the condition of the pavement outside my house? Retarmacing it etc?

[Uncle Peter]

What I'd like is for people not to moan about such petty things. If you walk past someone's garden regularly and don't like the wet leaves (how pathetic), then you can either ask them politely if they would kindly remove it, or chop them yourself.

[Uncle Peter]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:29:24 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself davi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:18:17 PM UTC+1, Uncle Peter wrote:
>
>>> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has
>>> apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement
>>> side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it!
>>> Surely this isn't allowed?
>>
>> Section 91 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1988 seems relevant, but I
>> can't see power to demand reimbursement of the costs:
>

> It's 1984, not 1988, and the relevant text is:
>
> "(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, if in the opinion of the roads
> authority the danger referred to in subsection (2) above is
> imminent they may dispense with the service of the notice required
> by that subsection, may themselves carry out the work forthwith,
> and may recover the expenses reasonably incurred in so doing from
> the owner or occupier."

Surely "danger" would be a tree branch going into the road likely to cause an accident. Not a hedge growing less than halfway across a pavement in a quiet housing area without a through road?

[steve robinson]

Why should taxpayers sudsidize the cost of trimming the garde hedge

[steve robinson]

The hedge will obstruct the view of the highway, possibly force people
into the road, deposit its foliage onto the pathway , possibly the road
too obstruct signage.

That imho is enough to possibly be dangerous

[steve robinson]

Risking a smack in the mouth, abuse or criminal damage.

[pcb1962]

On 17/06/14 15:18, Uncle Peter wrote:
> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has
> apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement
> side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely
> this isn't allowed?

It's allowed where I live. My council's website has this to say:

"If you report an overgrown or an overhanging tree or hedge to us that
endangers or obstructs the passage of users of the highway, we will:
send a letter to the owner requesting that they cut it back and/or
serve the owner with a notice to do the work under Section 154 of the
Highways Act 1980"

And the above mentioned act contains this paragraph:

"Subject to any order made on appeal, if a person on whom a notice is
served under subsection (1) or (2) above fails to comply with it within
the period specified in those subsections, the authority who served the
notice may carry out the work required by the notice and recover the
expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the person in
default."

[davi...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:29:24 PM UTC+1, August West wrote:

> the relevant text is:
>
> "(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, if in the opinion of the roads
> authority the danger referred to in subsection (2) above is
> imminent they may dispense with the service of the notice required
> by that subsection, may themselves carry out the work forthwith,

> and may recover the expenses reasonably incurred in so doing from
> the owner or occupier."

But subsection (2) only refers to a hedge etc "likely to cause danger by falling on the road" - I presume the OP is talking about something covered by subsection (1), and I can't see a right to recover costs for that.

[The Todal]

I think it is quite usual for a householder to be asked to cut back a
hedge that is causing an obstruction to users of the highway.

I suppose if in doubt, he could ask the council to quote the relevant
statute under which they have made the request.

It might be under the Highways Act 1980. Section 130 might cover it:

Protection of public rights.

(1)It is the duty of the highway authority to assert and protect the
rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which
they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms
part of it.

(2)Any council may assert and protect the rights of the public to the
use and enjoyment of any highway in their area for which they are not
the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.

(3)Without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2) above, it is the duty of
a council who are a highway authority to prevent, as far as possible,
the stopping up or obstruction of—

(a)the highways for which they are the highway authority, and

(b)any highway for which they are not the highway authority, if, in
their opinion, the stopping up or obstruction of that highway would be
prejudicial to the interests of their area.

[Percy Picacity]

Surely if a council can "require" someone to do something, there is the
implication of some enforcement action? Is there no general law that
says that if someone is "required" to do something then the council can
ultimately get it done for them and sue them for the cost of doing so?
It would seem to follow logically otherwise "requiring" actions might
be ineffectual.

--

Percy Picacity

[Janet]

In article <op.xhmbw...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com says...

Or falling onto a pedestrian. Or sticking out so far they force
pedestrians to step into the road.

>Not a hedge growing less than halfway across a pavement in a quiet
housing area without a through road?

Quiet housing area where people might drive their disability buggy,
walk their dogs, push a pram or wheelchair, small children may run to a
friends house or ride their scooter or trike. Hedges overhanging or
obstructing a pavement can be a hazard, especially to eyes.

Janet.

[Janet]

In article <7jo85s....@news.alt.net>, k...@under.the.invalid says...

> Surely if a council can "require" someone to do something, there is the
> implication of some enforcement action? Is there no general law that
> says that if someone is "required" to do something then the council can
> ultimately get it done for them and sue them for the cost of doing so?
> It would seem to follow logically otherwise "requiring" actions might
> be ineffectual.

Councils routinely "require" conformity to their departmental
controls over building, planning, noise, dogs, environmental health and
HSE etc; and take action to investigate breaches then enforce
compliance.


Janet.

[Uncle Peter]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:23:45 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> On 17/6/14 15:18, Uncle Peter wrote:
>> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has
>> apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement
>> side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely
>> this isn't allowed? If my hedge needs cut on my neighbour's side, she
>> is legally allowed to cut it without asking me, but she can't charge me
>> for it! Is the council above the law? If it makes a difference, it's
>> Scotland.
>
> I think it is quite usual for a householder to be asked to cut back a
> hedge that is causing an obstruction to users of the highway.
>
> I suppose if in doubt, he could ask the council to quote the relevant
> statute under which they have made the request.
>
> It might be under the Highways Act 1980. Section 130 might cover it:
>
> Protection of public rights.
>
> (1)It is the duty of the highway authority to assert and protect the
> rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which
> they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms
> part of it.
>
> (2)Any council may assert and protect the rights of the public to the
> use and enjoyment of any highway in their area for which they are not
> the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.
>
> (3)Without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2) above, it is the duty of
> a council who are a highway authority to prevent, as far as possible,

> the stopping up or obstruction of—

>
> (a)the highways for which they are the highway authority, and
>
> (b)any highway for which they are not the highway authority, if, in
> their opinion, the stopping up or obstruction of that highway would be
> prejudicial to the interests of their area.

That doesn't seem to mention charging a resident for clearing the council run pavement.

[davi...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 18 June 2014 09:29:14 UTC+1, Percy Picacity wrote:
Is there no general law that says that if someone is "required" to do something then the council can ultimately get it done for them and sue them for the cost of doing so?

Not that I'm aware of - hence the specific provision in that section.

[Saxman]

Where I live the council can demand from the owner to cut overhanging
hedges obstructing the path. There are more complaints about this and
dog mess locally.

Why don't owners cut their hedges and clean up the dog mess?

One could say why should I have to pay for dog litter bins and
collectors of mess when I don't own a dog?

[Janet]

In article <op.xhm4m...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com says...

> That doesn't seem to mention charging a resident for clearing the council run pavement.

If a dog shits on the council-run pavement, the council may fine the
owner. Even though the council don't own the dog or its shit.

That's because the owner of the dog is responsible for any nuisance or
hazard it causes to other users of the council-run pavement.

Janet UK

[Uncle Peter]

The only difference is the owner of what it's hanging over. Perhaps he should cut it and leave the leaves for the council to sweep up.

[Uncle Peter]

Because it's on taxpayer's property. My neighbour pays (or her own time) to cut my hedge on her property. I've never known anyone childish enough to ask for payment from the person who has the roots. In fact my neighbour is getting the hedge without costing her any land.

Don't forget, this is not some kind of construction. It's a natural plant which has been put there. We seem to be getting afraid of nature.

[Uncle Peter]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:07:14 +0100, AnotherJohn <Anoth...@nowhere.com> wrote:

The fact is almost every pavement in the UK will have something obstructing it. Zero tolerance is going too far. Here's one I found very easily by randomly looking through google maps for 20 seconds: http://goo.gl/maps/ZDzjp Do you think the council should send a letter to every single homeowner in the UK with an overgrown hedge? If not, they're being discriminatory.

[Percy Picacity]

I don't think it is just ownership. For instance, I don't think
(though I may be wrong) that the council can require you to cut a tree
that overhangs their depot. It is more that the council is acting to
protect a common good, the public highway, on behalf of all of us.
And, indeed, the council may not actually own the land over which the
highway passes, though they do have control of it.

--

Percy Picacity

[pcb1962]

No but Section 154 which I've quoted above does.
Here it is again:

"Subject to any order made on appeal, if a person on whom a notice is
served under subsection (1) or (2) above fails to comply with it within
the period specified in those subsections, the authority who served the

notice may carry out the work required by the notice and recover the
expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the person in
default."

[Norman Wells]

Thereby escalating it to littering which is a criminal offence.

[Percy Picacity]

Discriminating as to what matters is the right, nay duty, of the council!

--

Percy Picacity

[ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:00:21 +0100, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

>If my hedge needs cut on my neighbour's
>> side, she is legally allowed to cut it without asking me, but she
>> can't charge me for it!

Why not, it's yours and causing her a nuisance why should you not pay
to have it cut?

AJH

[Roland Perry]

In message <3Ajov.34627$Qe5....@fx16.fr7>, at 17:59:34 on Wed, 18 Jun
2014, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>> The Council they will be saying that the hedge is obstructing the
>>> public footway, which is a very different matter to hanging over a
>>> neighbour's garden.
>> The only difference is the owner of what it's hanging over. Perhaps
>> he should cut it and leave the leaves for the council to sweep up.
>
>Thereby escalating it to littering which is a criminal offence.

Wouldn't it be fly tipping rather than littering?
--
Roland Perry

[steve robinson]

Point of order...... Uncle Peter wrote this not me.

[Uncle Peter]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:07:14 +0100, AnotherJohn <Anoth...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:18:17 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely this isn't allowed? If my hedge needs cut on my neighbour's side, she is legally allowed to cut it without asking me, but she can't charge me for it! Is the council above the law? If it makes a difference, it's Scotland.
>

> The Council they will be saying that the hedge is obstructing the
> public footway, which is a very different matter to hanging over a
> neighbour's garden.

I guess what he could do is cut the hedge back as asked, then erect a fence on the pavement side of it, just within his property, like a normal fence. But he can't see it due to his hedge. Then paint it the most horrid colour possible.

[Uncle Peter]

They should be spending their money on what really matters, like collecting waste, which they do very badly around here. They've got to the stage where about 90% of household waste is recycled, mainly in the one blue wheely bin, yet this is only collected once a fortnight, not once a week like they used to collect the single waste one. I always use about 1.75 binfulls and have to borrow space from my neighbours. I asked for a bigger one and they said I needed SIX people in the house to get a larger one. I had actually offered to pay extra, but they refused!

[steve robinson]

I take it i can ask the council to tax and insure my car, van and
motorcycle then because they spend most of the time on tax payers
property.

[Uncle Peter]

But my neighbour's son did not ask the council to cut the hedge. It would be more like the council insisting you insure your car for being parked stationary outside your house. I think they do actually, but that doesn't make sense, as any accident would obviously be the other person's fault.

[Norman Wells]

Why should it?

[pcb1962]

On 18/06/14 20:51, Uncle Peter wrote:
>
> I guess what he could do is cut the hedge back as asked, then erect a
> fence on the pavement side of it, just within his property, like a
> normal fence. But he can't see it due to his hedge. Then paint it the
> most horrid colour possible.

In England he'd need planning permission if the fence is more than 1m high

[Uncle Peter]

Not if it's just enough to be annoying, but a reasonable amount to have missed with the brush. Or do it on a really windy day so it goes absolutely everywhere.

[Uncle Peter]

I'd like to know what good it does to make the pavement wider on a quiet culdesac.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Don't those bureaucrats think of everything?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Roland Perry]

In message <Qmoov.34815$Qe5....@fx16.fr7>, at 23:26:45 on Wed, 18 Jun

2014, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>> The Council they will be saying that the hedge is obstructing the
>>>>> public footway, which is a very different matter to hanging over a
>>>>> neighbour's garden.
>>>> The only difference is the owner of what it's hanging over.
>>>>Perhaps he should cut it and leave the leaves for the council to
>>>> sweep up.
>>> Thereby escalating it to littering which is a criminal offence.
>> Wouldn't it be fly tipping rather than littering?
>
>Why should it?

Because I'd expect "litter" to have a definition which didn't include
hedge clippings. Meanwhile, dumping unwanted "stuff" on the public
highway is normally referred to as fly tipping.
--
Roland Perry

[Percy Picacity]

I think the distinction is that fly tipping involves bringing the waste
from elsewhere to dump. Littering is leaving rubbish where you produce
it. The nature of the rubbish is immaterial.

--

Percy Picacity

[Roland Perry]

In message <7jr9lf....@news.alt.net>, at 13:13:01 on Thu, 19 Jun
2014, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:

>>>>>>> The Council they will be saying that the hedge is obstructing the
>>>>>>> public footway, which is a very different matter to hanging over a
>>>>>>> neighbour's garden.
>>>>>> The only difference is the owner of what it's hanging over. Perhaps he
>>>>>> should cut it and leave the leaves for the council to
>>>>>> sweep up.
>>>>> Thereby escalating it to littering which is a criminal offence.
>>>> Wouldn't it be fly tipping rather than littering?
>>>
>>> Why should it?
>>
>> Because I'd expect "litter" to have a definition which didn't include
>> hedge clippings. Meanwhile, dumping unwanted "stuff" on the public
>> highway is normally referred to as fly tipping.
>
>I think the distinction is that fly tipping involves bringing the waste
>from elsewhere to dump. Littering is leaving rubbish where you produce
>it. The nature of the rubbish is immaterial.

So someone throwing away a fast food wrapper in the middle of the park
is fly tipping (they got it from a shop half a mile away)?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <87mwd95...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 15:10:32 on Thu, 19
Jun 2014, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:
>Always best to look to the letter of the law.
>
>Littering.
>
>Environmental Protection Act 1990, s.87(1):
>"87 Offence of leaving litter.
> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or
> otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section
> applies and leaves it.
> (2) This section applies to any place in the area of a principal litter
> authority which is open to the air, subject to subsection (3) below.
> (3) This section does not apply to a place which is “open to the air� for
> the purposes of this Part by virtue of section 86(13) above if the
> public does not have access to it, with or without payment.

Hmm, so throwing old chip wrappers over the wall into my front garden
isn't littering?

> (4) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether the litter
> is deposited on land or in water."
>
>Fly tiping:
>
>Environmental Protection Act 1990, s.33(1):
>"33 Prohibition on unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or
> disposal etc. of waste.
> (1) Subject to subsections (1A), (1B), (2) and (3) below and, in
> relation to Scotland, to section 54 below, a person shall not—
> (a) deposit controlled waste or extractive waste, or knowingly cause or
> knowingly permit controlled waste or extractive waste to be deposited
> in or on any land unless an environmental permit authorising the
> deposit is in force and the deposit is in accordance with the
> licence;
> (b) submit controlled waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit
> controlled waste to be submitted, to any listed operation (other
> than an operation within subsection (1)(a)) that—
> (i) is carried out in or on any land, or by means of any mobile
> plant, and
> (ii) is not carried out under and in accordance with an
> environmental permit.]
> (c) treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste or extractive waste in a
> manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human
> health."

What category do you think (a) hedge clippings and (b) fast food
wrappers come into? While we are at it (in case fast food wrappers are
too obviously litter) what about any uneaten [waste] food still inside.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <87fvj06...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 16:24:06 on Thu, 19

Jun 2014, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:

>> What category do you think (a) hedge clippings and (b) fast food
>> wrappers come into? While we are at it (in case fast food wrappers are
>> too obviously litter) what about any uneaten [waste] food still inside.
>

>I have no idea; and I don't care to speculate. If you really want to
>know, follow the trail that starts with the definition of "controlled
>waste" in s.62A.

A good example of the effect that now I've seen a copy of the wording of
the law "I'm better informed but none the wiser".
--
Roland Perry

[Percy Picacity]

If they finished it an hour ago and have been deliberately carrying it
around looking for somewhere to throw it, yes[1]; if they happened to
finish it in the park, no.


[1] but particularly if they collected a sack/car/lorry load of them
and made a special journey for the purpose. I have often seen a couple
of bags of ordinary domestic rubbish or bags of garden refuse fly
tipped. The favourite site is not the highway, but an adjacent
watercourse. Some deep Freudian motivation seems likely.

--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

On 2014-06-19 15:40:29 +0000, August West said:

> The entity calling itself Jethro_uk wrote:
>>
>> Hmmmm. One glaring omission is what is "litter" ....
>
> As usual, if no definition is given in the Act, the word takes its usual
> meaning; plus, in a small amount of specification, s.98(5A):
>
> "'Litter' includes—
> (a) the discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products, and
> (b) discarded chewing-gum and the discarded remains of other products
> designed for chewing."
>
> I have no idea why that amendment was felt necessary; I can only assume
> some judge somewhere at sometime opined that the items specifically
> mentioned were not litter.

Without the prevailing moral panic about tobacco, the average judge
might (and I believe some did) apply the de minimis principle to
cigarette ends. In other words, the punishment is intended to be for
smoking in public, rather than for the consequential littering. (It is
hard to believe anyone every did the same with chewing gum, but perhaps
they did.)

--

Percy Picacity

[Uncle Peter]

They're grinding the world to a halt is what they're doing.

[Uncle Peter]

I've never heard of that before. And I know plenty English who didn't either, and just put up the fence. Are you sure?!

[Uncle Peter]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:46:44 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

> It's just the same in Scotland. You need permission for a new wall or
> fence over 1m, unless the wall or fence is more than 20m from the road,
> or not on the front/principal elevation, when it can be up to 2m high.

Hang on, how come I can have a 2m hedge without planning permission?

[pcb1962]

On 19/06/14 21:36, Uncle Peter wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:54:49 +0100, pcb1962
>>

>> In England he'd need planning permission if the fence is more than 1m
>> high
>
> I've never heard of that before. And I know plenty English who didn't
> either, and just put up the fence. Are you sure?!

Quite sure:

"You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or
add to a fence, wall or gate and:
it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or
the footpath of such a highway); or over 2 metres high elsewhere"
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/fenceswallsgates

Same in Scotland:

The maximum height of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure
is 2 metres. Whilst its maximum height 1 metre if it fronts a road
(explained in paragraphs 3.9 - 3.10) or comes forward of the principal
elevation or side elevation nearest a road.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/02/9140/5/3/5

[Uncle Peter]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:46:44 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Uncle Peter wrote:
>>

> It's just the same in Scotland. You need permission for a new wall or
> fence over 1m, unless the wall or fence is more than 20m from the road,
> or not on the front/principal elevation, when it can be up to 2m high.

I wonder how many people know that? Because a standard fence is 7 feet high. And plenty of those go up at the front. It's not a law most people would imagine would exist.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:55:41 +0100, Uncle Peter put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:46:44 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The entity calling itself Uncle Peter wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:54:49 +0100, pcb1962 <pcb...@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In England he'd need planning permission if the fence is more than 1m
>>>> high
>>>
>>> I've never heard of that before. And I know plenty English who didn't
>>> either, and just put up the fence. Are you sure?!
>>
>> It's just the same in Scotland. You need permission for a new wall or
>> fence over 1m, unless the wall or fence is more than 20m from the road,
>> or not on the front/principal elevation, when it can be up to 2m high.
>
>I wonder how many people know that? Because a standard fence is 7 feet high.

The standard fence panel, as obtained from DIY barns across the nation,
comes in two heights: 0.8m and 1.8m. The latter is the more common, and is
the one used at the back and side of most gardens. 1.8m is a couple of
inches less than 6 feet

I'm not sure where you've been getting your 7 foot fence panels from, but I
suspect it's as idiosyncratic as your source of legal information.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[F Murtz]

just feeding wildlife.

[Graeme]

In message <7jo85s....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
<k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>
>Surely if a council can "require" someone to do something, there is the
>implication of some enforcement action? Is there no general law that
>says that if someone is "required" to do something then the council can
>ultimately get it done for them and sue them for the cost of doing so?
>It would seem to follow logically otherwise "requiring" actions might
>be ineffectual.
>
<Aberdeenshire>

There is an old granite outbuilding in my garden, two sides of which
form the boundary wall. The roof is slate, 100+ years old, and the
slates started to slip so the local council wrote to the then owner
asking for the roof to be repaired. The then owner ignored the request,
so the local authority demolished the roof themselves and sent the bill
to the property owner, who had to pay. When I say demolished, I mean
they left just the four walls standing, as the wood was found to be
rotten when the slates were removed.

However, I suspect this had as much to do with public safety as old
slates littering the pavement.

--
Graeme

[Uncle Peter]

Your 1.8m is higher than the legal limit anyway. And the 7 feet is because I have one at the back. I'm 5 foot 9, and it's a lot taller than 3 inches above me. Don't forget, they don't go right to the ground, or they'd rot. And I'm talking a proper fence made out of vertical planks, not your slatted cheap tat.

[Mandy Mason]

On Wednesday, 18 June 2014 at 12:55:19 UTC+1, Saxman wrote:
> On 17/06/2014 17:29, A.Lee wrote:

> > Uncle Peter wrote:
> >
> >> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has apparently
> >> been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement side, or the
> >> council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely this isn't allowed?
> >> If my hedge needs cut on my neighbour's side, she is legally allowed
> >> to cut it without asking me, but she can't charge me for it!
> >> Is the council above the law? If it makes a difference, it's Scotland.
> >

> > It certainly is allowed, and should be enforced more in my opinion.
> > It is 'blocking the footpath' or a similar sounding offence.
> >
> Where I live the council can demand from the owner to cut overhanging
> hedges obstructing the path. There are more complaints about this and
> dog mess locally.
>
> Why don't owners cut their hedges and clean up the dog mess?
>
> One could say why should I have to pay for dog litter bins and
> collectors of mess when I don't own a dog?

[JNugent]

*2014*?

[Primrose]

That hedge has got to be quite big by now!:-)
>


--
I'm a sew and sow!

[Jeff Layman]

On 17/08/2021 14:57, JNugent wrote:

It's a Google Groups cock-up. First time I've seen one in ulm, though.

--

Jeff

[Vir Campestris]

On 17/08/2021 15:39, Primrose wrote:
>
> That hedge has got to be quite big by now!:-)

Pfft you ain't seen nothing yet

<https://www.visitscotland.com/info/towns-villages/meikleour-beech-hedge-p249401>

"the Meikleour Beech Hedge was planted in 1745 and is one third of a
mile long (530 m) and 100 ft (30 m) high."

Andy

[Nick Humphries]

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 at 3:18:17 PM UTC+1, Uncle Peter wrote:
> My neighbour's son (who lives just round the block from me) has apparently been asked by the council to cut his hedge on the pavement side, or the council will cut it for him and charge him for it! Surely this isn't allowed? If my hedge needs cut on my neighbour's side, she is legally allowed to cut it without asking me, but she can't charge me for it! Is the council above the law? If it makes a difference, it's Scotland.

If the hedge is overgrown on the public footpath then it is classed as interfering with the public right of way and in extreme circumstances, it may be endangering the public by forcing them to walk into the road. Hence, yes they can force you to cut the hedge or, cut it and ask you to pay for they service. With respect to your neighbour, does she has a right to cut your hedge if it is encroaching on her property above or below ground. Assuming she has your permission to destroy the cuttings otherwise she must throw them back into your yard as they are your property from your hedge, and your responsibility to dispose of them!!!!!!!!

[Tim Woodall]

I don't know the answer but I've seen other (apparently knowledgable)
advice that you cannot just "throw them back" as that is littering (or
fly-tipping or something similar). You must ask before you destroy them
but if the original owner doesn't want them back then it's your
responsibility to dispose of them.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 05:59:10 -0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
<new...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:


>I don't know the answer but I've seen other (apparently knowledgable)
>advice that you cannot just "throw them back" as that is littering (or
>fly-tipping or something similar). You must ask before you destroy them
>but if the original owner doesn't want them back then it's your
>responsibility to dispose of them.

It's complicated, and different sources disagree! Or, rather, there is
agreement on some things, but the question of disposal of hedge
trimmings is not one of them. And what makes it complicated is that
there are two different legal principles involved here: the principle of
property (and theft) and the principle of lawful waste disposal.

It is indisputed that a landowner is entitled to trim back overhanging
vegetation (eg, a neighbour's hedge) where it encroaches onto his
property. This is a simple property right. However, this is subject to
the caveat that the hedge may not mark the boundary, and there may be a
gap between the hedge and the boundary itself. So the trimming neighbour
has to be careful only to trim up to the actual boundary, and not up to
the centre line of the hedge, if the two are different.

It is also indisputed that the trimmings are the property of the owner
of the hedge, and not the property of the trimmer. This, too, is a
matter of simple property right. However, the trimmer is in possession
of the trimmings and is therefore obliged to ensure that they are
disposed of properly. This is a matter of lawful waste disposal, not a
matter of property rights. That may involve returning them to the owner
for disposal, but only in a manner approved by the owner. Simply dumping
them onto the owner's property is fly-tipping, even though the trimmings
belong to the owner of the hedge, because the duty to dispose of the
waste legally rests on the person who created the waste, even if that is
different to the person who owns it[1].

In theory, therefore, what should happen is that the trimmer should
offer to return the trimmings to the owner, but the owner can decline to
receive them. In practice, however, trimming overhanging vegetation is
such a common practice, and so few owners ever want it back, that it's
also common practice for the trimmer to dispose of the trimmings without
offering them back to the owner. And, because it's such a common
practice, if it ever was challenged, the trimmer would be able to rely
on Section 2.1.b of the Theft Act 1968 as a defence, which is that he
has a reasonable belief that the owner consents to his appropriation of
the trimmings and therefore his actions are not dishonest.

So, in practice, someone who trims a hedge encroaching onto their land
can do what they like with the trimmings, either offer them back to the
owner or dispose of them themself, provided only that they dispose of
them lawfully. So putting them in his garden waste bin, taking them to
the tip, composting them, or any other means of lawful disposal, are all
perfectly acceptable irrespective of any property rights in them
belonging to the owner of the hedge.

[1] More generally, waste disposal legislation places the responsibility
for lawful disposal on the creator and (if different) the handler of the
waste, rather than the owner (if different to the creator and handler).
There are all sorts of practical reasons why this is the case, but one
of them is to avoid penalising the owner for waste created from their
property without their consent (eg, being a victim of a thief who steals
and then dumps stuff), and another is to ensure that tradespeople (eg,
plumbers, carpet fitters, etc) are responsible for waste created in the
course of their work and cannot simply disavow it as being the sole
responsibility of their client. A side-effect of this principle is that
the owner of a hedge is not responsible for disposing of trimmings
created by his neighbour, unless he agrees to take back possession of
the trimmings and dispose of them himself.

Mark

[Philip Hole]

Another consideration not mentioned is that you must take care of the
hedge/tree.

If you merrily hack away at all and any branches or roots that wander
onto your property, you might kill the tree.
Then you are vulnerable to a charge of negligence and the possibility of
recompense.

If in doubt - get a tree surgeon. Who will cover liability.
--
Flop

[Primrose]

That is magnificent!

[Pancho]

On 18/08/2021 11:08, Mark Goodge wrote:

>
> [1] More generally, waste disposal legislation places the responsibility
> for lawful disposal on the creator and (if different) the handler of the
> waste, rather than the owner (if different to the creator and handler).
> There are all sorts of practical reasons why this is the case, but one
> of them is to avoid penalising the owner for waste created from their
> property without their consent (eg, being a victim of a thief who steals
> and then dumps stuff), and another is to ensure that tradespeople (eg,
> plumbers, carpet fitters, etc) are responsible for waste created in the
> course of their work and cannot simply disavow it as being the sole
> responsibility of their client. A side-effect of this principle is that
> the owner of a hedge is not responsible for disposing of trimmings
> created by his neighbour, unless he agrees to take back possession of
> the trimmings and dispose of them himself.
>

What happens with a plant like ivy?


Say the ivy is growing onto my property. I detach the ivy from my
property, without cutting it off from the ground, and push it back over
the property boundary.
Is that disposal of waste?

[Norman Wells]

Of course not. It's relief of a trespass.. There is no waste created.

[Pancho]

On 18/08/2021 16:44, Norman Wells wrote:

>> What happens with a plant like ivy?
>>
>>
>> Say the ivy is growing onto my property. I detach the ivy from my
>> property, without cutting it off from the ground, and push it back
>> over the property boundary.
>> Is that disposal of waste?
>
> Of course not.  It's relief of a trespass..  There is no waste created.

OK, that is what I thought, but my neighbour seemed annoyed with me when
I did it.

[Mark Goodge]

That would be a question of fact, for a court to decide if necessary.
There are arguments either way. The question that the court would need
to answer would be whether part of a plant can be waste, within the
meaning of the relevant legislation, while still attached to the rest of
the plant and still alive. I'm not aware of any case law on this point.

Mark

[Norman Wells]

That doesn't surprise me. Neighbour matters should always be resolved
by discussion whatever the legal position. Just because someone can
doesn't necessarily mean they should.