this post was submitted on
20 points (70% like it)
35 up votes 15 down votes
all 78 comments

[–]MrTimofTimFrom Plymouth, now Loughborough 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This guy lives about 3 miles from me, I've been to see his house, and our local press is all over the story.

It's very interesting.

First of all these trees are enormous, towering almost 10ft above his house. It is monstrous, there is rights to your property, and there is 30ft tall dense leylandii trees.

When you hear the previous episode of his story it get's very interesting.

This chap, we shall call him Treeman (no relation to /r/trees), is a Civil/Building engineer by trade. A few years ago Treeman built an 8ft high wall around his back garden, naturally his neighbours complained that it was illegal etc., although he had very cleverly read his deeds/local planning laws and, technically his wall was completely legal.

By building the wall approx 1ft. inside his garden it was not, strictly, a "boundary" wall, and thus not banned by deeds, and as it didn't have a roof etc. not banned by planning laws.

Now, the only way his neighbours managed to get him to tear down this wall (Mr Gorbachev) was to take him to the Magistrates under nuisance etc. laws.

Now I can see the American's points and agree with OP that they have far more land than us, and yes, we should be able to do what we want, but seriously, Treeman, cut down your trees. There is a line and it's quite clear that he crossed it.

Also, OP, loved your Stop the Cavalry.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]MrTimofTimFrom Plymouth, now Loughborough 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, I upvoted that. For science.

[–]Jonalewie[S] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks - I was probably more proud of "You'll always find me in the kitchen at parties", but not many people know that one.

I agree with your points, btw, and thanks for the local perspective.

[–]makeinstall 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Are you still not one for washing up?

[Kitchen at parties was one of my favourites when I was younger]

[–]Jonalewie[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nope. And I always get rebuffed.

[–]G_Comstock 24 points25 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fo me it all comes down to the harm principle a la John Stuart Mill.

No one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of/cause harm to others.

In this case given the deleterious effect on the quality of life of his neighbours I think he has violated the harm principle in a meanigful way.

It doesn't help that he's a bit of a tool.

[–]CraigTorso 10 points11 points ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

it's good to see Utilitarianism cited in working out social problems. While far from a perfect political philosophy this is exactly the sort of situation where deploying it is helpful

[–]G_Comstock 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You may well already know this but JS Mill wrote On Liberty (where he describes the harm principle) in someways as a rebuttle to the pragmatic utilitarianism he had grown up with: He had spent his youth being tutored by none other than Jeremy Bentham.

[Edit: Grammar]

[–]Ben_25 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I reckon a lot of those saying he should be able to do what he likes no matter what his neighbours think would change their minds quite quickly if they were in the same position as the neighbours.

What he is doing is having a large impact on the neighbours, and that impact should be taken in to account before doing things like this.

[–]alas11Darkest Surrey 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, he's being a prick, and eventually he will have to cut it down. But tbh I dont know why the neighbours havn't taken the traditional route of a can of nitromors.

[–]endot 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

On a somewhat related note, nitromors is a TOTALLY different thing to white spirits when it comes to washing paint off hands.

[–]IronFarmWiltshire 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Apparently a rusty nail hammered into the trunk will do the trick too.

[–]blindinlight 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry old chap but that's utter bollocks. Won't kill the tree; may let in a certain amount of decay but wouldn't have a noticible effect on a healthy tree. All it'll do is really piss off the bloke who eventually blunts a chainsaw on it.

[–]IronFarmWiltshire 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, my Dad is going to be severely disappointed at the continued lack of sun in our garden.

[–]JennyCideLeeds, Leeds, Leeds 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As an ex-lumberjack (and I know you've just started humming the Monty Python tune now - earworm FTW!), please, please don't do this - it doesn't work and I was almost maimed once when chainsawing a tree that someone had hammered loads of nails into - couldn't see them as they'd been hammered all the way in - one of them caught my chain which broke and flew into my face - luckily I was wearing protective gear.

[–]Jafit 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Copper nails if you can get them

[–]blindinlight 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Myth. A copper nail won't kill a tree, who on earth told you that?

[–]loudribsPeople's Republic of West Yorkshire 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Silver nails. That's what you need.

[–]ElanthiusLondon 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Plant garlic bulbs around the base of the tree. That's what you need.

[–]Tezcatlan 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, you have to remove the head or destroy the brain.

[–][deleted] ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]blindinlight 1 point2 points ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Been working in forestry since 1999, so I know a little bit about trees. I can see your point, but I'd honestly never heard of it, maybe it's an American thing.

A tree is a complex & fascinating organism that adapts its form to its environment - aerial and subterranean - in many ways. They have hundreds of plants and animals living in and on them, will grow in all sorts of conditions, and will put up with all sorts of abuse. There's a yew two miles from here that is 2,000 years old, and 200 years ago was struck by lightning & caught fire. It's still going strong. *edit - the tree, not the fire

To say that "you can kill a tree by hammering a nail in" is just so obviously fallacious that I got a bit scornful, soz.

[–][deleted] ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]blindinlight 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

sigh just read that back and try giving your head a shake

[–][deleted] ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]blindinlight 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

OK, but this'll have to be the end of it from me as I'm off on holiday I'm delighted to say...

I'll begin by conceding that you're right, at least in part: I shouldn't have used the word "fallacious" when I meant "erroneous". Checked the def. and your explanation of it is spot on.

That being said, the fact that the statement isn't fallacious (as defined by you and ahem everyone else, whoops...) doesn't mean it's true. It's still incorrect.

I was sighing about the way that you'd preceded your worthy exposition on logic by proposing about the weakest, most questionable experiment on the topic it's possible to conceive. I'm sure I don't need to explain that bit, although if you can't see what I'm getting at please think along the lines of control group, sample size etc.... I'm quite confident you know this already.

As an aside, from a practical point of view I'd make a simple observation: in the time it takes to hammer ten nails into a tree that small, you could have felled it, or if for some weird ninja lumberjack reason that's no good, drilled a hole / made a slash in the bark and rubbed in some glyphosate. That method works incidentally, and is a lot quicker, and subtler (use an exposed root...)

Finally, as for immaturity in comments: this is (really) the first time I've ever used the phrase: LOL

[–]Jafit 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]blindinlight 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I hate to break it to you but not everything on the internet is true. A link to how a copper nail is supposed to kill a tree would be more interesting, but you really are in the realm of bullshit here.

[–]nobullvegan 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not so sure about that, but if you strip a ring of bark around the main trunk of the tree, it will kill it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girdling

[–]tastycoleslaw 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]Jonalewie[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeh, I had a good laugh at that one too.

[–]_psyFungi 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Man, I got to that comment eventually too, as my annoyance with ignorant pseudo-libertarian prats grew and grew. Had to just quit the thread to get my blood pressure back to normal. Idiots.

[–]Sealbhach 42 points43 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's American libertarian bullshit. "Gubbmint won't tell me what to do.... guns... freedom... socialism... herp derp".

[–]DuBBle 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not sure how US Libertarians feel, but I suspect they would agree with the definitions provided by the UK Libertarian Manifesto:

Property rights are corporeal (your body), intellectual (your ideas, thoughts, beliefs), physical (possessions, land) and capital (your money or other financial assets)

Which would certainly seem to provide for legal recourse in the case of roots causing damage to your home and potentially putting your life at risk.

[–]jamesmcm 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But that's the problem. It's always seeking reparations after the fact, that's pretty useless if it kills your wife.

[–]DuBBle 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, in this case, the wife is only going to die a horrible crushing death due to something slow-acting and provable (ie: root growth), so her endless, excruciating agony could be prevented with a bit of digging and a camera.

We can't really charge people with future-murder until we unlock pre-cogs.

[–]jamesmcm 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was more referring to concerns that the trees could topple, or weaken the foundations of the house.

Sure, we shouldn't charge people for pre-crime, but we should stop people doing stupid things which endanger others.

[–]weblypistollatitude 51.88 N, longitude 01.45 E (previously legal) 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

America is more traditionally centered on individual liberty and Europe about collectivity and a balance of competing rights. It's not as black and white as that, and the past decades have seen a world shift to the right, especially with the demise of communism and erosion of socialism/rise of the market paradigm. It's why the "there is no such thing as society " thing caused a fuss. Similar arguments occur with regard to free speech and whether it is absolute or to be managed with regard to competing rights. It's an old problem that Mill, Bentham, Paine, Kant, Marx, and many others have struggled with. I'm not going to solve it against the likes of them in a reddit thread.

So, I'm more in tune with a balance of rights rather than strict individual liberty, though a right wing perspective would probably argue for the use of courts as a remedy not government. There are merits to both sides. Personally, and in this example, the leylandii guy is bang out of order and is infringing on others

[–]Kijamon 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The people on that thread have clearly never lived with

  1. A garden of their own or
  2. Annoying neighbours

The trees are fucking huge and you can't even see the guys garden anymore. Why should his neighbours have to live with constantly battling the tree from growing into their garden?

How high up into the sky does he own that property? Could he theoretically grow a tree up to space? Ok that's a bit silly but he obviously has no need to grow a tree that big and since he can't manage it and keep it in a decent condition it's gotta go.

[–]violentacrez 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Americans are only concerned with themselves; fuck everyone else. Witness all the hate on reddit for Home Owners Associations (HOAs). They act somewhat like councils, and the general consensus is, they're evil for trying to uphold community standards.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Although on the worst end of things HOAs force people out of their homes for stupid reasons such as bad lawns. They are quite evil.

[–]BraveSirRobin 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In fairness, some of those "standards" are messed up e.g. "I don't care if her parents just died, your grand daughter is a child and therefore not allowed to live here". In that case they were trying to force the family to sell the home at a huge loss to force them out more quickly.

[–]violentacrez 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In that case they were trying to force the family to sell the home at a huge loss to force them out more quickly.

That's The American Way™, innit?

[–]Agent_Talarian 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As an American I'd ask you to cut us some slack, I think we can agree that Redditors are probably subject to some serious issues as a sample of a population. Personally I think he out to be able to do whatever he wants, until it begins to harm his neighbors (e.g. blocking light, damage to foundations, cleaning up the leaves, etc.) I'd say that would be the traditional opinion of most of the people near me (in New England) and in other parts of the country (especially places to the West) the attitude would be even more against this man.

[–]Jonalewie[S] 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry if I sounded like I was having a go at all Americans, I tried to point out that there were a few voices of reason and I didn't want to come across as an attack on you all. :)

I do agree people should be allowed to do what they want on their property to a certain extent - but, like you pointed out, as soon as it starts impacting on your neighbours, as these trees do, then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to at least compromise. In fact, if he'd been reasonable about it in the first place, then he wouldn't be facing enforcement.

[–]Agent_Talarian 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No trouble, that was more directed at a few other people who have replied to you so far.

That is quite my opinion. The only area I suspect we may differ is that I am a tad less accepting of the argument that it could have an impact on property prices, but being underage I'm not sure I'm not sure my opinion is really legitimate there.

[–]idonthavearewardcard 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One of the problems is that house prices are so high that most homeowners depend on the value of their house as the foundation of their net worth.

If one of their neighbours decides to be a douche and plant loads of trees which could have an effect on the safety of surrounding properties, while also inducing potential costs from the damage caused by the trees and their roots, then the value of the house would considerably fall, therby losing the homeowner a whole lot of money.

That's why whenever a new powerline or windfarm is planned, there is a mountain of opposition as many people stand to lose a lot of money if the construction goes ahead.

Maybe house prices are not as high in the US? This would explain the attitude of "If the neighbours don't like it, they should move somewhere else".

[–]TheMemoBristol 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Housing in the US is considerably cheaper (unless you're looking for somewhere in a large city like NY).

I don't think some of the US people on that thread understand what it's like to live in a cramped country where a 2 or 3 bedroom house is more expensive than a large US McMansion or gated community home.

[–]japaneseknotweed 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's definitely a US/British divide.

Britain has a much higher percentage of older homes, built at a time when sunlight was a resource to be taken seriously and shared. There's also a strong tradition of gardening.

The US has a much higher percentage of truly stupid buildings -- built with an attitude of "if we need light, we'll flip a switch." We just don't seem to care about access to daylight.

If you want to get an urban American's blood boiling in sympathy, post a story about parking-space-poaching.

[–]ElanthiusLondon 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While I agree this guy is being a colossal douche I have to say it is his land. He should be forced to keep it trimmed so it does not overhang the street or his neighbours land or house at all and tough tits to the guy next door complaining about the light.

As for whether it would affect my quality of living. I can say without a doubt that having that next door to my house wouldn't affect me one iota (apart from possible root damage and cleaning the leaves out of my gutter which would actually piss me off)

[–]andehandehandeh 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Its more than just pissing you off. Damage to the foundations from the roots could be enough to make the adjacent houses fail a building survey, and therefore be unsellable.

[–]HugoRune1965Yorkshire 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's not just direct damage from the roots. The trees will be drawing a considerable amount of moisture from the soil which causes it to shrink. This can also affect the foundations. There is also the issue of reducing light into the neighbouring properties, and the additional risk of damage from high winds causing branches to fall.

[–]Jonalewie[S] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This would probably be my biggest concern. But I think having a dull, dingy front room for years would wind me up so much I'd eventually go round and stab the guy with a pitch fork...

[–]ElanthiusLondon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

WRT to root damage that is certainly another thing that he should be forced to pay for as well, or more likely prevent it. But there's no mention of root damage in the article so it's not even clear to me if that is an issue with this type of tree.

[–]blindinlight 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Point of info: root damage has more to do with type of soil than type of tree - clay soil expands and contracts according to moisture content & is therefore affected by tree roots. Non-clay soil - not affected. The size of the tree and extent of the root system come into question if it's a clay soil. End of lecture, you're welcome.

[–]ElanthiusLondon 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know close to nothing about trees but I was always under the impression that some types of trees have roots that go straight down instead of outwards and that made them popular on streets.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

the possibility of the tree's root system undermining the house.

I'm a Canadian and have supported the 'American' argument, but now I'm not sure. This much is a big deal.

[–]ZiggamorphCambridge 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You don't think that having a massive eyesore that blocks out sunlight is reason enough?

[–]WellardCanada 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, he's being kinda unsociable, however it is his property. Some councils actually limit the height of trees, shrubs and bushes. Not sure if his one does. I know where I used to live it was about 10ft. One comment I remember was the neighbour directly opposite was quoted as saying, "I can't see his house". Why the fuck do you need to see his house? Unless you're a nosey neighbour of course. It sounds like a real nice neighbourhood.

[–]Ivashkin 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I do find it interesting that no one has decided to salt the earth and remove said tree problem.

[–]mcmUK 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm British and I lean towards "it's his property, he can do what he likes". Although I think his direct neigbours would be well within their rights to cut off any branches that overhang their properties, and the council to cut of the branches overhanging the public paths.

[–]OrbixxWest Midlands 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm the same. Except I'd make sure I exercise my right of free speech whenever I see him.

[–]EldestPortDorset via Hampshire 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Although I think his direct neigbours would be well within their rights to cut off any branches that overhang their properties, and the council to cut of the branches overhanging the public paths.

Yeah, and then charge him for it. :D

[–]TheMemoBristol 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

When living in close proximity to others, it is probably more important to live harmoniously with them than exercise your right to your property. If we don't consider the effect we have on others, we have no society. If everyone was like this man, we would have neighbourhoods of barely controlled anger and frustration.

The Japanese, for example, understand this implicitly - it is considered impolite to so much as look at a neighbour's house. When someone is in their own garden, to passers-by they simply do not exist. Everyone respects others' boundaries and try to do nothing that would impinge on their neighbours.

Living in close proximity to people necessitates a delicate balance be maintained. This man clearly has no respect for his neighbours or their property, nor the moral and social responsibility to maintain the balance. The British used to be known for our politeness, which was a result of our understanding of this balance. Now some people, it seems, have no sense of their place within the community, they cut themselves off from their neighbours by way of their own selfishness.

[–]The_Cake_Is_A_LieWigan Pie eater -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm English, but I'm with the Americans. It's his house. Let him do what the fuck he wants to it. You can't tell him to not park an ugly car in front of his house. You can't tell him not to dress like a pig and stand in front of his house. All these things would affect your quality of living only if you were especially sensitive and whiney. Same with the trees.

[–]ClapyourhandssayyeahThe Saarfeast 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's not just affecting the tree owner's house, it's detrimental to the houses either side:
- less sunlight
- subsistence cracking ceilings etc from tree roots
- significantly lowering sale price of said houses

Take some responsibility.

[–]The_Cake_Is_A_LieWigan Pie eater 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's not really the point of this entire thread. The thread is about the different planning regulations.

In the UK we have communist-esque regulations - which basically say if the local people do not like the LOOK of what you are doing on your property then they can change it.

If there are any physical problems, then both the UK and US authorities can make the neighbour fix his trees.

Your post essentially agrees with me if you only list physical problems as the real issues.

[–]whencanistopLondon 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There is actually a long standing law that allows you the right to light in this country (although not in the US). That means that if he was taken to court he could be told to take it down as he is reducing the light to his neighbours. I'm sure an architect will back me up on this one and I'm sure an engineer must know about it.

It's the same reason that sometimes people are denied planning permission when building extensions.

I'm sure the reason it isn't being considered is because it is harder to prove than the antisocial behaviour element.

Something similar happened to my family when I was little. The house we'd moved into had a big tree out the back that was blocking light from the neighbours. We cut it down when they asked as opposed to court though.

[–]dave-mcBedford, England 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]Jonalewie[S] 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So you think you would have to be especially sensitive and whiney to have these trees affect your quality of living? We're taking about very little sunlight getting into most of his neighbour's rooms all of the time. Wouldn't that begin to affect you?

[–]genj 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If it impedes his neighbours directly like that, he should only be obliged to remove the impediment insofar as is minimally required to cease being an interference. EG blocking sunlight is an impediment, unsightly tree or Berlin Wall isn't.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]ZiggamorphCambridge 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If he wants privacy he should stop drawing attention to himself.

[–]Ivashkin 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There is the privacy that a well maintained private hedge would give him with no problem from anyone else in the area, and the sheer insanity of this. Plus you could also argue that if having absolute privacy in his house is paramount, maybe living in a semi-detached facing a road wasn't the best choice for him.