In article , Sacha
writes
Perhaps people take better care of beech hedges because they don't take so
much care and that is because they don't grow at such a terrific rate.

perhaps there are just fewer beech hedges?

There are a huge number of leylandii and other conifer hedges - a small
proportion not looked after would numerically be much larger than a
similar proportion of other hedges.

And don't forget the bandwagon effect. Leylandii complaints are the 'in
thing' atm.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article ,
Kay wrote:
In article , Sacha
writes
Perhaps people take better care of beech hedges because they don't take so
much care and that is because they don't grow at such a terrific rate.

perhaps there are just fewer beech hedges?

Not in suburbia in the south-east - they compare with hawthorn and
privet in number. leylandii stand out more, but I doubt that there
are any more than ones of those three.

No, the reasons for beech hedges' lower objectionality are primarily
due to their nature (see my posting, and Sacha's point above). The
same does not apply to all hedges (e.g. laurel).

And don't forget the bandwagon effect. Leylandii complaints are the 'in
thing' atm.

Yes, that is so. A fair comparison is with laurel, and the reduced
number of current complaints about laurel IS because of the reduced
number of hedges. When laurel hedges were used in the way leylandii
is now, they got the same complaints.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

snip
Perhaps people take better care of beech hedges because they don't
take so
much care and that is because they don't grow at such a terrific
rate.

Sascha, I do not know where you get your polarised attitude from.
My well maintained Leylandii gets the same maintenance as all the farm
Hawthorn hedges in Lincolnshire.
It gets trimmed once a year. My domestic Hawthorn hedge needs trimming
twice. As does my Privet.
Hawthorn always outstrips Leylandii in the growth stakes.
I took about 18" off the table top of the Leylandii this year.
The farm hawthorn leaders were over 3ft.
In the 560 yds of hawthorn in my care it is hardly surprising that the
odd Sycamore, Ash, Elder - yes, and Beech, (and one Plum) intrude to
spoil the symmetry. All are rampant and outgrow the hawthorn. So the
Leylandii pale into insignificance beside them.

These are not my opinions. These are facts that I live with, day in,
year out.

PS. I notice that further down the thread your argument starts to
change. :-))
--
ned

http://www.bugsandweeds.co.uk
last update 15.10.2004

On 27/10/04 4:59 pm, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes
Perhaps people take better care of beech hedges because they don't take so
much care and that is because they don't grow at such a terrific rate.

perhaps there are just fewer beech hedges?

Perhaps. But when did you last read 6 complaints about out of control beech
hedges on here? Or even three? Leylandii even has its own place in urg's
FAQ.

There are a huge number of leylandii and other conifer hedges - a small
proportion not looked after would numerically be much larger than a
similar proportion of other hedges.

And don't forget the bandwagon effect. Leylandii complaints are the 'in
thing' atm.

In that case, they have been the 'in thing' for many years and for very good
reason. If they are the most planted hedge, they are the most planted hedge
causing the most annoyance, most suffering and most all round bloody
nuisance.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On 27/10/04 7:24 pm, in article , "ned"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

snip
Perhaps people take better care of beech hedges because they don't
take so
much care and that is because they don't grow at such a terrific
rate.

Sascha, I do not know where you get your polarised attitude from.
My well maintained Leylandii gets the same maintenance as all the farm
Hawthorn hedges in Lincolnshire.
It gets trimmed once a year. My domestic Hawthorn hedge needs trimming
twice. As does my Privet.
Hawthorn always outstrips Leylandii in the growth stakes.

I took about 18" off the table top of the Leylandii this year.
The farm hawthorn leaders were over 3ft.
In the 560 yds of hawthorn in my care it is hardly surprising that the
odd Sycamore, Ash, Elder - yes, and Beech, (and one Plum) intrude to
spoil the symmetry. All are rampant and outgrow the hawthorn. So the
Leylandii pale into insignificance beside them.

These are not my opinions. These are facts that I live with, day in,
year out.

PS. I notice that further down the thread your argument starts to
change. :-))

My argument does not change. Well maintained hedges of any sort are one
thing. Out of control hedges are another.
Leylandii hedges can get out of control faster and more radically than any
other type of hedge and are not suitable for suburban gardens. They are not
so objectionable used as windbreaks where they do not encroach upon the
gardens of others. I still hate them, think them boring, giving nothing to
the land on which they are grown and a waste of space - literally.
But you are welcome to Google this group to see how many complaints there
are about e.g. Leylandii and how many about beech, hawthorn.
And, BTW, I don't know where you live or how or when your hedge was planted
but if you have that mix in it, you may have one of the ancient hedges
planted with an eye to witchcraft and the various functions of the various
trees. They were planted as a boundary in more ways than one, time past.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Sacha wrote:
snip
And, BTW, I don't know where you live ...

......... Oh, Sacha. You disappoint me. I told you in my last post
that it was Lincolnshire.

or how or when your hedge was planted

....... No, I don't know that either. 'Bit before my time. But, I do
know that the principal boundaries were set out according to the
'Enclosures Act' of 1773.

but if you have that mix in it, you may have one of the ancient
hedges planted with an eye to witchcraft and the various functions
of the various trees. They were planted as a boundary in more ways
than one, time past.

.......Well it certainly appreciates the TLC that it's getting. It
is
a wonderful haven for wildlife.
As is the (well maintained) Leylandii.!!! :-))

--
ned

http://www.bugsandweeds.co.uk
last update 15.10.2004

In article , Sacha
writes

In that case, they have been the 'in thing' for many years and for very good
reason. If they are the most planted hedge, they are the most planted hedge
causing the most annoyance, most suffering and most all round bloody
nuisance.

That still doesn't mean to say the are *always* a bad thing, and
*always* the wrong solution. I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem,
I'm arguing against the extreme reaction on urg whereby whenever
leylandii is mentioned someone always pops up and says 'prune them 6
inches below ground level'.

And I'm also arguing against the argument that we should plant our
gardens in such a way that no-one in the future should be able to use
our plantings to cause a nuisance to their neighbours.
Can we expect no-one to be responsible for their own actions any more?
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article ,
Kay writes:
|
| And I'm also arguing against the argument that we should plant our
| gardens in such a way that no-one in the future should be able to use
| our plantings to cause a nuisance to their neighbours.
| Can we expect no-one to be responsible for their own actions any more?

You are STILL being too simplistic.

Let us say that I live uphill of you (in, say, the Highlands), and
build a construction that is likely to collapse if snow is allowed
to accumulate. I do that religiously, in the middle of a snowfall
if need be. I then sell my property to someone else, without
placing any constraint on him to do so and without even explicitly
informing him of the need. He does not do so, and it collapses,
damaging your property.

Would you say that I had no moral responsibility?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 28/10/04 2:19, in article , "ned"
wrote:

Sacha wrote:
snip
And, BTW, I don't know where you live ...

......... Oh, Sacha. You disappoint me. I told you in my last post
that it was Lincolnshire.

or how or when your hedge was planted

....... No, I don't know that either. 'Bit before my time. But, I do
know that the principal boundaries were set out according to the
'Enclosures Act' of 1773.

but if you have that mix in it, you may have one of the ancient
hedges planted with an eye to witchcraft and the various functions
of the various trees. They were planted as a boundary in more ways
than one, time past.

.......Well it certainly appreciates the TLC that it's getting. It
is
a wonderful haven for wildlife.
As is the (well maintained) Leylandii.!!! :-))

It's funny you say that about leylandii (and I'm not being sarcastic) but I
had a long and high hedge of it at one house and rarely saw birds on it or
in it.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On 28/10/04 8:53, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

In that case, they have been the 'in thing' for many years and for very good
reason. If they are the most planted hedge, they are the most planted hedge
causing the most annoyance, most suffering and most all round bloody
nuisance.

That still doesn't mean to say the are *always* a bad thing, and
*always* the wrong solution. I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem,
I'm arguing against the extreme reaction on urg whereby whenever
leylandii is mentioned someone always pops up and says 'prune them 6
inches below ground level'.

I make no bones about detesting leylandii but have also said that in the
right place, they have their uses. And IMO and that of many others, the
right place is not a small or suburban garden.

And I'm also arguing against the argument that we should plant our
gardens in such a way that no-one in the future should be able to use
our plantings to cause a nuisance to their neighbours.
Can we expect no-one to be responsible for their own actions any more?

Well, I always thought the philosophy of planting trees - and leylandii are
trees - is that you *do* plant for future generations. We don't advise
people to plant trees that will be giants blocking their front doors, on the
grounds that "the next owners or next generation can always cut it down."
It is my view and I thought it was a generally accepted one, that planting
trees IS the responsibility of the person doing it. You may not agree with
that in which case we shall have to agree to disagree, I hope.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On 28/10/04 10:13, in article ,
" wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes
On 27/10/04 4:59 pm, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes
Perhaps people take better care of beech hedges because they don't take so
much care and that is because they don't grow at such a terrific rate.

perhaps there are just fewer beech hedges?

Perhaps. But when did you last read 6 complaints about out of control beech
hedges on here? Or even three? Leylandii even has its own place in urg's
FAQ.

There are a huge number of leylandii and other conifer hedges - a small
proportion not looked after would numerically be much larger than a
similar proportion of other hedges.

And don't forget the bandwagon effect. Leylandii complaints are the 'in
thing' atm.

In that case, they have been the 'in thing' for many years and for very good
reason. If they are the most planted hedge, they are the most planted hedge
causing the most annoyance, most suffering and most all round bloody
nuisance.
If they are the most planted hedge then they will have the most
complaints shurely, statistically speaking of course

If they're such a good idea and so easy to maintain, why should there be any
complaints, let alone the scores there are or have been?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On 28/10/04 10:21, in article ,
" wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

My argument does not change. Well maintained hedges of any sort are one
thing. Out of control hedges are another.
Leylandii hedges can get out of control faster and more radically than any
other type of hedge and are not suitable for suburban gardens. They are not
so objectionable used as windbreaks where they do not encroach upon the
gardens of others. I still hate them, think them boring, giving nothing to
the land on which they are grown and a waste of space - literally.
That is your opinion though and judging by the amount of Leylandii that
there are around I think you are in the minority which I'm sure you
don't mind anyway:-)

There are mercifully few around here, most people going in for deciduous
hedging or good old Fuchsia riccartonii.

But you are welcome to Google this group to see how many complaints there
are about e.g. Leylandii and how many about beech, hawthorn.
There are relatively few complaints and then, as another poster said,
you get the usual suspects jumping on the bandwagon.

If by the usual suspects, you mean me, then yes I hold my hand up. But if
you have been around this group for several years then you will know that
there have been a great many complaints about this particular plant used in
that particular way.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article , Sacha
writes

It's funny you say that about leylandii (and I'm not being sarcastic) but I
had a long and high hedge of it at one house and rarely saw birds on it or
in it.

But that hedge was along the road, wasn't it? In a rural area where
there were plenty of quieter alternatives

The Leylandii hedge next door is at least a perching post for quite a
number of birds, and the goldcrests nest in it.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Sacha
writes
There are mercifully few around here, most people going in for deciduous
hedging or good old Fuchsia riccartonii.

You are in a very warm corner of the country! 'Good old Fuchsii
riccartonii' dies down to ground level every winter around here.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
Kay writes:
|
| And I'm also arguing against the argument that we should plant our
| gardens in such a way that no-one in the future should be able to use
| our plantings to cause a nuisance to their neighbours.
| Can we expect no-one to be responsible for their own actions any more?

You are STILL being too simplistic.

Let us say that I live uphill of you (in, say, the Highlands), and
build a construction that is likely to collapse if snow is allowed
to accumulate. I do that religiously, in the middle of a snowfall
if need be. I then sell my property to someone else, without
placing any constraint on him to do so and without even explicitly
informing him of the need. He does not do so, and it collapses,
damaging your property.

Would you say that I had no moral responsibility?

that is a false analogy.

a) you are talking about warning future owners rather than desisting
entirely

b) the need to trim hedges in general and leylandii in particular is
well known

Ad you accuse me of being simplistic! ;-)
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"