Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In your Garden would you choose to have 6 foot fences on all sides so that you are completely enclosed and, effectively, cut off from your neighbours, or would you choose to have a smaller 4 feet Wall or smaller 4 feet fences where you can still see and chat to each other when you both want to?


This assumes reasonable neighbours and its for everyone, irrespective of their current accommodation.


Interested as I feel we may get a variety of views here.


What would your reasoning/reasons be for your decision Guys?

My Lithuianian neighbours and I have reached a compromise, whereby we retain the 2 6 ft panels nearest the back of the houses and have converted a third one to be 6 ft additionally.


The middle 4 Panels will still be 4 ft. and the last 3 panels, surrounding the Summer House he has built for his 18-year-old Son at the bottom of his Garden, will be 6 ft.


Its actually my call as its the "right" hand side of my Garden (which in my road, at least ) means its my responsibilty.


This way we both get sufficient privacy but we still have the middle section to engage with each other and we do not feel "imprisoned".


Fortunately, the neighbours on my left-hand side have always been very friendly and have a 4 ft. fence only so I was probably one of the few houses to be completely in the open, which is my preference.

If a House was your choice of residence would you ideally like total privacy in the back garden or would you like the extra light, the feeling of not being imprisoned and the opportunity to exchange greetings and conversation with you next-door neighbours(assuming reasonable People) ?

Ted Max Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Quick, is neighbour Tony. He come to talk about

> bloody fence again. Turn light off and quiet keep.

> Last time he was talking four hours. About fence."


I'm suitably wounded Maxie:))


Funny how this language barrier malarkey works though as since they moved in we have communicated well.


When we were discussing the apportionment of payment for the fences, he spoke articulately about the cost and effort involved for him in buying and putting up these fences. I paid.


Yet, when I mentioned about loss of sunlight and Feeedom, generally he did not seem to grasp the concept but he, readily, accepted over half the financial cost and was able to make his point, with admirable clarity, that he had to hire the van and other residue costs which forced a further contribution from me.

....still didn't understand the loss of light and neighbourly considerations though, that got lost in translation somewhere over The Baltic Sea....(tu)

Ted Max Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "He not stop talking about bloody fence soon. I

> shoot self."


Have to say the surrealistic nature of me smiling and laughing, while trying to convey that I like LOW fences appealled to my sense of the ridiculous hugely.


Equally he was smiling and laughing, punctuated with gestures and "o.k's" while trying to ignore the fact that I objected to the extra height.


The outcome? They spent the best part of yesterday afternoon onwards, removing the extra height of the 4 Panels so we have 3 tall panels next to the Houses, then the smaller section and 2/3 large ones at the very end.


p.s. My g'f so enjoyed the "dialogue" over the weekend that she tried everything to push me back out in the garden to disrupt proceedings while they were trying to get the job done..:)) ....in exactly the manner you described Ted.

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Such a delightful sounding GF :-|


She was, eerily, saying the same as Maxie:)......trying to wind me up telling me that "I'm soooo unique" and how could any Family next door not want to spend every afternoon looking and talking to me....(!)


"You go Tony! you go tellthem what a great job they are doing, you Go Boy!...her tongue was so firmly in her cheek that her face almost split in two....


KK: You wouldn't shut me out if you were my neighbour would ya?:-S

What about a 4 footer with a bit of trellis at the top so it lets a bit of light in etc. The flat i'm due to move in has a lot of chicken wire panels instead of fence which we think are the neighbours resposibility and he looks big and scary - wish me luck.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...