A group of residents have won a battle over the height of a their neighbour's hedge which left some so upset, they resorted to cutting it themselves and dumped the branches outside his home.
The hedge was said to be blocking the sunlight from neighbour's gardens and was "dangerous and expensive” for them to maintain.
David Linkie, Jeremy Jones and a third complainant reported neighbour Barry Rice’s hedge to the council.
An appeal lodged to the Scottish government saw a high hedge notice issued to Rice demanding the height to be reduced from just under four metres to three metres.
The hedge was said to be blocking the sunlight from neighbour's gardens and was 'dangerous and expensive' for them to maintain (stock image)
Nils Hendrik Mueller/ GettyPlanning reporter Amanda Chisholm concluded neighbours’ “reasonable enjoyment” of their gardens was “adversely affected” by the row of Leylandii trees which make up the offending hedgerow.
The residents in Fairmilehead, Edinburgh became so frustrated with the hedge that they cut it themselves and dumped six bags of branches and clippings outside Rice’s house for him to dispose of which Rice said left his wife feeling “intimidated”.
Rice also argued it was “unreasonable for anyone to expect full sunshine all day long."
One of the neighbours, David Linkie, said lowering the hedge would “help to reduce the cost of heating the lower back end rooms of the house”.
MORE NEIGHBOUR NIGHTMARES:
Other issues included his conservatory being “frequently cold and dull to sit in” due to natural light being blocked by “the solid 4m by 11m green wall of hedge blocking natural light.”
Another neighbour, Jeremy Jones added that it was “potentially costly to employ professional tree cutting services once/twice a year to maintain or for me to purchase necessary hedge trimming equipment to get the job done”.
In a joint appeal statement to the Scottish Government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) the three residents said revised guidance on high hedges “has not been applied correctly,” claiming there were “errors in the parameters used to calculate light loss”.
In his response Rice said his opinion was that the hedge “does not seriously impact the reasonable enjoyment of their properties, as the maintenance required is only once or perhaps twice a year”.
He said: “Owning a garden requires all year round attention but doesn’t appear to have any serious impact on reasonable enjoyment, as the sound of children and adults enjoying their garden can be heard throughout the year.
Rows of housesPA“My wife felt it was unnecessary for two men to approach our door and speak to her when she was on her own, making her feel intimidated and claiming that it was our responsibly to dispose of the cuttings left by them."
After visiting the properties, Chisholm disagreed with the council’s view that there was “no adverse effect from the high hedge”.
In a report she said the row of trees were “overly dominant” and tall enough to affect light levels in the complainants’ gardens.
A DPEA letter sent to Rice said the hedge must be cut down to three metres by March next year at the latest and will be allowed to grow back as tall as 3.68m – just 22cm less than its current height.
