Seven years on, couple win fight over neighbour’s 40f t high hedge
A WEALTHY engineering boss has lost a seven-year battle with his neighbours over claims 40ft high hedges in the grounds of his B-listed mansion block their views of the Firth of Forth.
Clifford and Alison Jackson were locked in a war of words with Robin Briggs over leylandii trees separating their properties.
The Jacksons’ detached home in Burntisland, Fife, sits next to Mr Briggs’s property, where the trees form a 135ft border between them.
The prolonged argument saw attempts at mediation involving council staff falter in 2011 and a further attempt at reaching an amicable agreement fail in 2015.
The Jacksons had used high hedge laws in an attempt to force Mr Briggs to take action, and succeeded in having Fife Council issue an order declaring the hedge should be cut to a height of 25ft.
But following a further appeal to the Scottish Government the trees will now be lopped to just 20ft high after officials agreed their view was still impaired.
The Jacksons said: ‘The reason for our appeal is that the issued high hedge notice height will not restore the views over the Firth of Forth and Pentland Hills from our property and will not achieve the purpose in the “reason for notice” section of the high hedge notice.’
They added: ‘It has always been our position that the views from the balcony were of primary importance to the initial purchase of our property and the continued enjoyment of our property.’
Mr Briggs, 78, chairman of Briggs Marine and Environmental Services, part of the response team for the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989, had challenged the Jacksons’ claims and claimed the hedge was in place when their property was built.
A letter from his lawyers to the Government said: ‘A view is a completely subjective concept, and a legally binding notice cannot be based upon something which cannot be quantified. It is a personal opinion what constitutes a “view”. One person may enjoy privacy, and think that plants are a view. Another, as in Mr and Mrs Jackson’s case, might feel the ability to see the sea from their property is a view.
‘It is not for Fife Council to decide what a good or bad view is in law.’
Government reporter Amanda Chisholm said: ‘The key issue regarding the appellants’ enjoyment of their property is the effect of the hedge on their views over the Firth of Forth.
‘I must consider whether the height of the hedge adversely affects the level of enjoyment they can reasonably expect to have.
‘The hedge, at its current height, is out of scale with the area of the garden nearest to the house. This, together with its proximity to the house, makes it appear dominant and oppressive.’
She added: ‘There is some dispute as to the date on which the hedge was planted. However, it is clear that it has been allowed to grow such that it now blocks the views from the appellants’ property, as I observed at the site inspection.’
‘Dominant and oppressive’