When is a hedge not a hedge? When officials decide it’s a ‘group of trees’
IT is a tall but otherwise unremarkable clump of trees.
Yet a patch of woodland is at the centre of bizarre row over whether or not it is technically a hedge.
What started as a dispute between neighbours has escalated to involve a council and senior officials from the Scottish Government.
On one side of the debate is William Corr, whose light is being blocked by the 50ft trees and who demanded they be cut back under Scotland’s laws on high hedges – a position the council backed.
On the other side is Roderick Owens, owner of the neighbouring house in Paisley, Renfrewshire,
‘Purchased a property which backs onto forest’
who called for the wood to remain untouched.
And last week Government planners ruled that although they were blocking Mr Corr’s light, the trees did not need to be trimmed. The Planning and Environmental Appeals division stated: ‘The trees are not a hedge.’
The decision concludes a lengthy row between Mr Owens, 49, and Mr Corr, 54, who claimed the trees were ruining his garden and said he was ‘frightened’ of the danger falling branches posed during storms.
He applied to Renfrewshire Council for a High Hedge Notice in June last year and was delighted when they ruled the trees should be lopped to 20ft.
But Mr Owens insisted the trees were part of a mature wood and turned to the Scottish Government in a last ditch effort to save them.
He claimed he was ‘more than willing to look after trees which may form a nuisance or danger to others’ but would not be inclined to remove ‘healthy trees’ for a neighbour who ‘purchased a property which backs onto a forest and who has lived in it for 15 years’.
Following a visit to his property, government reporter Trudi Craggs overruled the council’s decision.
When approached by The Scottish Mail on Sunday yesterday, Mr Corr said he ‘accepted and respected’ the decision and would not be making any further appeals.
Mr Owens said he did not wish to comment on the ruling.