Couple win war to save their hedge

A neighbour dispute over a 62ft leylandii has ended in victory for the hedge owners.

Richard and Laura Beales had been ordered to cut their trees back by Highland Council when Andrew Clark complained his passion for gardening was being curtailed.

Mr Clark said the leylandii literally cast a shadow over his attempts to grow fruit and vegetables on his plot in Tain, Ross-shire.

He won a ruling under high hedge legislation, claiming he was forced into the action after failed attempts to engage with the Beales.

But the couple have successfully appealed to the Scottish Government, having disputed their neighbour’s claims and countered that cutting back the foliage would impact on their privacy.

Acouple whose massive tree hedge was blamed for ruining their neighbour’s crop of fruit and vegetables have won a battle to save them from the axe.

Green-fingered Andrew Clark said shadows from the 62ft leylandii had plunged his garden into darkness and left him struggling to grow crops.

The trees belong to Richard and Laura Beales and have caused a rift between the neighbours at their rural Highland homes.

Mr Clark of Tain, Rossshire, complained that his attempts to grow produce had failed due to the loss of light in his garden.

He said he had attempted to engage with the Beales but was forced to apply to Highland Council under high hedge legislation after discussions collapsed.

Mr Clark insisted the trees are having a “detrimental” impact on his garden and his ability to grow crops, despite ensuring he had made every effort to keep his soil well fertilised.

The council later issued a notice ordering that the trees should be reduced to 6.5ft.

But the Beales appealed the decision to the Scottish Government, which has now quashed the council ruling, meaning the trees will remain.

The Beales claimed the 20-year-old trees did not restrict light and that reducing their height would impact their privacy.

In his application to the council, Mr Clark said: “I tried growing crops through the last season to see if it was possible, but the lack of light had a profound effect on the crop.

“Only after waiting a full season has it been clear how much sunlight the hedge is blocking.

“The hedge totally deprives my garden of sunlight from September through to the end of May, this having a detrimental effect on my ability to enjoy my garden and grow crops.

“The height of the hedge reduces my growing season to three months; I grew a fair range of vegetables last year and despite all efforts with great soil, well fertilised, the bulk of the crop was almost a total waste.”

In their appeal, the Beales said: “We completely dispute the allegation that as stated in section 5 of the notice ‘the high hedge at its present height is causing an unacceptable reduction of light which is adversely affecting the enjoyment of the domestic property and land’.

“We have always been happy for Andy Clark to reduce the tree height if he wished, but at his expense.

“We are still happy for him to reduce the height by one half, which I believe would be significantly more than what would be prescribed on any notice.”

Overturning the council ruling, government reporter Andrew Fleming said: “I conclude that the hedge does not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighbouring domestic property and that there is no justification for imposing an obligation on the hedge owner to reduce and maintain the height of the hedge.

“I have taken all matters raised into account, however, there is nothing which would lead me to alter my conclusion. I uphold this appeal and quash the notice.”

SHADE: Neighbour Andrew Clark blamed the 62ft leylandii trees for thwarting his efforts to grow fruit and vegetables.