A pensioner in an affluent Edinburgh suburb has been instructed by the local authority to significantly reduce the height of a vast boundary hedge, following a lengthy dispute with neighbours who claimed it plunged their gardens into darkness.
The Root of the Dispute: Privacy vs. Light
Anne-Marie McQueen, 82, planted a mix of cherry laurel and cypress leylandii trees around the perimeter of her £1.5 million home to safeguard her privacy. However, five neighbouring households argued the mature hedge, which reached approximately 40 feet, severely impacted their quality of life by blocking out crucial sunlight.
The neighbours – Douglas Tait, Margaret Claymore, Dean Guy, Victor Jack, and Doreen Morgan – banded together to invoke Scottish 'high hedge' legislation. They formally complained to the City of Edinburgh Council, stating the foliage "ruined their lives" by leaving their north-facing gardens starved of light, especially during precious evening hours.
A Partially Successful Appeal
The council initially ruled that only one section of the hedge, labelled H1, needed cutting. Dissatisfied, the residents appealed, pushing for the entire hedge to be reduced. Government reporter Paul Haggin was appointed to review the case.
After a site visit, Mr Haggin upheld the council's core decision but varied the specifics. He ruled that H1 must be cut to an initial height of 4 metres (about 13ft) and subsequently maintained at no more than 5 metres (about 15ft). He found this section did adversely affect the neighbours' reasonable enjoyment of their properties.
However, regarding a second area, H2, he agreed with the council that no action was required. While acknowledging it cast shadows, he concluded it was not "overbearing or dominant" enough to justify enforcement, noting the gardens would still receive many hours of sunlight earlier in the day.
Neighbours' Grievances and a Defence of Privacy
Speaking for the group, Dean Guy detailed the impact, stating they were afforded only "approximately 10-15 minutes of sunlight" by 6pm on an evening, after which temperatures dropped making the garden unusable. Margaret Claymore added that the deep shadows "materially diminishes the property's amenity" for social gatherings and relaxation.
In her defence, Mrs McQueen argued the hedge was essential for privacy, especially as some neighbours had previously reduced the original laurel hedge. "If I get all of the laurel and leylandii reduced/cut/removed there would be no privacy for any of us," she wrote. She also suggested property extensions and garden sheds built by neighbours contributed to the light issues.
The case highlights the delicate balance between an individual's right to privacy and the right of neighbours to enjoy natural light in their homes, with local authority legislation providing a formal mechanism for resolution when informal negotiations fail.
