Mr Brown said the trees did count as a hedge because there were hardly any gaps between them. But the hedge's owner disagreed - with his solicitors writing: 'Our client’s position is that the trees do not in fact comprise a “hedge” because they were never intended to be a maintained garden boundary. Dispute: Council officers said the hedge should be cut every year to stop it growing above 33ft (file photo) 'They simply form part of a plantation of trees in a generally wooded rural location. ' In our client’s opinion the trees complained of do not cause any significant loss of light in the applicant’s garden, and do not materially contribute to any effect on the growth of plants.' Mr Brown told The Scotsman he had already spent more than £1,000 on lawyers. '
Mr Brown stated that the trees qualified as a hedge due to the minimal gaps between them. However, the hedge’s owner disputed this claim, with their solicitors arguing that the trees do not constitute a hedge because they were never intended to serve as a maintained garden boundary. They described the trees as part of a plantation in a wooded rural area and maintained that they do not significantly reduce light or hinder plant growth in Mr Brown’s garden. Council officers, meanwhile, recommended annual trimming to prevent the hedge from exceeding 33 feet. Mr Brown revealed to The Scotsman that he had already incurred over £1,000 in legal fees related to the dispute.
Mr. Brown stated that the trees qualify as a hedge due to the minimal gaps between them. However, the owner of the hedge disagreed, with his solicitors asserting that the trees were not intended to serve as a maintained boundary for a garden. They emphasized that the trees are part of a plantation in a wooded rural area. Furthermore, the owner argued that the trees do not significantly obstruct light in the applicant's garden and do not adversely affect plant growth. Mr. Brown informed The Scotsman that he had already incurred over £1,000 in legal fees.
Mr Brown said the trees were a hedge because there were few gaps between them. But the hedge owner was not so, and his solicitors claimed that the trees were not intended to be a cultivated boundary for a garden. They stressed that the trees are on a plantation in a rural forest. In addition, the owner contended that the trees do not significantly block light in applicant's garden and do not impair plant growth. Mr Brown told The Scotsman he had already paid more than £1,000 in legal costs.
Mr Brown said the trees are a hedge because there are only small spaces between them. But the owner of the hedge objected, with his solicitors claiming that the trees were not meant to be a maintained boundary for a garden. They pointed out that the trees are in a plantation in a wooded rural area. In addition, the owner contended that the trees do not substantially block light in the applicant's garden and do not harm plant growth. Mr Brown told The Scotsman he had already spent more than £1,000 on legal costs.