Legal challenge fails in neighbours' Inverness hedge row
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
A home owner in Inverness has lost a legal challenge against a decision requiring him to slash the height of a high hedge overshadowing a neighbour.
Brian Rizza took issue with a Scottish Government reporter who made the ruling after concluding the trees in the hedge were a barrier to light, and adversely affected a property at 24 Drummond Circus, Inverness, owned by Roger and Catherine Niven. He claimed the trees did not meet the criteria for a high hedge laid down in Scottish legislation and that the reporter erred in law.
The reporter carried out a site visit and saw the trees at Brian Rizza’s home at Blair Lomond, in Drummond Crescent. She found that 11 of them were planted in four rows with a further six in the area.
Mr Rizza raised a judicial review at the Court of Session in Edinburgh after the reporter ruled that the majority of the trees, which were 15 to 22 metres high, should be cut back to two metres. The statute referred to a row of trees in the singular and it was argued that applying it to multiple or indefinite rows meant a hedge would be indistinguishable from woodland.
But a judge rejected the contention and said that if the assessment was carried out in a way that was reasonably open to the decision-maker there should be no real risk that a wood or forest was found to be a hedge.
Lady Carmichael said: “It would, however, be perverse and absurd if the owner of a hedge were able to avoid a finding that it was a high hedge because he planted more than one row of trees or shrubs so as to achieve a more dense and effective screen. As use of the word ‘row’ includes the plural, it follows that the reporter did not err in law by reason of finding that a collection of trees in four identifiable rows was a high hedge.”
Lady Carmichael said the considerations that the reporter, appointed by the Scottish Government, founded on were ones she was entitled to take into account.
The reporter was criticised for taking into account the species of tree involved.
But the judge said: “It is a matter of public notoriety that leylandii are used to form hedges. While the circumstances that leylandii are planted will not be conclusive as to whether there is a hedge, it is a relevant consideration.”
It was argued on behalf of Mr Rizza that the reporter was irrational in ordering the trees be cut back to two metres without considering the effect of one row on another and in concluding that the height reduction would not significantly alter the privacy or outlook of the hedge owner.
But Lady Carmichael said: “The reporter was deciding what action was required to remedy the adverse effects of the height of the hedge on the enjoyment of 24 Drummond Circus that its occupant could reasonably expect.” She added: “It was reasonably open to her to decide that the appropriate remedy was... the hedge be reduced in height.”
Mr and Mrs Niven sought a high hedges notice from Highland Council in 2017. Mr Rizza appealed, and the Scottish Government reporter rejected it in December 2018.
