A Scots man has won a battle to have his neighbour's 40ft trees chopped down after claiming it left him unable to grow plants.
Ker Hamilton said trees belonging to William Buchan in Balgowan, Perthshire, were making his life a misery. He said the trees blocked sunlight to his £330,000 detached property - adding that they also had a 'major' impact on his children playing in the garden after school.
In a bid to have the trees lopped, Hamilton turned to Perth and Kinross Council. Officials ruled in his favour and ordered two spruce trees be completely removed while 15 cypress trees were to be reduced in height.
They also told Buchan to shorten the length of branches encroaching on Hamilton's property. Buchan appealed the council decision to the Scottish Government and claimed the work he was required to do on encroaching branches was 'excessive'.
But a government reporter has upheld the original ruling. Hamilton said: "The hedge obviously has a major impact on the garden particularly during the late afternoon and early evening when the children are home from school and most people expect to be able to enjoy their garden."
A report from the council said Hamilton had told them: "The applicant has advised that the living room at the house frontage is affected by the hedge, and that the neighbouring trees affect light levels at the west elevation of the property, which has the bathroom window on the first floor."
It added he had highlighted the towering trees caused 'very limited' light, no grass growth, no light into his bathroom, a 'danger' to property and possibly life and should be considered a health and safety risk.
Launching his appeal, Buchan said: "Perth and Kinross Council are wishing us to reduce the length of remaining encroaching branches of the same trees that extend into the applicant's garden by 50-60 percent.
"From what I have managed to find on the internet, it states that the neighbour has the right to reduce the encroaching branches on his side of the hedge, but I cannot find any legislation which states that it is the responsibility of the owner of the trees to have to make this reduction."
Rejecting the appeal bid, government reporter Fortune Gumbo said: "The council's requirement for the hedge owner to be responsible for reducing the encroaching parts of the hedge, in addition to the other requirements that the appellant does not seem to object to, is not excessive and is based on the act.
"The fact that the neighbour may have the right to remove those encroaching branches does not alter the need to stipulate those actions in the notice. While there may be effects on the health of the trees that remain after the actions are carried out, I do not consider the risk that this could occur to outweigh the need to reduce the adverse effect of the hedge on the neighbouring property."
Don't miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond - sign up to our daily newsletter here .
