OVER the past week you have reported on two quite separate property disputes involving alleged nuisance occasioned by the height of trees. In the Whitecraigs case (“Couple lose fight to have golf club trees cut down”, The Herald, January 29) the complaint was dismissed. In the Lenzie case (“Rangers stalwart Greig wins action against neighbours over trees affecting his garden”, The Herald, February 4) the complaint was upheld.

Both instances involved conifer trees. In the Whitecraigs case East Renfrewshire Planning department interpreted the trees as forming a "treeline" and thereby not subject to the recent high hedgerows legislation. Conversely East Dunbartonshire council appear to have accepted the legislation has been breached.

Thereby the conundrum arises as to when is a tree not a tree and subject to a height restriction as per the high hedgerow regulations. Clarification and a uniform intrepretation is essential especially with the growing menace of the leylandii species in our neighbourhoods.

Allan C Steele,

22 Forres Avenue,

Giffnock.

TO reply to Darrell Desbrow, planting crops and trees are absolutely not equivalent. He is of course right that if trees are cut their carbon returns to the atmosphere, but there are many very strong reasons to plant new trees with the intention of leaving them standing.

These reasons include protection of water courses, reductions in soil erosion, provision of animal habitat, provision of shade, leisure areas, local climate modification, food resources and so on. Standing trees provide an enormous benefit to human societies. Their value is not just in cut timber.

Bob Downie,

66 Mansewood Road,

Glasgow.