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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel