"I do think he is being incredibly selfish. I would be so ashamed if I thought I was causing such unhappiness to my neighbours and was able to act but didn't.”

In these two short sentences we see the very real human suffering that lies at the heart of the so-called “High Hedge Disputes”.

For the last seven years Scottish campaigners have tirelessly but unsuccessfully tried to find relief for those who suffer at the hands of selfish and anti-social hedge and tree growers.

The persistence of the campaigners is matched only by the failure of the politicians to produce a solution to this problem.

It is a problem that is easy to remedy but one which, probably as a result of their general incompetence, our legislators have been unable to grasp.

They have preferred instead to hide behind some glaring misconceptions and downright untruths. For example:

• Politicians are often reluctant to act because they believe that legislation would result in mountains of extra work for Local Authorities having to measure every tree and hedge to see if it complied with the law. This is the worst lie of all because there is no need to define an illegal tree or hedge – the problem is not the vegetation but the people who use them to cause a nuisance. This is no different to say, dogs or music. Dogs and music add a great deal to the richness of our lives…….. UNTIL…….. they are allowed to become a nuisance to others and THEN the law acts on the grounds of nuisance. Why are nuisance plants any different?

• Parliamentarians (and the media) have been known to trivialise cases and even to laugh off sufferers as scatty “Victor Meldrew” types who just can’t get on with their neighbours. The truth is that people are suffering extreme stress and even dying as they see their everyday life destroyed by inconsiderate neighbours. The facts are that most people behave in a decent way towards their neighbours and because of that, cases are thankfully rare. Politicians must stop pretending that there are a high number of trivial cases which will take a great deal of effort to resolve when there are in fact a low number of very serious but resolvable cases.

So what does Scothedge want?

• A recognition that the problem is not caused by any particular species, number or arrangement of trees but purely by the selfishness of a few individuals who use them to cause distress to their neighbours.
• Action to deal with these individuals in just the same way as if they played loud music, caused verbal abuse, kept unruly animals, revved motorbike engines or any of the other things for which the law currently offers a remedy.

“I would be so ashamed if I thought I was causing such unhappiness to my neighbours and was able to act but didn't.”

This sentence not only defines the problem but points the way forward to a solution. In many cases the action of the tree grower is driven by a desire to bully rather than by any necessity or requirement to improve his own position. Put more prosaically it would be “no skin of his nose” to resolve the issue but individuals choose not to do so purely because they know that the law as it stands cannot touch them. The lack of legislation not only fails to provide justice but actually encourages the exact opposite.

There aren’t that many cases because most people behave in a decent way and surely this decency is in turn defined by the behaviour of the majority.

“Causing unhappiness” might not have too much legal strength but if this doesn’t define nuisance many other sources of guidance can be found as Scothedge has repeatedly shown.