Couple locked in 30-year feud with neighbours over trees make row national

James and Fiona Campbell have challenged Aberdeenshire Council's refusal to order the reduction of 40-foot trees belonging to Eamonn O'Connell and Brenda Holohan near Kemnay village.

The Campbells maintain that the vegetation creates a "substantial barrier" preventing natural light from entering their residence and outdoor space.

Council officials rejected their application for intervention through high hedge legislation, determining the trees could remain in place.

This decision prompted the Campbells to escalate their case to Scottish ministers for review.

In their Scottish Government appeal, the Campbells stated: "The hedge significantly reduces daylight to habitable rooms, kitchen, living, dining, bedrooms, and garden materially reduces daylight and causes dominance, debris, and damage."

They noted their neighbours had recently felled some trees along the northwestern and southwestern boundaries.

The couple interpreted as an implicit acknowledgement of the issue.

Despite this partial removal, the Campbells argued that significant portions of the vegetation persist in blocking light.

They expressed concern about remaining root systems continuing to grow, warning of potential regrowth that could reverse any improvements.

The couple indicated they have a pending damages claim related to property harm caused by the trees.

However, Aberdeenshire Council justified their refusal.

The council said: "The hedges do comprise of a row of two or more trees or shrubs, and rises to a height of more than two metres, however they are not deemed a significant barrier to light due to the height of the hedges, the size and configuration of the garden, the orientation of the hedges, and the separation distance between the hedges and the nearest habitable room windows."

Officials concluded the vegetation's effect was "minimal" and did not interfere with "reasonable enjoyment of the property."

The council additionally determined that gaps between individual trees meant they could not legally constitute a hedge under relevant legislation.

The neighbourly conflict originated in 1994 when the Campbells initially approached O'Connell and Holohan regarding the trees.

This protracted disagreement has now entered its fourth decade without resolution between the parties.

The Campbells highlighted in their appeal that their neighbour has cut down some of the trees.

"Since the issue of the refusal, the neighbour has cut down trees along the northwest and part of the south-west boundary, implicitly acknowledging the problem," they said.

They warned about ongoing risks, stating: "This risk adds to the hedge's adverse impact on reasonable enjoyment with real risk of ongoing damage to our property where a claim for damages is currently pending."

A Holyrood-appointed reporter will issue the final ruling on this long-standing dispute.