Brian Rizza For Judicial Review Of A Decision By The Scottish Ministers In Relation To High Hedge Notice Hha-270-7
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Carmichael |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] CSOH 22 |
| Docket Number | P218/19 |
| Date | 27 February 2020 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 27 February 2020 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2020] CSOH 22
P218/19
OPINION OF LADY CARMICHAEL
In the petition of
BRIAN RIZZA
Petitioner
for
for judicial review of a decision by the Scottish Ministers in relation to High Hedge Notice
HHA-270-7
Pursuer: Crook, Currie Gilmour & Co
Defender: Charteris, SGLD
27 February 2020
Introduction
[1] The petitioner is the proprietor of Blair Lomond, Drummond Crescent, Inverness.
Blair Lomond shares a boundary with 24 Drummond Circus, Inverness. There are a number
of trees on the petitioner’s side of the boundary along one part of the boundary. The
proprietors of 24 Drummond Crescent, Roger and Catherine Niven, made an application on
15 October 2017 to Highland Council, asking Highland Council to find that the trees
constituted a high hedge, and to issue a high hedge notice under the High Hedges
(Scotland) Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”).
2
[2] On 21 June 2018 Highland Council issued a high hedge notice, with an effective date
of 21 July 2018. The petitioner appealed to the Scottish Ministers. They appointed a reporter
to determine the appeal. She issued her decision on 4 December 2018. She issued a revised
high hedge notice. It is in relation to her decision that the petitioner now seeks judicial
review.
[3] There were 17 trees in the area that the reporter required to consider. The layout of
the site is best understood by reference to a plan prepared by Highland Council. There was
no dispute that it illustrated adequately how the trees were distributed on the site, or that it
might be used in this opinion for that purpose. I have therefore included a copy of the plan
as an appendix to this opinion. The trees are numbered 1-18 (with no number 10) in the
plan, and the reporter used the numbers in the plan in her decision.
[4] The reporter made a site visit. She also had before her a letter to Mr and Mrs Niven
from the former proprietor of Blair Lomond. It was in the following terms:
“With reference to [Blair Lomond], I can confirm that my wife and I resided there
from 1978 until 1993. I can also confirm that we did own the gap site at
24 Drummond Circus, with a view to potentially using it as an alternative entrance to
Blair Lomond. This was subsequently sold prior to the sale of Blair Lomond.
With reference to your question relating to the trees on the boundary between Blair
Lomond and 24 Drummond Circus, I have discussed the matter with my wife, and
we can confirm that when we planted the Leylandii they were planted as a hedge as
at the time there was absolutely no screening to that part of our boundary.
If we had intended the trees to be anything other than a hedge, we would not have
planted Leylandii but some other species.”
To continue reading
Request your trial