End of Cannock neighbours' 17-year spat over trees is in sight

Two large conifers have divided former miner Ken Elliott from his Cannock neighbour – in more ways than one.

The trees, now between 25 to 30ft high, form part of the dividing line between their two gardens in Huntington Terrace Road and have also been the source of conflict between the two home owners.

Now Cannock Chase Council has taken action against next door neighbour Dale Woolley under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act.

They have ruled that the hedge should be cut to 5ft to allow for growth and should never again exceed 6ft 6in.

Welcoming the council's decision, Mr Elliott said today: "It should never have gone on for this long. The hedge is an eyesore and should have come down a long time ago."

Negotiations started in an agreeable way in 1996, when he asked his neighbours if they would uproot a dividing hedge and build a wall to separate the two properties, which they did.

Mr Elliott paid for a contractor to remove the hedge and offered to buy the Woolleys some mini-conifers by way of reimbursement, an offer that was turned down.

However, some months later the Elliotts noticed that conifers had been planted in their neighbours' garden and it soon became apparent that they were not miniatures.

They wrote to the Woolleys in 2005 when the High Hedges Act came in and again in 2011 when it appeared the roots of one of next-door's trees had caused a crack in the wall.

The trees now tower over the Elliotts' semi-detached home blocking out the light in their front room and presenting an unsightly intrusion into their garden.

In recent years the families have communicated only by letter.

When approached by the Express & Star, Mr Woolley's son Tristan said they liked the trees that height because it was like having their own 'private forest.'

Mr Elliott today said: "I feel as though a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulder because we will have light back in our living room and we'll be able to open our windows.

"But we should never have had to go to these lengths. The whole thing escalated. We should have been able to sit down and settle this over a cup of tea."

The notice takes effect from August 30. Failure to comply could result in a fine of up to £1,000. Mr Woolley was unavailable for comment today.

Express & Star video journalist Nicky Butler spoke to Ken Elliott about the 17-year spat in February

In a similar scenario Kenneth Mould was fined £1,000 by Stafford magistrates and ordered to pay £300 costs earlier this year after Cannock Chase Council prosecuted him for ignoring orders to clean his property up.

He was ordered to remove all foliage from his home in Swallow Drive, Rugeley. The three-bedroomed house had for around a decade been completely obliterated from view by ivy and conifers.

The building, including the roof and first-floor windows, was totally hidden under a thick covering of ivy while the front garden was dominated by several large coniferous trees.

Neighbours had been fuming for years about the state of the house and garden. Some said the ivy had attracted a lot of attention from passers-by.

They said Mr Mould's home looked from the outside like it was an empty property. They also said passers-by used to drive past slowly to take a closer look.

But in June the ivy was finally pulled down from the front of the property. Removing the ivy also unblocked neighbours' views. Delighted residents said Mr Mould had taken it down himself using a ladder.

In 2005, the High Hedges Act came into force.

It gave people whose gardens are overshadowed the opportunity to resolve the problem with the help of the local council.

A high hedge under the law is defined as more than 2m, or around 6.5ft tall, while a hedge is described as a line of two or more trees or shrubs.

For the purpose of complaints it must be formed wholly or predominantly of evergreens, as these do not lose their leaves in winter, or semi-evergreens, that stay green most of the year.

The legislation is designed so that the general public is able to use it without the need to involve lawyers.