Three homeowners who have said their neighbour's 30-foot trees are making their lives miserable have won a battle to have them chopped.
Robert Aitken, William McKenzie and Ronald Boyd insisted trees belonging to Jacky Denney in Clackmannanshire, were a nuisance. Mr McKenzie thought he was losing sleep because of noise coming from the trees in windy conditions, and that sunlight was being restricted.
Mr Boyd said his garden was starved of sunlight and claimed the trees were a safety hazard in bad weather. Mr Aitken said he had been forced to cut branches back after they rubbed the roof of his garden shed.
The trio men were delighted when Clackmannanshire Council granted an order for the trees to be reduced to 6.5 feet. But Denney appealed to the Scottish Government and said they offered a haven for wildlife and provided her privacy.
A government reporter has issued an amended notice ordering the trees to be reduced to between 11 and 13 feet. An appeal document sent by Mr Denney said: "In my opinion, these trees have no adverse effect on the properties.
"They are separated and do not form a hedge barrier as they are planted far apart. Removing or fatally pruning them will have a huge impact on the land causing possible subsidence to their gardens.
"Cutting the trees will also invade my privacy to my patio area as they are higher and they will be able to see clearly into my garden."
In his response to the appeal, Mr McKenzie said: "These trees do have an adverse effect on the properties due to light and sun restrictions.
"The trees impinge on the owner's enjoyment of their rear garden.
"In addition, we have disturbed sleep when it is windy due to the noise of trees even when windows are closed. The majority of trees are planted close together and are in excess of eight meters high."
Mr Boyd added: "I have never requested that the trees be removed only that they are reduced in height. The trees restrict light and sun into my back garden and in adverse weather, they could also be a safety hazard."
The council said: "The height of the hedge has a detrimental impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the domestic property which the applicant could reasonably expect to have."
Government reporter Amanda Chisholm said: "I consider that a hedge of 3.5m (11ft) height would restore the affected property's reasonable enjoyment without significantly reducing the amount of habitat available to wildlife or the health of the trees.
"Based on my observations I do not consider that lowering the hedge to this height would affect the privacy of either property."
Chisholm ordered trees in two gardens to be reduced to 11ft and the others to 13ft. The work must be carried out by October 31.