Hi All, First post here so I'm hoping this is the right section. I'm after some advice on the High Hedge Act on behalf of my neighbour. I've read the legislation and understand in broad terms what the implications are but my neighbour has quite an unusual situation which isn't clear-cut as far as the legislation is concerned. Background to the story: both myself and my neighbour live in the end houses of a cul-de-sac and behind our gardens was a scrappy bit of waste ground about 90 metres long by 10 metres wide (so about 900 square metres in plan area altogether). Beyond this is a single-track road then some more houses. This scrappy bit of land had remained undeveloped since before anyone can remember and it's the kind of land that you'd never think anyone would really want to build on (as it's so small with difficult access via single track road). My neighbour's house was actually owned by her mum originally and she planted some conifer-type trees on the boundary between her back garden and the scrappy bit of land about 70 years ago. She then passed the house to her daughter, who's now in her late 60's. The trees have now got to about 10-12m in height and provide a good privacy screen. So yes the trees are tall but previously they didn't bother anyone. There was no loss of view, loss of sunlight etc suffered by anyone as they only affected aforementioned bit of undeveloped land. Fast forward to 2015 and a developer bought the scrappy bit of land and proposed to build 8 three-storey town houses on it. Despite a lot of local objection and concerns within the Council Highways dept. about road safety, plot size etc) the development got planning anyway and went ahead. So there are now eight 3-bed three-storey town houses on a plot of land about 900 square metres in size. Because the site is so small they had to angle the houses to make them fit (site is only 10m wide) and have also basically rammed the houses right up against my neighbour's boundary. They have already cut back her conifer trees width-wise and they were overhanging the site somewhat. Unfortunately for the people now renting the houses (they are rented not sold) their living room / lounge was built at the back of the house and is basically right up against the boundary / tree line. They have complained to the developer (who is renting the houses to them) and the developer is now taking my neighbour to court and trying to force her to chop the trees down to 2m in height using the High Hedge Act. She has had to hire her own solicitor and also a tree specialist who has said the trees are now so tall and well-established that cutting them back significantly would likely kill them. Also the task to chop them down is large so would likely cost approx. £3k, which she would have to pay. She also she got an estate agent to re-value the house accounting for the total lack of privacy she would suffer - basically the view is currently of a line of mature trees but if removed it would be of a row of town houses that would directly overlook her garden and house. The estate agent estimated a loss of value from the house in the region of £15-20k because of this. She has discussed her concerns with the local Council but they have stated that as far as the High Hedge Act is concerned, the preceding conditions of the site do not matter. That basically, if you have an established row of trees that have not caused anyone any concern for 50+ years, then someone decides to build a house up against the tree, they are within their right to make you remove it if it blocks their light. I also understand that the Act is there to preserve an existing view. However, there was no pre-existing view since the houses are new, and if the trees are removed the view would consist of my neighbours garden and her house! So I don't see how the "view" argument could be used. The whole situation seems completely ridiculous to me - surely there must be some accounting of the previous conditions? The developer knew full-well this would be a problem as my neighbour wrote them, objected via the Planning Portal, got her own tree survey done which highlighted the issues etc. It doesn't seem right for the developer to be able to ride rough-shod over her like this and basically steal approx. £20k from her for their own benefit. I was hoping someone may have experienced or know about a similar situation, in that the REASONS for a lack of light are taken into account rather than just that there IS a lack of light. As far as I can tell the developer engineered a situation in which the current tenants have a problem due to the developers bad design and greed (cramming as many houses into a tiny plot of land as possible) but the downside is borne by other people (my neighbour who currently faces losses of £20k+ and also the tenants who have to live in these tiny houses with no light). I'd also like to know the Developer is within their right to bring a complaint against my neighbour ON BEHALF OF their tenants. My understanding of the Act was that the occupiers had to do it, and that each complaint had to be made individually (there are 4 new houses that are affected). Thanks for your patience and any advice! tl;dr: developer bought small parcel of land behind my neighbour, built houses right into her tree line and is now using the High Hedge Act to make her cut them down. She faces financial loss of £20k+. Can High Hedge Act be used this way?