The Davidsons said the hedge in Bearsden, East Dunbartonshire, ruined their family garden by blocking out sunlight (pictured: The Davidsons' garden) A couple who claimed their neighbours' 40ft trees kept their garden in darkness have lost a 10-year battle to have them cut down. Gary and Patricia Davidson were locked in a lengthy dispute with next door neighbour John Laing over his overgrown trees and shrubs. The Davidsons said the hedge in Bearsden, East Dunbartonshire, ruined their family garden by blocking out sunlight. But Mr Laing said chopping down trees would impact his 'little oasis' and claimed the garden supports a large number of birds. Attempts to resolve the war of words failed and East Dunbartonshire Council were called in to make a ruling. They ordered Mr Laing to chop down four conifer trees to a maximum height of 12ft but spared two 40ft Norwegian Spruce. The Davidsons appealed to the Scottish Government in a bid to reverse that decision but have been told they failed to apply within the correct time limit. Speaking at his home, Mr Laing said: 'We have complied with the council ruling and have taken down the smaller hedge to 12ft as instructed. Gary and Patricia Davidson were locked in a lengthy dispute with neighbour John Laing's trees (pictured behind the house to the right) Pictured: The shade cast over the garden of the Davidsons, who lost their battle to have their neighbours' trees cut down The council ordered Mr Laing to chop down four conifer trees to a maximum height of 12ft but spared two 40ft Norwegian Spruce 'There is nothing they can do about the Norwegian Spruce which isn't part of a hedge but they are entitled to cut it back along the boundary between us. 'I've been here for 42 years and have never had a complaint from anyone else apart from them. 'They don't like trees and that's fine but I'm entitled to have them in my garden and enjoy them. 'We have 25 different types of birds coming to the garden so it is well used for the wildlife.' The Davidsons had written to council bosses asking for the trees to be cut down. They said: 'This hedge is an oppressive barrier to light in a climate where natural light can be in short supply and even in summer can be scarce. The Davidsons had written to council bosses asking for the trees to be cut down (pictured: The trees at the centre of the row) 'We have spoken with Mr and Mrs Laing at various points over the past 10 years regarding reducing the height of the hedge. 'Mrs Laing was approached about this matter but she stated that as some of the trees had single stems they would not cut them as they wouldn't look right, the other trees which form the hedge she said she would not cut as it would mean that our pergola roof would be visible from their upstairs room. 'I stated that the trees were blocking a significant amount of light from our garden from mid-afternoon on and could we not reach a compromise to which Mrs Laing stated she felt they had compromised enough. 'She suggested we trim the trees back to the boundary on our side.' In a letter to the government, they added: 'It has not been an easy decision to take this to appeal but we keep coming back to what the DPEA have stated in previous appeals that it is not so much what the applicant or the owner of the hedge expect in terms of levels of enjoyment, privacy, light, shade, views etc. but what any reasonable person might expect given the same circumstances. 'We have lodged this appeal under the following reason - Against a high hedge notice - as one has been issued but it is not as comprehensive as we would like. The Davidsons said: 'This hedge is an oppressive barrier to light in a climate where natural light can be in short supply and even in summer can be scarce' (pictured: An aerial view of the hedge in dispute) 'It seems unreasonable to exclude the two spruce trees which create the greatest shade when to the left of the tallest spruce it is difficult to distinguish the canopies from each other.' They added: 'We fully appreciate that Mr and Mrs Laing value privacy, greenery and wildlife and we do not wish to put our values in front of anyone else's but hope that during this appeal they can be considered in equal measure.' Mr Laing had earlier outlined his objection to the bid to cut down his trees in a letter to council bosses. He said: 'The trees are well-established and provide us with shelter and privacy. Without them our outlook would be onto the unbroken line of terraced houses, sheds and garages with no greenery softening the view. 'More importantly than the benefit and pleasure they give is, in our opinion, the resulting haven they provide for wildlife. 'Our garden is a little oasis which supports a large number of birds, many of which nest in the trees. An area devoid of trees is not attractive. 'The often-used term "leafy suburb" does not apply here and any more loss of trees will make the appearance of the area increasingly urban looking and barren. 'The tallest of the trees in question is over 50 years old and may have decades of life left. We do not want to jeopardise that.' Government officials wrote to the Davidsons explaining their appeal had failed as it was not received on time. All rights reserved for this news site dailymail and under his responsibility