Hilary Garner, 82, and her husband Christopher, 84, spent over £700 decorating the patch (Image: SWNS)
A couple face a £1,000 bill after one neighbour complained about them planting flowers and shrubs on scrubland next to their home. Hilary Garner, 82, and her husband Christopher, 84, spent more than £700 decorating the patch of ground in Coxs Close, Hallow, Worcestershire.
The green-fingered couple planted colourful aubrieta, eucalyptus, cherry trees and an acer to brighten up the verge, but they were shocked when Ground Solutions UK Ltd, working on behalf of the developers, sent them letters banning them from “encroaching” on the land.
They have now been ordered to “rectify” the 97sq ft parcel of land or face a £953.40 bill from contractors to carry out the work.
Hilary, a retired lecturer, said: “It feels like a witch-hunt, we can’t understand it. Ours was the last house to be built and we were assured that we were going to have wild flowers and plants all along there.
“We’ve got nothing, so we thought we’d go along and do it ourselves. This little bit of ground is supposed to be communal, supposed to run along the hedge with our neighbours.
“Our immediate next door neighbours love it, they think it looks good. A young couple said ‘the more lovely flowers the better’. I can’t see how that little bit of land is causing problems.”
The couple decided to transform the land into a community garden space after moving to the estate in August 2024.
Hilary said she and her husband, who pay £320 per year for the upkeep of the space, believe a neighbour down the road has complained.
She said: “It doesn’t interfere with anybody at all so we’re absolutely amazed to receive letters telling us that if we don’t take it all down they will and we’ll be charged £1,000.”
The couple planted aubrieta, eucalyptus, cherry trees and a big acer to brighten up the verge (Image: SWNS)
The grandparents were given a deadline of June 22 to remove the plants, but have refused. Christopher, a retired insurance claims expert, said: “At the moment we are standing our ground, it will be interesting to see if they have the nerve to come and do it.
“I thought everybody would be quite pleased – the neighbours certainly are – but that’s not the case with the company who have been contracted to do the grass cutting.”
The couple’s son, Nathan Garner, 54, added: “Where’s the common sense? My parents understand that the land isn’t theirs and access for any maintenance, drains, etc. is fine.
“I see it as guerrilla gardening which should be celebrated. It encourages wildlife and improves a bare grassy corner. The world has gone mad.”
Mike Pett, managing director of Ground Solutions, confirmed that the company has written to the couple five times.
He said: “This approach has been taken following concerns and complaints raised by residents of the development. The land in question remains in the ownership of the developer and is due to be transferred to the Residents’ Management Company in due course.”
The MD said use of the land is governed by covenants contained within transfer documentation completed upon the purchase of each property.
Mr Pett said the covenants provide that all managed open spaces within the development are intended for recreational purposes only and cultivation or planting without prior authorisation is not permitted.
He added the reason for issuing repeated correspondence was to give Mr and Mrs Garner “every reasonable opportunity” to resolve the matter voluntarily.
Mr Pett said: “Our preference is to avoid the need to instruct contractors to remove the trees and plants at additional cost. The matter can be resolved simply by relocating the planting from the managed land onto their own property.
“Despite our attempts to engage through both written correspondence and telephone contact, we have not yet been able to reach a resolution.
“Nevertheless, we remain committed to finding a practical and amicable solution and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter further with Mr and Mrs Garner.”