James Corden finds himself embroiled in yet another neighborhood dispute, marking his third in just eight months. This time, local residents are voicing concerns that his towering 32-foot leylandii hedge is obstructing their access to natural light.
The situation adds to the late-night host’s ongoing challenges, especially after the local council issued a warning of potential legal action unless he restores his garden to its original condition within the next two months.
Previously, Corden faced backlash for allegedly paving over the front garden of his £11.5 million London home without proper authorization, aiming to create more space for his trash bins.
The spotlight now shifts to his neighbors, Alison and Simon Parry-Wingfield, whose property abuts Corden’s. They have expressed displeasure over his recent application for planning permission to trim three trees—situated in a protected conservation area—by one to two meters.
The couple argues there are “more pressing issues” at hand, specifically pointing to the massive leylandii hedge. They assert that its sprawling branches encroach upon their garden, creating a “wall of greenery” that significantly diminishes natural light throughout their home, affecting their garden, conservatory, and rear-facing bedrooms year-round.
Alison and Simon also maintain that Corden’s focus on reducing the size of other trees, including a robinia, plum, and birch, might compromise the natural screening between the properties, insisting that the leylandii hedge is the primary concern.
Pictured: The Leylandii hedge in November 2025. Cordon has applied for planning permission to reduce three trees by one to two metres
Pictured: The Leylandii hedge in June 2024. The local council threatened legal action if the star didn’t return the garden to its former state within two months
But they claim James has snubbed personal written requests to assist with this situation, with the objection saying that ‘the owners have declined to engage directly and have referred us to their legal representatives.’
Further adding: ‘Their lawyers have indicated a willingness to reduce the hedge height but have provided no commitment regarding the extent or timing of such action.’
They have claimed that ‘nearly half of the branches’ from the trees are overhanging, but the lower branches were removed when James built a controversial gym, office, ‘den’, spa and shower room, which sparked 17 objections.
This has led to a lack of privacy for Mr and Mrs Parry-Wingfield, who say: ‘The owners constructed a large, black-coloured outbuilding in their garden.
‘In doing so, they removed lower branches from the leylandii, creating a direct view into the outbuilding through the lower 1-2 metres of the hedge above the fence.
‘We would like to plant our own hedge to screen the outbuilding, but the leylandii canopy prevents sufficient light and rainfall from reaching the ground, making this impossible.’
The letter finishes off: ‘We believe the priority should be to reduce the leylandii hedge, which causes demonstrable harm to our amenity, and to preserve the more attractive and ecologically valuable trees that provide natural screening.’
He previously clashed with locals after he ‘illegally’ paved over the front garden of his £11.5million London mansion so that he has more room to ‘park his wheelie bins’
The new row comes just days after James was denied retrospective planning permission to pave his front garden, which the council called ‘unsightly’ and ‘detrimental’ to the well-heeled London suburb.
A seven-page report by the planning officer stated that he had to ‘completely remove the area of hard landscaping’ and ‘remove any resultant materials and make good any resulting damage’ after numerous complaints.
Before that, James won his battle in April against locals to build a gym at the back of his property despite numerous complaints.
The plans were criticised for being oversized and more like a bungalow than a single-storey extension with the local residents society branding it an ‘eyesore’ while one local calling the plans ‘industrial.’
One neighbour said: ‘The scale of this building in the garden of the house sounds almost industrial. This new structure threatens not just to intrude on this peaceful green space but to constitute an eyesore from the upper windows of neighbours.’
Another raged: ‘This is a permanent structure, in the middle of a conservation area, that is bigger than the average one bed flat. Indeed, remove the word gym from the plan and replace it with bedroom and you’d have a nice little bungalow.’
One neighbour, who was supported by fellow residents, even drafted in their own arboriculturists to produce a report which blasted the plans as ‘inadequate’.
‘I don’t understand how the Council can consider this application without a far more detailed plan. This is not just a garden shed it is a 775 sq ft structure in the middle of a conservation area,’ wrote the resident.
While the local conservation group chimed in: ‘The footprint of this proposed garden room is excessive. Surely a gym and a spa, if essential, could be fitted into the house?’
James Cordon has been approached for comment.
