Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

High Hedges Bill
Briefing Pack

ABOUT THE BILL

Purpose

The Bill creates a new means of dealing with complaints about high hedges, to be administered by local authorities in England and Wales.

Summary of Contents

Scope
Any owner/occupier of residential property would be able to complain to their local authority (district or unitary councils, London Boroughs, or the City of London in England, and Welsh equivalents) about a hedge provided that:

The Secretary of State (for England) and the National Assembly for Wales would have powers to vary these requirements through regulations. Experience might, for example, show that the definitions were excluding many problem cases.

As to what is meant by "unreasonably obstructing light", the Building Research Establishment (BRE) with the Tree Advice Trust are developing objective tests that will show:

Draft guidelines have been produced and will be tested against a sample of problem hedges. These guidelines will be refined – as necessary- as a result of comments received and the results of the field tests. The final version is expected by the summer. It is envisaged these will be incorporated in guidance rather than the legislation itself.

The aim is to have simple tests so that householders and local authorities can use it without specialist input. It is hoped this will help to cut down numbers of complaints because people would be able to predict the outcome and it would enable them to negotiate with hedge owners from a position of strength.

It is acknowledged that light is not the only problem - though it tends to be the main one. The BRE work should help establish how far this one measurement encompasses other hedge problems and so can be used as a proxy. And, as noted above, the scope of the legislation can be extended to other problems at a later date, through regulations.

Complaints procedure
The local authority would able to charge a fee, to be paid by the complainant(s). They would also be able to reject the complaint if they considered that the complainant had not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matter amicably, or that it was frivolous or vexatious.

In each case, the local authority would decide whether to require the hedge owner to take action to remedy the problem and to prevent it recurring. The BRE tests relating to the obstruction caused by the hedge would be one element that the authority would take into account but they are also require to consider all other relevant factors, such as:

Remedies
If the local authority decided that action should be taken to remedy the complaint, they would issue a formal notice to the hedge owner setting out what they must do and by when. This could well include maintenance of the hedge at a lower height. It would be known as a 'remedial notice'.

Appeals
Both hedge owners and complainants would have rights of appeal against the local authority's decision.

Although the right of appeal would be to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, it is anticipated that they will exercise their power to delegate such appeals to the Planning Inspectorate. There would also be provision for Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations governing the appeal procedure.

Enforcement
Failure to comply with a remedial notice would be an offence liable, on conviction in the magistrates' court, to a level 3 fine (up to £1,000). The court might then - in addition to, or in place of, a fine - issue an order for the offender to carry out the required work within a set period of time. There would be a further offence of failure to comply with the court order, liable to a level 3 fine. At this point, the court would also be able to set a daily fine of up to one twentieth of a level 3 fine for every day that the work remains outstanding thereafter.

In addition, the local authority would be given (default) powers to go in and do the work itself, recovering its costs from the hedge owner. They would be able to use these powers whether or not the criminal offence was pursued.

Crown land
The legislation would apply to all Crown land.

Territorial Coverage

The High Hedges Bill applies to England and Wales only.

This is a devolved matter. The Scottish Executive announced on 31 January, following a separate consultation there, that they had decided in principle that a statutory remedy of last resort was required, involving complaints to the local authority and enforcement action in appropriate cases. No commitment was given as to when legislation would be brought forward.

Northern Ireland do not believe they have a high hedge problem and so have no plans to legislate on the matter.

Public Expenditure Implications

The main costs will fall on the local authorities who administer the complaints system. It is estimated that it will cost them some £2 million to deal with a backlog of some 10,000 existing problem cases, spread over a period of 3 years. Thereafter the caseload should drop dramatically. These costs will be met, in part at least, through fees paid by complainants.

The Secretary of State intends to delegate his appeals functions entirely to the Planning Inspectorate, who will incur costs in handling these matters. Assuming 20% of cases go to appeal, this could amount to around £2 million over a 3-year period. The Inspectorate will not, however, begin incurring these costs until about 6 months after the legislation comes into force. Demand is expected to fall significantly at the end of 3 years when the backlog of existing hedge problem cases has been cleared.

Costs to Business and Regulatory Impact

Businesses, charities and voluntary organisations are unlikely to be affected by the Bill. The main impacts will be felt by public sector bodies. These are summarised in the preceding section.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

It is considered that the High Hedges Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Bill will affect people's rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 1 of the First Protocol) - involving both complainants and hedge owners. As it focuses on the main problem hedges and limits controls to those cases where they are necessary to achieve a proper balance between the rights of complainants and hedge owners, it can be argued that the powers are proportionate and so compatible with the Convention.

The proposal to allow local authority employees to enter the hedge owner's land to cut back the hedge if he fails to comply with the terms of the 'remedial notice' has implications for people's right to privacy and home life under Article 8. However, this is required to protect the rights of others (to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions). It is also an option that is available if other enforcement mechanisms (prosecution and fines) do not secure compliance with the original notice, and thus bring relief to the aggrieved neighbour. Against this background, it can be argued that the power is justified under Article 8.2 and so is compatible with the ECHR.

As civil rights are being determined here, Article 6 (right to a fair trial) also comes into play. The initial decision by the local authority does not meet the requirements of Article 6. However, this is remedied by the appeal process, which we intend will be administered by the Planning Inspectorate in all cases. This is directly analogous to the arrangements approved by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bryan v UK.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Complaints Procedure

Q1 Is the Bill retrospective?
It is retrospective in the sense that people will be able to complain to the local authority about hedges that are causing problems now - as well as those that might cause problems in the future. But only after they have tried to settle the matter with their neighbour.

We would also expect people who suffer hedge problems now, and may have done for some years, to approach their neighbour afresh when the complaints system comes into operation. And we will be reflecting this in the guidance that we issue on the legislation. Circumstances will have altered significantly as a result of this new law. This time, they will be negotiating from a position of strength. The neighbour will know that the local authority could force them to cut back the hedge and so might be more inclined to co-operate.

Q2 What sort of steps should people have taken before approaching the local authority if their complaint is not to fall at this first hurdle?
These are likely to vary from case to case. However, guidance is likely to advise that the minimum evidence that people might be asked to produce - in order to show that other avenues have been exhausted before referral to the local authority - would be at least two written requests from the complainant to the owner asking them to cut back the hedge, with a deadline that had expired without agreement being reached.

Q3 What if mediation is not available locally?
Clearly, in these circumstances, it would not be reasonable to expect people to pursue this course.

The Government is keen that community mediation services should be more widely available and so has, this year, financially supported the national umbrella body Mediation UK through a new cross-departmental funding arrangement. Decisions have yet to be taken on the grants to be offered from this scheme in the financial year starting in April. But the principle that the work of Mediation UK should be supported through this fund is established.

Q4 How can hedge owners be encouraged to talk to their neighbours about these matters so that the local authority do not have to get involved?
The aim is that the system for assessing obstruction of light, being developed by BRE, should comprise a few simple tests that householders - and local authorities - can use without specialist input. These might, for example, include the height of the hedge, its distance from windows or a garden boundary, whether it is to the north, south, east or west of the property. In this way, hedge owners would be able to take a view on the possible outcome of a complaint to the local authority. This information, and the knowledge that the authority could force them to cut back the hedge, would provide powerful encouragement to owners to talk to their neighbours and agree a solution.

Q5 Why does the legislation concentrate on obstruction of light? What about all the other problems people encounter with these hedges?
The Bill seeks to focus, at this stage, on the main hedge problems - rather than trying to solve all the difficulties people encounter. And obstruction of light tends to be the main cause for complaint.

It is also the factor that most readily lends itself to objective assessment. Others, such as blocked views and feelings of being hedged in, are about people's perceptions and could involve the local authority in some very difficult and subjective judgements.

At the end of the day, most people are looking for a mechanism that will lead to the height of the hedge being reduced. If an obstruction of light criterion caught a high proportion (say, 80%) of problem cases, it might be possible to rely on this one measurement. The BRE work should help establish whether this is feasible. If it leaves out a large number of problem cases, the Bill allows other grounds of complaint to be added through regulation, rather than primary legislation. There is flexibility, therefore, to extend the complaints system to cover other problems, if experience shows this is necessary.

Q6 Structural damage by trees is an important issue, affecting many people. Why is this not covered by the legislation?
The issue of structural - especially subsidence - damage by trees is far from straightforward. There are many factors to take into account in assessing whether trees are likely to damage property. These include the soil type, tree species, weather conditions, method of construction, and foundation depth. All these variables mean that no reliable method of assessment is currently available to enable local authorities to make a judgement on the risk of whether a hedge is likely to cause subsidence damage. In addition, where subsidence damage has already occurred, the issues tend to be about liability and compensation rather than about reducing the size of the hedge - which would be the remedy under the new complaints system.

Q7 How will obstruction of light be assessed? Have people got to employ experts to take and interpret light readings?
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have engaged the Building Research Establishment (BRE) with the Tree Advice Trust to develop objective tests that would show if a hedge is obstructing daylight and/or sunlight; whether this is affecting someone's reasonable enjoyment of their property; and how much it might need to be reduced by to remedy the problem.

The aim is to have simple tests - for example, relating to the size and position of the hedge - so that householders and local authorities can use it without specialist input.

We envisage that these tests would be an important part of the decision-making process, but they are not the only element. The authority is also required to consider all other relevant factors, such as privacy or the amenity of the neighbourhood.

Q8 When will BRE complete their work? How does this fit in with the Bill timetable?
BRE are expected to produce draft guidelines for assessing obstruction of light by Easter 2001, and the final version by the summer. It is envisaged these will be incorporated in guidance rather than the legislation itself. Nevertheless, Parliament will be kept in touch with how this work is shaping up as the Bill progresses.

Q9 Why are individual trees excluded? They can cause the same problems as hedges.
This Bill is not the answer to all the perceived problems with trees. The right tree in the right place makes a significant difference to the quality of the local environment. It is important, therefore, that the Bill does not discourage people from planting suitable trees.

The main problems are with tall, dense screens of foliage - whether as a hedge or a line of closely planted trees. That is what the legislation focuses on.

Q10 What if the hedge that is causing the problems is not in another garden but, say, in a neighbouring park? Would someone still be able to complain to the council?
Yes. It does not matter what land the hedge is growing on, provided that it is unreasonably obstructing light to a domestic property.

Q11 How much will the fee be for making a complaint under this system?
The maximum level of fee will be set through regulations. Most people seem to consider that £100 would be around the right mark. This is similar to the fee for making a planning application for, say, a home extension. It is, however, less than the full cost to the local authority in determining a complaint. This is estimated at about £200 per case.

Q12 What if people cannot afford to pay?
The Bill merely gives the local authority power to charge a fee if they want to. It is not a requirement. Each authority will be able to decide whether to require a fee; how much that should be (within a maximum set down in regulations); in what circumstances it might be waived (for example, for people on low incomes or benefits); and whether any refund should be allowed (for example, if the matter is settled through mediation).

Q13 Will local authorities have to determine complaints within a certain time (like the 8 weeks for planning applications)?
The Bill sets no timetable for the local authority to reach a decision on these complaints. Flexibility is needed so that other means of resolving the dispute (for example, through mediation) can be pursued even after a complaint has been lodged with the authority - and without the complication of stopping and starting clocks.

Q14 How will they weigh up all the various factors in deciding whether to require remedial action?
Where the local authority proceed with the complaint, they must decide in the first place whether a high hedge is causing an unreasonable obstruction of light so as to affect the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of his property. If so, the authority must then consider what, if any, action to require to be taken in relation to the hedge in order to remedy the obstruction and to prevent it recurring.

In reaching their decision, the authority must take account of all relevant factors. Examples of some of the matters that might be relevant are set out in the Bill. They include privacy, and the contribution the hedge makes to the amenity of the neighbourhood.

In a lot of cases, it will come down to a question of balance between preserving privacy, on the one hand, and safeguarding the amenity of neighbours on the other. These are the sort of judgements that local authorities are used to making, for instance in determining planning applications.

Q15 What account will be taken of the views of hedge owners?
Hedge owners should have the opportunity to tell their side of the story and to have it considered impartially by the local authority before they reach a decision.

Q16 Could a remedial notice require people to keep their hedges at a lower height? Or would someone have to complain (and pay the fee) again?
The Bill says that a remedial notice should set out what action is required to be taken in relation to the hedge in order to remedy the obstruction of light; and what further action, if any, is required to prevent the obstruction recurring. The latter could include maintaining the hedge at a lower height. This would be a continuing obligation on successive hedge owners.

People affected by these hedges will not, therefore, have to make repeated complaints to their local authority in order to ensure that they are kept within the new bounds.

Q17 What if an owner wanted to remove their hedge rather than have the chore of cutting it back each year as required in a remedial notice?
The local authority can require in a remedial notice only those works that are necessary to remedy the obstruction of light - and no more. Bearing in mind that the Bill says you can have a 2 metre high hedge without obstructing light, then an authority will not be able to order that a hedge is cut back below this limit. Nevertheless, it remains open to the owner to go further, and to remove the hedge entirely, if they want.

Q18 The requirements in a remedial notice could be open-ended, running forever. Is this really fair?
If it is necessary to maintain a hedge at a certain height in order to prevent an obstruction of light recurring, it is right that future owners of the neighbouring property are safeguarded - not just the people who lodged the complaint with the local authority.

In recognition of the fact that the remedial notice could have a very long life, the Bill also provides some safeguards for future owners of the land with the hedge. In particular, the notice will be registered as a local land charge. Any continuing obligation would, therefore, be apparent to prospective buyers. In addition, they can apply to the local authority to vary or withdraw the remedial notice - either with the agreement of their neighbours or because of a material change of circumstances. The notice is not, therefore, set in stone.

Q19 How would appeals be administered?
It is the intention that appeals would be wholly delegated to the Planning Inspectorate. Separate regulations will set out the procedures to be followed but it is likely that these will be based on the planning appeals system.

Although it is expected that the majority of cases would be decided on the basis of an exchange of written representations, we intend there would always be opportunity for a public hearing if people wished.

Q20 Isn't it over the top to make criminals of people just for growing hedges?
People would not be prosecuted for growing a hedge. The enforcement provisions of the Bill come into play only if someone fails to comply with the lawful order of the local authority to cut back the hedge.

Even then, prosecution is unlikely to be the first step that the authority would take. They would choose how to respond from a menu of actions, ranging from an informal chat with the owner to encourage them to comply, through warning letters of the consequences of their failure to act, to taking the hedge owner to court so that they could be fined.

What enforcement action, or combination of actions, the local authority pursue will depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

Q21 Aren't the penalties excessive? The daily fines could soon amount to more than the original fine.
If this legislation is to being relief to hedge sufferers, it is essential that enforcement provisions exert sufficient pressure on recalcitrant owners to get them to cut the hedge and to keep it trimmed. A one-off penalty would be sufficient to deal only with an initial failure to comply with a remedial notice. The prospect of daily fines is considered necessary to persuade people that carrying out the required works to the hedge is their best course.

It is also important to remember that the vast majority of people are law-abiding and will comply with the lawful order of the local authority. These penalties, especially daily fines, are likely to be reserved, therefore, for the most serious cases.

Q22 Given remedial notices could run for decades (or more), a hedge owner could suddenly find themselves being prosecuted 50 years from now for not complying with a notice that they knew nothing about. How would they be safeguarded against this?
If you own the land where the hedge is growing, then you should have been made aware of the existence of the remedial notice, through the Land Registry entry, when you purchased the property. If the notice was not registered - or if you are a tenant - and you have not been sent a copy of the remedial notice, then the Bill defends you from being prosecuted because you could not know of the obligations that the notice imposed on you.

However, a local authority is unlikely to prosecute someone without first investigating the matter. In practice, if they receive a complaint that a hedge is not being maintained at the height specified in the remedial notice, they would normally contact the owner, inform them of the alleged breach and seek their comments. If this revealed that, because of the long time lapse since it was issued, the owner was unaware of the existence of a remedial notice, the authority might well give them time to comply before considering further the question of enforcement action.

Q23 When would the complaints system come into operation?
It is difficult to set a date for when the system will come into operation. It is envisaged that the Act will come into force at the same time as the regulations covering certain detailed procedural arrangements. Good practice dictates that these regulations, in their draft form, should be the subject of public consultation. This could be carried out at the same time as the Bill is being considered by Parliament. Assuming the Bill received Royal Assent by the summer, the complaints system might be up and running later this year.

Q24 It looks very expensive to run. Will local authorities get extra resources for this?
It is estimated that it will cost local authorities some £2 million to deal with a backlog of some 10,000 existing problem cases, spread over a period of 3 years. Thereafter the caseload should drop dramatically. These costs will be met, in part at least, through fees paid by complainants. In terms of any shortfall, the Government will follow the established procedures for assessing the financial burdens imposed on local authorities by new initiatives and for providing resources through the revenue support grant settlement, where appropriate.

Interaction with Other Regimes>

Q25 How does this fit in with the tree preservation order system and the special arrangements applying to trees in conservation areas?
People do not need to obtain the local authority's consent for works to a protected tree, or - where the trees are in a conservation area - notify them of their intentions, if they are complying with an obligation imposed by an Act of Parliament. Put simply, the requirements of a remedial notice would override a tree preservation order and the conservation area controls.

This does not mean that local amenity is unimportant. Far from it. The Bill indicates it will be relevant to the authority's decision as to whether the obstruction of light caused by the hedge is unreasonable or not. The local authority will, therefore, be required to take account of such factors as whether any trees in the hedge are protected by a tree preservation order, or whether they are situated in a conservation area.

Q26 How will this affect traditional countryside hedgerows?
Traditional countryside hedgerows tend not to comprise wholly evergreen species and so are unlikely to be caught by the Bill.

Conifer hedges, used to screen and shelter agricultural and horticultural crops, might be covered by the Bill if they were near garden boundaries. It is expected, however, that the local authority would take account of their functional benefits in deciding whether any obstruction of light they might cause was unreasonable or not.

Alternative Legislative Solutions

Q27 Wouldn't it have been easier to introduce a general height restriction on hedges?
A general height restriction would not work because there are plenty of neighbours who are quite happy with the high hedge growing between them. They would not take kindly to suddenly being told that their hedge was no longer considered acceptable and must be cut down. There are also cases where a tall hedge is a positive benefit. For example, it might screen something unsightly or block the view of, say, a busy road. It might act as a windbreak, protecting tender plants or crops. One size hedge does not fit all.

Q28 Why not just alter planning laws rather than setting up a new regime specially for this purpose?
Requiring planning permission for high hedges in the way that it is required for fences or walls seems a simple and logical solution. The issue is, however, fundamental to planning law as it would need a change to the definition of development to include the planting or growing of hedges. Such a major step could not be taken lightly.

In addition, this solution has practical difficulties. For instance, it would apply to all hedges, whether or not they were causing problems, and would thus be intrusive. There are also doubts about whether it could applied retrospectively to all existing high hedges.

Q29 Why not add it to the list of statutory nuisances as in Jim Cunningham's Bill?
There are doubts about how effective this would be in resolving hedge problems. If the same formula were used for high hedges as for other statutory nuisances, people would need to show they were prejudicial to health or a nuisance. The courts have interpreted this phrase as meaning there has to be a direct risk of disease or illness. This is likely to be difficult to prove in relation to high hedges as the direct impacts are not usually health-related. They are about reduction of light to homes and gardens, blocking of views, declining soil quality and possible damage to buildings.

Q30 Why not adopt the European solution of a simple height and distance rule that operates across the board?
Many countries in continental Europe have laws imposing a height limit on trees and hedges that are within a certain distance of a property's boundary. These laws tend to date back 100 years or more and are a well-established part of those countries' legal systems. We do not have the same tradition in the UK. If we were, therefore, to introduce a similar system here, it would represent a significant intrusion into people's lives and property rights.

Q31 Why not ban Leyland cypress?
Leyland cypress might be the villains in the press, but they are not the only culprits. A ban would not, therefore, resolve the problem for a lot of people.

In addition, Leyland cypress can be wonderful in the right location. There is, for example, a magnificent single specimen at Kew. They also make an excellent hedge and screen if they are trimmed regularly. It would be wrong to deprive everyone of these benefits because some people do not look after them properly.

BACKGROUND

The Problem

An evergreen hedge can be an attractive feature in a garden, providing privacy and quiet for garden owners and a habitat for wildlife. However, hedges have two sides and the large number of letters and calls to central and local government suggest that many people feel that a neighbour's high hedge has a harmful effect on their homes or gardens.

Problems tend to occur where a hedge is not suitable for its location and not properly maintained. This can happen because people do not realise the full growth potential or maintenance requirements of the plants used. In addition, a once well-maintained hedge can become neglected and overgrown when ownership changes. In any event, these high, dense hedges can reduce the level of light, block views, impoverish the soil and risk root damage to nearby structures and drains.

Leyland cypress (x Cupressocyparis leylandii) tends to be singled out for blame because it can grow by 1 metre (3 feet) a year and can reach heights of over 30 metres (100 feet). But it is not the only culprit.

A 1999 survey of local authorities estimated that there might be as many as 17,000 existing problem hedge cases in England and Wales. This figure was based largely on anecdotal information and so is far from exact. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suppose that there are many thousand of problem cases across the country.

Possible Existing Remedies

Neighbourly co-operation
The best way of settling hedge problems is for neighbours to agree a solution between themselves. But if a polite request to trim the hedge is rebuffed, people are often put off from making any further approaches.

Mediation
Mediation can offer a quick, cheap and informal means of resolving hedge disputes. Mediation works best when people engage in it voluntarily. It is, therefore, most suitable for those cases where the parties are willing to reach agreement but differ over what the solution might be. Too often in these disputes, however, communication has broken down completely and so mediation is a non-starter.

Civil courts
Proceedings may be taken in the civil courts to remedy the nuisance caused by a high hedge. The fast-track procedure, with a fixed timetable and fixed costs, means this system should be easily accessible. However, success will turn on the individual circumstances of the case and the outcome is far from certain. In particular, although Michael Jones won the right to cut back the hedge his neighbour had planted (in the case of Stanton v Jones), the specific circumstances of his case mean that it did not set a general precedent on which others can rely.

Against this background, people are unwilling to risk the legal costs involved if they lose the case. In addition, it is unlikely that the courts would be able to deal with the general problems of loss of amenity, which tend to be the main cause for complaint in high hedge cases.

Rights of light
There is no general right to light. Any right to light has to be acquired as an easement and so will be relevant only in special cases relating to particular properties. Where an easement of light exists, the property benefiting from it will be entitled to a certain amount of light to certain windows or openings. However, easements of light do not extend to people's gardens.

Statutory nuisance
It has been suggested that the statutory nuisance provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 might provide a potential remedy for disputes over high hedges. Section 79(1)(a) of the Act says that premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance amount to a statutory nuisance. We are unaware of any successful statutory nuisance proceedings relating to high hedges. And, until a court rules that a high hedge can constitute a statutory nuisance, local authority environmental health officers are not willing to act.

Government Action

The Government have always taken these neighbourhood issues very seriously and, in November 1999, launched two new initiatives to help tackle high hedge problems.

The Right Hedge for You
First, to help inform gardeners on how to choose the right hedge for their situation, DETR joined forces with the horticultural and landscape industries to produce a leaflet, setting out the alternatives to fast-growing species, such as Leyland cypress, and the upkeep necessary to make an attractive healthy hedge. The leaflet is available through garden centres and other sales outlets.

Consultation paper - High hedges: possible solutions
Secondly, to address existing hedge problems, DETR published a consultation paper seeking views on the following options for dealing with these hedges:

Consultation results
Over 3,000 people responded. The results showed that 94% of respondents believed that new laws were needed to control these hedges. This included 77% of local authorities. A new system to allow local authorities to determine complaints (option 4 in the consultation paper) was the clear favourite. 72% of respondents chose this option, including 67% of local authorities.

Government commitment to legislate
In the light of this overwhelming support for new laws, the Government announced (August 2000) that legislation would be prepared to allow local authorities in England to determine complaints about high garden hedges. The authority would decide whether to require the hedge owner to remedy the problem by, for example, cutting back the hedge. The National Assembly for Wales indicated (in October 2000) that they wished these new laws to extend to Wales.

Details of the complaints system were not settled in time for this to be included in the Government's legislative programme for this session of Parliament (announced in the Queen's Speech on 6 December 2000).

Previous Private Members Bills

Andrew Rowe's Hedges Control Bill (1998-99)
Based on planning laws (in section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), the Bill would have allowed local authorities to serve notices requiring action to be taken to remedy the harm to the amenity of their area caused by the condition of any tree or hedge. The Bill did not specify the nature of the harm but the term "amenity of their area" is generally taken to relate to a street or a larger area. Hedge problems are usually about neighbour amenity and relate to a much smaller area, such as a back garden or patio.

The Bill did not pass Second Reading and was never debated.

Jim Cunningham's Control of Residential Hedgerows Bill (1998-99 and 1999-2000)
This Bill would have added domestic boundary hedges to the list of statutory nuisance in section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It would require environmental health officers to investigate complaints to see if a statutory nuisance existed and, if so, to use the procedures in the 1990 Act for remedying the matter and for preventing it from recurring.

For a hedge to be a statutory nuisance, it would have to be "prejudicial to health or a nuisance", which has been interpreted by the courts as requiring there to be a direct risk of disease or illness. This is likely to be difficult to prove as regards high hedges, as the direct impacts are not usually health-related. They are about reduction in light to homes and gardens; blocking of views; declining quality of soil; and possible damage to buildings and other structures. Jim Cunningham's proposals might not, therefore, have been any more effective in resolving hedge problems than the existing provisions in the 1990 Act.

This Bill has never been fully debated in the Commons, though Jim Cunningham used the 10 minute rule procedure to draw attention to hedge problems and the need for a legislative solution.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes' Statutory Nuisances (Hedgerows in Residential areas) Bill (1998-99 and 1999-2000)
Baroness Gardner's Bill would have the same effect as Jim Cunningham's, making boundary hedges a statutory nuisance.

She used the Bills largely as a means of calling the Government to account for their action on this issue. Her 1999-2000 Bill, nevertheless, got as far as Report without encountering any opposition.


The Draft Guidelines have been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading.
The Adobe Acrobat Reader can be freely downloaded.
Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - http://access.adobe.com/

The DETR is not responsible for the contents or reliability of the linked web sites and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them. Listing should not be taken as endorsement of any kind. We cannot guarantee that these links will work all of the time and we have no control over the availability of the linked pages.

Published 7 March 2001 / Updated 24 April 2001
Return to Trees (including Problem Trees / Hedgerows), Countryside Hedgerows and Forestry Index
Return to Wildlife and Countryside Index Index
Return to DEFRA Home Page