Clause 2 - High hedges
High Hedges Bill
10:30 am

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

Clause 2 defines high hedges. It makes it clear that the problem concerns evergreen hedges over 2 m in height, which includes leylandii and other coniferous hedges such as Lawson cypress and western red cedar. It also covers non-coniferous species such as laurel and privet.

The Bill is not intended to apply to individual trees, which can sometimes be the focus of disputes between neighbours. It does not set out to remedy all the perceived problems with trees, nor does it seek to discourage the planting of suitable trees in gardens. It concentrates on the main problem—tall, dense screens of foliage.

A complaint may be made to the local authority only if the hedge in question exceeds 2 m in height. That does not mean, nor should it be implied, that hedges over 2 m in height are necessarily problem hedges that should be trimmed. Whether such a hedge causes an unreasonable obstruction of light will depend on the particular circumstances of each case and will take account of objective tests being developed by the BRE. The effect of the Bill is to provide a starting point with some degree of certainty. One cannot make a complaint to the local authority unless the hedge exceeds the 2 m threshold. Equally, those on the other side of the hedge can be assured that they will not find themselves on the receiving end of a complaint, providing that the hedge in question is maintained at 2 m or lower. I recommend that clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Mr Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)

I have no desire to impede the progress of the Bill, but I would like to put on record an interesting phenomenon that I encountered. If one lives in a conservation area, one has to obtain permission from the local authority to cut a tree if its diameter at chest height is more than 7 cm. Extraordinarily, when I wished to trim a leylandii hedge, I had to obtain permission from my local authority because each tree in the hedge was out of control and over the 7 cm limit. I mention that to my hon. Friend as an example of a way in which local authorities can be in the position of arbiter in cases within conservation areas. In a sense, one would have to complain to the local authority about the local authority.

Mr Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Labour)

I shall be brief because I wholeheartedly support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on introducing it. On Second Reading, I registered my concern about cases in which hedges were more than 2 m in height but caused no problem with the obstruction of light. I suggested amending the Bill to introduce an overall limit of 4 m, which a householder could insist that the local authority enforce. That may complicate the Bill, but the overall height is significant whether or not light is excluded. At some point, I hope that changes can be made to limit the overall height of hedges to 4 m or 3 m—as I said on Second Reading—although perhaps not in Committee because of a shortage of time. I have not tabled an amendment because I do not want to complicate matters today, but that it is an important matter.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Coventry North East, Labour)

As was made clear on Second Reading, the Government support the Bill.

I listened carefully on Second Reading to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), which I understood to be about the desirability of including an absolute limit, in all circumstances, on the height of evergreen or leylandii hedges. The effect of that would be that even if a hedge were generally considered acceptable, legislation would prevent it from exceeding a maximum height. That it not necessary or desirable because there may be circumstances—if we think seriously then we will know that there are—in which evergreen hedges exceed 4 m and are acceptable to all concerned. If such hedges do not cause complaint, it would be wrong for legislation to state that they must be cut back.

My hon. Friend will recognise that the matter must be kept tight to ensure that the Bill passes through the House without creating unnecessary complaints or opposition. However, it is stated elsewhere in the Bill that light is the only objective criterion—that will be the grounds for making a complaint. That matter was discussed in the consultation process. Local authorities and Hedgeline, which has done much work to secure legislation on behalf of people throughout the country who are suffering because of the problem, accept and believe that light will be used as a proxy for many other problems. Clause 16 provides that if light is not an effective criterion for judging the complaints that arise, the Secretary of State may, by regulation, extend the powers of the Bill to cover complaints that have not been dealt with satisfactorily.

I—and people who were consulted—hope and believe that the overwhelming majority of cases and the problems that hon. Members have heard about from their constituents, will be dealt with by the powers of the Bill and by using light as a proxy for other problems that may be caused by high hedges. If that does not occur, amendments may be made by regulation at a later date. In that way, we will avoid the overall ban on hedges exceeding a certain height that was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North on Second Reading, which he wants to explore further today.

Mr Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)

As one who comes from Kent, where fruit farmers have very high hedges that act as wind breaks, I find the proposition of an overall limit of 6 m on the height of hedges counterproductive. Many such hedges are in virtually open territory.

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

I do not wish to impede progress. Clause 2 refers to:

``two or more adjacent evergreens''.

A number of my constituents have mentioned that the problem of light being blocked out by trees and shrubs arises because they live in small houses with relatively small windows. In some cases, the planting of a single leylandii in a particular place may effectively block out light completely. My constituent, Mr. Birkett, is involved in such a case. All the light has been blocked to his kitchen window, which is side-on to the neighbouring house. Perhaps the other provision to which the Minister referred will deal with complaints not covered by the Bill at a later date. For people living in relatively small houses with relatively small windows, just one triffid-like shrub or tree—whatever one wants to call them—can effectively shut out all the light from a person's home or rooms, without even forming a barrier.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

I shall start by responding briefly to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). When I read John Wyndham's ``The Day of the Triffids'', it frightened me, and I could not sleep well for a couple of days afterwards. The hon. Lady graphically illustrated the menace and misery that can be caused in such circumstances.

I express my gratitude to the Minister for intervening with authority in aid of the Bill. I would not have made such progress without his support and that of other hon. Members. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that a remedial notice under the Bill would override the conservation area controls. I do not know whether he would regard that as a reassurance; perhaps he would.

The hon. Member for Luton, North was good enough to recognise that, at this stage in a Parliament, the time available for amendments is scarce. However, I assure him that the letter of statute will have a travelling companion in the form of guidance notes on the implementation of the Bill, which will be issued to local authorities by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Although such guidance does not have the full force of law, local authorities will be glad to have it. Such collateral consideration—or margin notes, if I may so describe them—will be afforded and carefully thought through by the Department. I speak as an Opposition Member—I am not claiming in aid a Department of State—but I am confident that collateral notes and guidance will be issued, which will be helpful to local authorities. My experience of local authorities is that they will say, ``Please tell us how to implement this'', and, when the guidance notes arrive, ``Thank you very much.''

I have attempted a brief response to the stand part debate, and I hope that the Committee will support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.