| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Mar 2003 : Column 625—continued
Mr. Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for correcting me in my confusion between deciduous and evergreen trees.
Objectivity is a key component of the Bill, which is written specifically to ensure that a series of objective criteria can be used as a template involving the Building
Research Establishment and various other groups. The sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman describes of malice in Mole Valley could apply equally to any aspect of the built environment, such as conservatories or anything else. I respectfully suggest, however, that that is not a reason for doing away with planning law. I hope that he will come to see that the objective criteria in the Bill will address precisely the issues that he is raising.
Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I hope that he is right. However, I am trying to put down some markers which I hope we can think about in Committee.
The rural situation is completely different. The officer at Guildford council who will be responsible for these matters expressed deep concern. She pointed out that, outside the suburban area of Guildford—and in much of my constituency—a hedge has to be 4 m or more high to be tall. A 2 m hedge is a bit of shrubbery at the end of the garden, so a 2 m provision is absolutely unreasonable. I hope that the Bill will allow local authorities to consider specific circumstances and recognise that while 2 m might be an appropriate measurement in dealing with the Deputy Prime Minister's hedges in Hull, it might not be appropriate in the surrounds and rural areas of Guildford and Mole Valley, as well as in some other areas.
I cautiously support the Bill and hope against hope that the problem can be resolved, the measure will grant flexibility and the promised money is distributed a little more fairly than under the current system. The hon. Member for Ealing, North knows about the current position because he has a constituency in the south and has watched money flow from it into the urban areas of the north, although I am sure that his council kept the council tax below that of Liverpool, Manchester and Hull.
We must acknowledge that passing the Bill in its current form will create as many problems, disputes and difficulties for local authorities as exist already without local authority involvement. Many officers and members of local authorities who believe that the Bill is a good measure that will work should read it carefully and think ahead. If they are in rural constituencies or those where the density of properties is low, they will suffer enormous, expensive disputes between the same neighbours and probably many more. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North has any doubts about that, I am more than happy to refer the gentleman who visited me in my surgery to him. The hon. Gentleman declines; that is probably appropriate.
1.46 pm
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): I shall speak briefly. I declare an interest because I have recently spent a not inconsiderable sum on removing many leylandii, which I inherited from the previous owner, from my garden. I shall plant a few replacements, which I have every intention of keeping to the same height as the adjoining beech hedge. However, I recognise their rapid growth and spread.
The Bill is a sad reflection of people's inability in modern society to reach a settlement that works for both sets of neighbours. It is a great shame that so many people allow the hedges to grow without considering the
impact on those whose homes adjoin theirs. Like other hon. Members, many constituents have visited or written to me to express their great anxiety about the impact of adjoining hedges. I hope that the House will play a role in finding a mechanism for resolving the problem.I commend the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on promoting the Bill. If it is properly tackled in Committee and subsequently enacted, it could make a great difference to my constituents and all those around the country who have suffered from loss of light and the impact of high hedges.
I want to draw attention to three points that could be considered in Committee. First, the Committee should understand and discuss the implications of local authorities' resolution of a high hedges problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made the valid point that it is not possible to cut down leylandii that are 30 or 40 ft to 6 ft. The result will be a row of stumps. The measure will therefore mean the removal of barriers between houses. That could generate disputes about what will replace the barrier and who pays for it. The Committee should give some thought to the disputes that could ensue from the removal of a hedge.
Secondly, I know from my experience that cutting down and replacing leylandii can be expensive. There is a danger that a local authority decision about a substantial hedge that has grown over several years could mean significant cost to a homeowner. The Committee might like to consider that because in some cases, the party who is required to take down the hedge will be a pensioner and may not be able to afford the cost. The Committee should at least consider how local authorities should handle such cases so as to ensure that a solution can be found.
My final point relates to height. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley that the selection of a height of 2 m is not necessarily going to be appropriate to every environment. For example, the old, historic yew hedges around the country might be 9 or 10 ft tall, but they are entirely appropriate to their environment. I, too, would like to see some discretion given to local authorities to modify the height that they use as a benchmark in relation to this measure, depending on the particular circumstances of the neighbourhood that they cover.
I hope that those three points can be taken into Committee and given some consideration. I commend the hon. Gentleman for the Bill. It deserves the support of the House, and I hope that, when it emerges in its final form, some of its rough edges will have been ironed out so that it really can work and make a difference to the people who need it.
1.50 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): I would like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I have recently become his neighbour, so far as offices are concerned. Like everyone else here, I have received an
enormous number of letters on this issue. I would like to place on record that hedges are a very important part of our urban and suburban landscape, but—and it is a big "but"—the downside is that they can create absolute misery for neighbours if they are unsuitable for a particular location, or if they are not properly maintained. A conflict occurs if what is seen as reasonable from one side of the hedge is seen as extremely unreasonable from the other. It really depends which side of the hedge you are on.I was first alerted to such problems as a councillor following up a resident's complaint. I visited a large house that had been converted into flats. An elderly couple lived on the ground floor, with their main living room windows very close to a side boundary. Neither of the elderly people was in good health, and they rarely went outside. They looked out on to a high, dense hedge and were so deprived of daylight that they required electric light all day long. That was not very sustainable, and it obviously had a severe impact on the quality of the remaining years of their lives. A fence over 2 m high in exactly the same position would have required planning permission. It might have received it, but the fact is that the permission would have been required. We have to take this on board, because we are not necessarily precluding hedges over 2 m here, although some hon. Members seem to be implying that we are. It is absolutely logical that, if a fence requires planning permission, there should at least be an opportunity for an objection to be lodged against a hedge in a similar position.
As a former chairman of planners, I recall dealing with many planning applications, and I found that there was often no agreement between the planning officers and the objectors as to what constituted loss of light. I imagine that there will not always be agreement between planning officers and complainants about high hedges as to whether reasonable enjoyment of property is being adversely affected. The final outcomes will not, therefore, meet everyone's aspirations, but at least there will be a framework in place on which judgments can be based, and there will be the clear potential for action to be taken in many cases. So, the outcomes might not be perfect, but we shall be improving the quality of life for a lot of people.
The guidance that we have already, and a polite approach—which is always possible—clearly do not solve all the problems. I would like to quote from a letter from one of my constituents:
- "Our own experience is that a polite, reasonable and conciliatory approach over a long time to an individual has been a waste of time. The person has no concern in the slightest about the misery she has caused us by planting a fast growing conifer hedge outside the back windows of our house. Thus, the hedge completely obscures our access to natural light in that part of our home."
The worst problem in my constituency involves a private school with a high hedge that grows rapidly. The owners contend that it protects neighbours' property
from balls and other intrusions from the school, but the reality is that at least six people have an unhappy life due to the intrusion of the trees on their gardens.I welcome the fact that local authorities would be able to reject a complaint if they felt that insufficient effort had been made to resolve the matter amicably, or indeed if the complaint was frivolous or vexatious. That should open the way to mediation, and it is good to have that in the first place. However, I have concerns that hedges might be out of control due to inability to cope with maintenance, perhaps due to age. Although I want local authorities to handle such cases firmly, sensitivity must obviously be shown.
Due to my council background and as my constituency covers a council area in the south, I am exceedingly concerned about the pressure on local authority resources—it would be necessary to give local authorities more money than they got in from the fees.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |