|
Mr. Pound rose—
Mr. Flook: For the sake of clarification, 2 m above whose ground level?
Mr. Pound: May I try to answer? The muse of inspiration has perched upon my shoulder. We suggest that the 2 m should be measured from the ground in which the hedge is growing, which is usually on the owner's side. That just came to me, and I cannot imagine why I neglected to mention it earlier.
The clause defines a high hedge as
''so much of a barrier to light or access as is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.''
Taking the definition as a whole, we envisage that a local authority will ask the following series of questions when considering a complaint under this legislation. First, has the hedge that is the subject of the complaint two or more trees or shrubs in it, and are they roughly in line? Secondly, does it comprise wholly or predominantly evergreen or semi-evergreen trees or shrubs? Thirdly, is it over 2 m high? Finally, does it act to some degree as a barrier to light or access, even though it may have gaps in it? If the answer to all those questions is yes, the local authority can go on to consider the effects of the hedge on the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of his property in accordance with clause 1.
That is the basic approach that we would expect local authorities and others to adopt in determining whether a particular hedge is one to which the Bill applies.
Bob Russell: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that we are not necessarily considering a boundary line? Some people might try to get round the regulations by planting trees 2 or 3 m into their gardens. Can we have confirmation that, irrespective of where the line of two or more trees or hedging is planted, it would be deemed to be an offence?
Mr. Pound: In future, we shall refer to this as the Thoresby avenue criterion. It does not matter where the hedge is if the effect is a loss of light, outlook or amenity.
Mr. Tony Clarke (Northampton, South): I apologise in advance for complicating matters further, but there are occasions on which public land allows for car parking at the rear of somebody's premises. With the car park sub-base, the land levels between a car park and a neighbouring property could be quite different. Measuring from the ground level of the car park, surely even a hedge 1 m high would cause light nuisance or disturbance to the neighbour. Has
Column Number: 007
that point been raised in any of my hon. Friend's previous discussions?
Mr. Pound: I shall say two things. First, the Bill applies only to domestic properties and secondly, one of the many beauties of this exquisite legislation is that one can happily grow a hedge to whatever height one wishes unless somebody complains about it. If I lived adjacent to a car park in the Sixfields area of Northampton, and the local authority, which was excellently run until last week, decided to grow a row of trees, I would be probably be grateful. If I complained from the perspective of a domestic occupier, I would be within the ambit of the Bill, but the other way round would not apply.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Domestic property
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
2.45 pm
Mr. Pound: The clause defines domestic property as a dwelling or its associated garden or yard—or, in the case of some hon. Members, the vast acreages that are attached to their properties. For those of us who live in London, a garden or yard is pretty generous. The clause makes it clear that one can make a complaint if one believes that the high hedge in question is adversely affecting either one's garden or one's home. By way of illustration, one person may be concerned about the effect of a hedge on a garden only, whereas another may be concerned about, say, the lack of light in a living room. A complaint could be made under the Bill in both cases.
Bob Russell: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the situation would be in respect of a mixed hereditament?
Mr. Pound: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. [Interruption.] Whoops, there go my notes—I am on my own from now on. The Bill applies to domestic property, but if a property were used for a mixture of domestic and commercial purposes, the Bill would protect the living quarters from the effects of a neighbour's high hedge. However, if the use were commercial only, the provisions would not apply.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Procedure for dealing with complaints
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Pound: I am luxuriating in the experience of having a Parliamentary Private Secretary for the first time in my life. I know why they are so valued.
The clause sets out the procedure for dealing with complaints, which must be made to the local authority
Column Number: 008
whose area contains the land on which the hedge is situated. Complaints must also be accompanied by any fees that the authority sets. The level of such a fee must not exceed the amount to be specified in regulations made under subsection (7).
Under subsection (2), the local authority may reject the complaint if it considers
''that the complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve''
the matter without involving the authority or if it considers
''that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious''.
I draw attention to that matter because it was raised on Second Reading and answered magnificently by the Minister. Some Members have been concerned that the Bill might contain tools that the frivolous and vexatious could utilise. That is a legitimate concern, and I understand it, but I consider that it has been addressed in the Bill's wording. The exclusion given in subsection (2) was drafted specifically to deal with that concern. Given the absence of hon. Members who raised the matter on Second Reading, I rather hope that they have been satisfied.
James Purnell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a similar power in, I think, the Greater Manchester Act 1981, which was abolished when the various Acts that related to the powers for town councils were rolled into the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982? As I understand the matter, the powers to do with overshadowing trees were omitted—perhaps by accident, although no one quite knows why. That power was successful in Manchester and did not lead to any of the complications that hon. Members were worried about on Second Reading. Therefore, far from being a dangerous innovation, the Bill returns us to a state of grace that happened to exist in Manchester in the early 1980s.
Mr. Pound: It is almost a unique experience for me to listen to one whose worship of football tends to concentrate on the Highbury area praising Manchester, but I give credit to my hon. Friend's comments.
I am sure that the legislation concerning Manchester to which my hon. Friend refers is well known to all hon. Members here gathered, although it was specified in local authority byelaws. That legislation did not establish a common framework across the United Kingdom. Unitary urban authorities could enforce such legislation and a number did. My hon. Friend's substantive point—that the absence of frivolous and vexatious complaints is a tribute not only to the good sense of the burghers of Manchester but to the way in which the Bill was structured—is well taken.
As I said, the clause sets out the procedure for dealing with complaints; the complaint goes to the local authority—the district, borough or unitary council, and their equivalents in Wales. The local authority may charge a fee if it wishes, but the Bill provides for the Government to set a maximum level of fee as well as enabling the local authority to refund fees in appropriate cases.
Column Number: 009
I turn to the subject of mediation. I am sure that all hon. Members would accept that the best way of settling such disputes is for people to talk to one another and to agree a solution. Sadly, the rest of the world may not be as reasonable, and mediation is occasionally not an option. However, the Bill encourages such dialogue by giving the local authority powers not to proceed with complaints if it believes that a complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matter without involving the authority.
As I said earlier, the local authority can refuse to deal with a complaint if it considers it to be frivolous or vexatious. The only requirement is that if the authority decides not to proceed with a complaint, it should notify the complainant as soon as possible. If the local authority proceeds with the complaint, it must decide two matters, which are set out in subsection (3). It must first decide whether, because of its height, the hedge is adversely affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of his property. Throughout the proceedings, when I say ''his'' I also mean ''her''.
If the local authority finds that the height of the hedge is causing problems, it must then consider what action, if any, should be taken to remedy the situation and to prevent it from recurring. In reaching those decisions, the authority should take into account all relevant factors and assess each case on its particular merits. I understand that the Government intend to publish guidance on the Bill for local authorities, and I am sure that the Minister will deal with that.
The Government are keen to ensure that local authorities operate the legislation fairly and consistently. National guidance will be important in helping to achieve a measure of consistency. Such guidance will deal with the full range of issues that local authorities could be asked to take into account. It would probably expand on the advice in the popular and widely read leaflet ''Over the Garden Hedge''. That contains information on issues such as safe maintenance, privacy, loss of sunlight, obstruction of daylight and the blocking of views.
In many cases, it will come down to a question of balance between preserving privacy and safeguarding the amenity of neighbours. Those are the sort of judgments that local authorities are used to making—for instance in determining planning applications.
| 
