|
New clause 1
Planning permission for high hedges
No. NC1, to move the following Clause:—
'After section 57 (Planning permission required for development) of the principal Act there is inserted the following section—
''57A Planning permission for high hedges.
(1) Planning permission is required for high hedges.
(2) In this section 'high hedge' means so much of a barrier to light for, or access to, residential property as—
(a) is formed wholly or predominately by a line of two or more evergreens.
(b) rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.
(3) In this section 'evergreen' means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semievergreen tree or shrub.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any high hedge existing on the date on which it comes into force.''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a matter of great regret that the title that I have come up with for this new clause does not share the resonance of some of the titles that the Government have given to their new clauses. Some of those titles—such as ''Old mining permissions: Scotland''—remind me almost of a barrel of real ale from the Ventnor brewery.
My new clause is an attempt to deal with a serious issue of which many of us are aware. It adopts two principles. The first, which has been enunciated by the Minister, is that the whole is the enemy of the parts. The second principle is one of conscientious plagiarism taken from Bills introduced by noble Friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes in another place and by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in this place.
Column Number: 132
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hesitate to intervene on my hon. Friend, but I would like to put on the record that the noble Baroness Gardner of Parkes's Bill was almost identical in every respect to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I would not like his contribution not to be recognised.
Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend is kind to remind me about that. Looking further down in my notes, I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull did introduce such a Bill, which nearly got through the whole parliamentary process.
The Government carried out a detailed consultation in 1999 on the impact of high hedges. More than 3,000 people and organisations responded, which for a Government consultation must be approaching a record—it is certainly more than responded to some consultations on regional referendums. The result showed that 94 per cent. of respondents believed that new laws were needed to control high hedges. Some 70 per cent. of local authorities that responded supported that belief. The proposal was made that local authorities should be able to determine complaints. I have not gone along that road because it has failed twice at least, for various reasons. Therefore, I have adopted a slightly different route.
Unfortunately, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull fell in April 2001 because of an imminent general election, although the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Environment and the Regions reminded us that it is
''the Government's commitment to introduce new laws to solve hedge problems in England and Wales.''
He added that
''we could not find room for such a Bill in this Session''—
that is, the Session that ended in 2001. He also said:
''We are therefore pleased that the hon. Member for Solihull is pursuing the matter and that the Bill would apply to England and Wales.''—[Official Report, 9 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 575.]
The 2001 Queen's Speech also failed to mention a high hedges Bill. Government officials said that they were committed to bringing forward legislation when parliamentary time became available and the then Secretary of State told Hedgeline in a letter on 26 July 2001 that the Government remained committed to introducing new laws as soon as there was space in the parliamentary timetable. I will not go through the frequently reiterated Government commitments on the matter, but this is the opportunity for the Minister to give us half a loaf, if not a whole loaf, and to respond to that need.
Two Bills were introduced in the current Session—one in the Lords and one by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. When the Commons Bill failed, the hon. Member for Ealing, North asked the Prime Minister, no less, on 17 September 2003, what he was going to do about it. The Prime Minister repeated that
''the Government have had a long-standing commitment since August 2000 to bring forward new laws to give local authorities in England and Wales powers to determine complaints about high garden hedges and will make every effort to get them on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity. I cannot say better than that.''—[Official Report, 17 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 859–60.]
Column Number: 133
Now is the opportunity for the Minister to score lots of brownie points, but she is not the only one who is trying to do so. My noble Friend continues to persist, and tabled amendment No. 194 to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill as recently as 7 October. The Front-Bench spokesman, Lord Bassam, expressed great sympathy for her case:
''I understand why inserting suitable provisions in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill is on the face of it a very attractive proposition. This is a thoroughly anti-social problem. I believe that the noble Baroness described people who are victims of it as hedge victims. She is absolutely right about that. We recognise that some people are victims of such anti-social behaviour on the part of their neighbours. I certainly admire the vigour with which she has attempted to argue the new clause into the scope of the Bill.''
He went on to say that he was not prepared to accept the amendment, adding:
''As Members of the Committee have said, we do not get too many legislative opportunities, and I could not give a commitment as to when the Government could find a legislative slot in the future.
We as a government want to see such legislation ultimately on the statute book. We recognise the matter for the problem that it is.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 October 2003; Vol. 653, c. 251–52.]
To be fair, he did say that he would look at it again, but ''ultimately'' is a long way away.
The new clause will deliver only half of what people want—it will prevent such problems from arising in future—but it does not pretend to deal with the difficult question of what happens to those who already suffer from such problems. I have had many letters, as I am sure other Members have, asking me to support various legislation, but I have also had letters asking me not to support the proposal in the Bill because of its retrospective nature. It allows people to ask those who believe that they have grown nice tall hedges for good reasons to have them cut down. My proposal would not do that. Let me give an example from Bembridge in my constituency that shows why it is appropriate.
Somebody sold a plot of land adjacent to his home for housing purposes and planted a hedge that was designed to rise to about 6 ft, or 2 m. That was many years ago and the hedge has now grown that high. Now, the people who have bought the houses—some of them the second or third owners—are complaining about the hedge, but it was there before they were. Many feel that it is unfair that they should be able to do nothing about the hedges, while others feel that it would be unfair were they able to do something. I solve the problem by doing nothing about it, although I am proposing a mechanism that will ensure that it does not arise in future. I shall now try to describe that mechanism, and I am indebted to the officials of the House who have helped me by drafting the proposal.
Planning permission would be required for high hedges, and the new clause describes what would be considered to be a ''high hedge''. The first requirement is that it would be
''a barrier to light for, or access to, residential property.''
Therefore, one would not have to get planning permission unless the hedge, or part of it, were such a barrier. The second requirement is that it
Column Number: 134
''is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens'',
and the third is that it
''rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.''
I would much have preferred to specify 6 ft, but I am told that this is what we have to say nowadays. The new clause goes on to define an evergreen—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, as a former president of the Institute of Arboriculturalists, could do so too—and says:
''The provisions of this section shall not apply to any high hedge existing on the date on which it comes into force.''
In other words, if one's hedge had grown beyond 2 m on the date on which the requirement came into force, the new clause would not apply to it. I leave Ministers with half a loaf and this Minister with the opportunity to satisfy at least half the Prime Minister's pledge, as well as the problem of satisfying the rest of it. I believe that the new clause would ensure that people no longer risked finding themselves in the circumstances that are able to claim them as victims at the moment.
Matthew Green: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having suggested the new clause. I was one of the named supporters of the Bill championed by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The only problem with the most recent of the failed Bills—in his potted history, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned three, but I think that there have been five in recent years—was that the hon. Member for Christchurch talked it out. Fortunately, he is not on this Committee, which is welcome if we are to debate the issue as that gives us an opportunity to legislate on it without having certain Members talking out a measure that has the overwhelming support of Members of all parties. It may be only half a loaf, but it is a good half loaf. However, I have been on too many Committees in the past few years to believe that the Minister will accept it as it stands. I suspect that she will say that she will consider the matter and possibly return to it, but that may not be enough. It is usually done to suggest that something should not happen.
The Minister may have been advised that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for this issue, but it is likely to be the most appropriate that we will have for a very long time. We have seen the problems with private Members' legislation, so unless the Minister knows something that she cannot tell us such as that an appropriate Bill might appear in the Queen's Speech—I suspect, however, that the Government may have more pressing priorities than a high hedges Bill—she will be doing the House a disservice if she does not take this opportunity, because I cannot foresee when the next one will arise for incorporating such a proposal in Government legislation.
11 am
I fully support the new clause. If the Minister picks me up on any technical drafting errors—the other reason that Ministers use to reject new clauses—I suggest that with all three parties working together, we can rapidly find ways of reintroducing it on Report. It would take very little time on the Floor of the House to do that. My only regret is that in this instance, it has been introduced by a Member whose name is not quite
Column Number: 135
as appropriate to the subject as is that of the noble Baroness Gardner of Parkes. For the sake of posterity, I wish that it had been her Bill, as that would have made it one of the most appropriate Bills that could ever have been invented.
|
