Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Conservative). It was answered on Thursday, 9 March 2006.

High Hedges

Question: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am puzzled about why that appeared in the guidance when there was no consultation on it. It all relates to Section 69(3) of the 2003 Act, which concerns remedial notices. I understand—the Minister confirmed it today—that it is believed that, if the hedge dies, that is the equivalent of removing it. I looked up the word ““removal””—that is the forbidden action—in the Oxford English Dictionary. It is not in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, but it is in the monster volume in the Library. Volume XIII of the Oxford English Dictionary defines ““removal”” as:"““The act of taking away entirely””." That is exactly how it was treated in debates in your Lordships’ House. The noble Baroness has, as her department told me in a helpful meeting on Monday, no case law whatever on this, the definition is clear in the dictionary and there was no consultation, so on what basis has the ODPM put this out as the factual situation?

Answer: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness has done in bringing the legislation to the statute book. Although the Bill was clear that hedges could not be removed and it set a limit of 2 metres below which they could not be cut, the issue of what constituted removal was not debated in either House. During the consultation, Hedgeline was consulted on the guidance as a whole, but it was local authorities that drew our attention to the need for further clarification of the practical implications. The legal interpretation that we put forward in the guidance was the best that we were able to obtain. There was no change in policy; there was clarification only. It is not customary to keep on reissuing guidance for further clarification. Paragraph 6.24 of the guidance makes it clear that there is no one-third rule that stipulates that only a third of any hedge can be taken off before the trees might die. The guidance offers only an example of one type of tree in one type of situation and what it might tolerate. Given that the noble Baroness thinks that some local authorities are misinterpreting the guidance, I offer to write to every local authority to make it absolutely clear that it is only an example. I hope that that will go a long way to clarifying the situation.

Secondary information