1-20 of 22 results for house:"House of Lords"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.444 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- house:"House of Lords"
- We searched for
- legislature_ses:25277
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Gardner of Parkes, Baroness (22)
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Nuisance (22)
Publisher
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but why do the remedial notices required under the Act to progress resolution of these hedge problems seem to cause so much difficulty for both the complainants and the councils?
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but why do the remedial notices required under the Act to progress resolution of these hedge problems seem to cause so much difficulty for both the complainants and the councils?
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
18 February 2008
My Lords, we have no evidence that the Act is not working as it should. The evidence of a declining number of complaints and appeals suggests that, as we hoped, more people are finding ways in which to resolve their complaints informally. However, I know that Hedgeline has some concerns about some very complex cases and we think that there are aspects of the process that could be clarified. Therefore, I intend to write to local authorities to encourage their compliance with the guidance and to highlight the important steps in the process to clarify matters in relation to the Local Government Ombudsman, for example.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Complaints; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance
Date
18 February 2008
Reference
699 c1-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is great dissatisfaction about the Local Government Ombudsman’s role in this? He seems to think that this is purely an optional matter for councils, that it is unimportant if they make wrong decisions so long as they follow correct procedures and that that does not come under his jurisdiction. Is it not important also to clarify that?
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is great dissatisfaction about the Local Government Ombudsman’s role in this? He seems to think that this is purely an optional matter for councils, that it is unimportant if they make wrong decisions so long as they follow correct procedures and that that does not come under his jurisdiction. Is it not important also to clarify that?
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
18 February 2008
Yes, my Lords, I think that it is. Rights of appeal follow from the decision but the ombudsman cannot interfere in that because there is due process. He can pick up on instances where the administrative process has been at fault. Sometimes there is confusion about where those things overlap. I propose to talk to local government offices to see whether we can get greater clarity, and I shall take that into account when I write to local authorities.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Complaints; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance
Date
18 February 2008
Reference
699 c4
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether they will take steps to ensure that local authorities act in accordance with the guidance High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure.
Whether they will take steps to ensure that local authorities act in accordance with the guidance High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
18 February 2008
Answered on
18 February 2008
My Lords, High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure provides advice on administering complaints about high hedges under Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. It is not statutory guidance and, as such, the Government cannot require local authorities to follow it. To assist local authorities to act in accordance with the legislation, we encourage them to follow the good practice that the guidance contains.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Complaints; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance
Date
18 February 2008
Reference
699 c1
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:Why, under the high hedges legislation contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Local Government Ombudsman does not recognise loss of enjoyment of home and garden as an injustice that can accrue a monetary value.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Why, under the high hedges legislation contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Local Government Ombudsman does not recognise loss of enjoyment of home and garden as an injustice that can accrue a monetary value.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 January 2008
The Local Government Ombudsman would normally get involved in a high hedge complaint only when it considered that there had been maladministration by a local authority which had caused an injustice. In appropriate circumstances, the ombudsman would be able to consider whether loss of enjoyment of home and garden was an injustice which warranted financial compensation.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Complaints; Compensation; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance; Local Government Ombudsman
Date
10 January 2008
Reference
1087; 697 c225-6WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether, under the high hedges legislation contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the only recourse complainants have is to the Local Government Ombudsman and judicial review where (a) a council refuses to accept a formal complaint; (b) a council makes an error in the remedial notice...
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether, under the high hedges legislation contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the only recourse complainants have is to the Local Government Ombudsman and judicial review where (a) a council refuses to accept a formal complaint; (b) a council makes an error in the remedial notice...
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 January 2008
A complainant may challenge the administrative processes through the council's own complaints officer, the Local Government Ombudsman or judicial review. There are no rights of appeal in the scenarios quoted. Another option would be for the complainant to submit a new complaint that met the requirements of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 when a council refuse to accept a formal complaint. It may also be possible for a complainant to bring a private prosecution against the hedge owner where a council fails to enforce a remedial notice.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Complaints; Hedges and ditches; Local government; Nuisance
Date
10 January 2008
Reference
1088; 697 c226WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:What assessment they have made of the guidelines issued to councils, High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure; and, in particular, whether they have assessed the accuracy of the preface which states that, ““when using this Guide, two points need to be borne in mind. First, Councils and...
asked Her Majesty's Government:What assessment they have made of the guidelines issued to councils, High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure; and, in particular, whether they have assessed the accuracy of the preface which states that, ““when using this Guide, two points need to be borne in mind. First, Councils and...
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 January 2008
No formal assessment of the guide, High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure, has been made. We will be carrying out a review of this guidance when Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 is reviewed in 2010.
The guide sets out the Government's policy advice on administering complaints about high hedges under Part 8 of the Act. It is not statutory guidance. It outlines the law and suggests ways in which councils can run the system in line with good administration practice but it is for local authorities themselves to determine how they administer complaints. Ultimately, it is for the courts to interpret the law and its application.
Subjects
Complaints; Hedges and ditches; Local government; Nuisance
Date
10 January 2008
Reference
1089; 697 c226WA
House
House of Lords
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?
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?
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 March 2006
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.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Hedges and ditches; Nuisance
Date
9 March 2006
Reference
679 c859-60
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether they will take steps, other than by amending legislation, to clarify the word ““removal”” of hedges in order to facilitate the successful implementation of Part 8 (High Hedges) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.
Whether they will take steps, other than by amending legislation, to clarify the word ““removal”” of hedges in order to facilitate the successful implementation of Part 8 (High Hedges) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
9 March 2006
Answered on
9 March 2006
My Lords, in the ODPM’s guidance document, High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure, the Government clearly set out their view that local authorities cannot, under the terms of Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, require action to be taken in relation to a high hedge that would result in its death or destruction. Unless the courts take a different view, there is no means of clarifying the term ““removal”” other than by amending legislation.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Hedges and ditches; Nuisance
Date
9 March 2006
Reference
679 c859
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
How compliance under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 can be enforced over a period of time where the height of hedges is so great that phased reductions will be required; and
How compliance under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 can be enforced over a period of time where the height of hedges is so great that phased reductions will be required; and
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 January 2006
Where the height of a hedge should be reduced in a series of cuttings, a local authority is required under the terms of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to specify over what period of time the work should be completed, and the final height reached. If they wish, a local authority may specify in a remedial notice how such works might be phased. A sample form of words is included in the appendix to the guidance document High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure. Alternatively, a local authority might encourage the hedge owner to discuss and agree with them a suitable timetable for the phasing of the works.Under the 2003 Act, if an owner fails to reduce a hedge to its final cutting height within the overall period set by a local authority, they commit an offence and could face prosecution and/or the authority could carry out the necessary works themselves and reclaim the costs from the hedge owner. No offence is committed if the hedge owner fails to carry out the cutting according to the phases set out in a remedial notice or agreed separately with a local authority. There is no means, therefore, of enforcing the timing of individual stages of phased reduction. It is, however, open to a local authority to send warning letters if a stage has passed without action being taken.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Law and order; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance
Date
11 January 2006
Reference
3183; 677 c59-60WA
House
House of Lords
How many applications to reduce high hedges have been brought; how many applications have been decided; and how many appeals against these decisions have been made.
How many applications to reduce high hedges have been brought; how many applications have been decided; and how many appeals against these decisions have been made.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 January 2006
Information is not collected centrally on the number of complaints about high hedges brought under Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 nor on how many of these complaints have been determined by local authorities, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost. As at 23 December, the planning inspectorate had received 78 appeals against local authority decisions in respect of high hedge complaints.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Complaints; Appeals; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance
Date
11 January 2006
Reference
3182; 677 c59WA
House
House of Lords
Where a high hedge cannot be cut at once, whether it is for the local authority or the hedge owner to decide how, and over what period of time, the work should be carried out.
Where a high hedge cannot be cut at once, whether it is for the local authority or the hedge owner to decide how, and over what period of time, the work should be carried out.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 January 2006
Where the height of a hedge should be reduced in a series of cuttings, a local authority is required under the terms of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to specify over what period of time the work should be completed, and the final height reached. If they wish, a local authority may specify in a remedial notice how such works might be phased. A sample form of words is included in the appendix to the guidance document High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure. Alternatively, a local authority might encourage the hedge owner to discuss and agree with them a suitable timetable for the phasing of the works.Under the 2003 Act, if an owner fails to reduce a hedge to its final cutting height within the overall period set by a local authority, they commit an offence and could face prosecution and/or the authority could carry out the necessary works themselves and reclaim the costs from the hedge owner. No offence is committed if the hedge owner fails to carry out the cutting according to the phases set out in a remedial notice or agreed separately with a local authority. There is no means, therefore, of enforcing the timing of individual stages of phased reduction. It is, however, open to a local authority to send warning letters if a stage has passed without action being taken.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Law and order; Hedges and ditches; Local government; Nuisance
Date
11 January 2006
Reference
3184; 677 c59-60WA
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I pay tribute to him, to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for helping to get this legislation. It means a great deal to many people. However, a major problem has arisen in the advice and guidelines given out by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; it all hinges on the word ““remove”” in the legislation. Councils are naturally frightened that they will be liable if a hedge dies, because they have been told that if it dies that is the same as removing it. Is the Minister aware that there are no regulations that allow councils to implement an order to reduce a hedge in phases? Should new regulations be considered, because councils are frightened to do anything where they will personally carry a liability? While most people are thrilled with the legislation, some are worried about what is happening. Can the Minister give me any hope in that regard?
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I pay tribute to him, to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for helping to get this legislation. It means a great deal to many people. However, a major problem has arisen in the advice and guidelines given out by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; it all hinges on the word ““remove”” in the legislation. Councils are naturally frightened that they will be liable if a hedge dies, because they have been told that if it dies that is the same as removing it. Is the Minister aware that there are no regulations that allow councils to implement an order to reduce a hedge in phases? Should new regulations be considered, because councils are frightened to do anything where they will personally carry a liability? While most people are thrilled with the legislation, some are worried about what is happening. Can the Minister give me any hope in that regard?
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 December 2005
My Lords, I am not sure that the problem is necessarily susceptible to regulation. The noble Baroness raises an understandable concern. Paragraph 624 of the ODPM guidance, High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure, offers very useful advice. It says:"““Councils are, therefore, advised to obtain arboricultural input when framing the requirements of a remedial notice””."
I believe it is saying that if it is better and more intelligent to reduce the height of the hedge in phases, according to the growing season, that is a good way to act. By taking arboricultural advice they will probably be well protected.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Enforcement; Hedges and ditches; Local government; Nuisance
Date
20 December 2005
Reference
676 c1626-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, apparently if a council wishes to reduce the height of a hedge—I understand the advice is that not more than one-third should be reduced—the biggest hedges are the ones most caught in this problem. Can the Minister see a way whereby councils can charge only once? People are being charged £650 to go to the council to have one-third removed and they might have to go back to the council three times, whereas if a council could impose the order at the outset, only one fee would be charged, and the council could supervise the procedure?
My Lords, apparently if a council wishes to reduce the height of a hedge—I understand the advice is that not more than one-third should be reduced—the biggest hedges are the ones most caught in this problem. Can the Minister see a way whereby councils can charge only once? People are being charged £650 to go to the council to have one-third removed and they might have to go back to the council three times, whereas if a council could impose the order at the outset, only one fee would be charged, and the council could supervise the procedure?
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 December 2005
My Lords, it is up to the local authority to determine its own fees. The noble Baroness is right to say that some local authorities, such as, I think, Sevenoaks, have been reported as charging £650. That local authority has made a local judgment and it is a matter for local authorities to determine. However, it is important that, where there are such problems, they should be drawn to the attention of the ODPM because, as yet, we have not encountered any profound problems with the operation of the legislation.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Enforcement; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance
Date
20 December 2005
Reference
676 c1627
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
How effective the provisions of Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 concerning high hedges have been since its implementation.
How effective the provisions of Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 concerning high hedges have been since its implementation.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Bassam of Brighton
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
20 December 2005
Answered on
20 December 2005
My Lords, the Government have undertaken no formal review or assessment of how the provisions of Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 concerning high hedges are working. That part of the 2003 Act came into operation only in June 2005, so it is too soon to draw firm conclusions on its effectiveness. However, informal feedback suggests that the legislation is helping to end the misery caused by overgrown hedges, and many disputes are being resolved voluntarily.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Enforcement; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance
Date
20 December 2005
Reference
676 c1626
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s guidelines on the high hedges legislation reflect the substance of the debates in Parliament on the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003; and whether the guidelines may inhibit the implementation of that Act.
Whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s guidelines on the high hedges legislation reflect the substance of the debates in Parliament on the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003; and whether the guidelines may inhibit the implementation of that Act.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
23 November 2005
The guidance published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure, reflects the substance of the high hedges legislation in Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. Government guidance cannot impose restrictions above and beyond those set out in legislation.The Government are aware of concerns that the problems identified in a complaint may not be fully remedied because of advice in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s guidance that councils should not specify remedial works to a hedge which would result in its death or destruction. This constraint arises from Section 69(3) of the 2003 Act, which states that the action specified in a remedial notice cannot involve removal of a hedge. In the Government’s view, action that would kill a hedge amounts to the same as removing it altogether. This is about striking an appropriate balance between the rights of the hedge owner and those of the complainant.
Legislation
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Subjects
Complaints; Enforcement; Hedges and ditches; Government information services; Nuisance; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Date
23 November 2005
Reference
2429; 675 c212WA
House
House of Lords
Whether they will introduce a bill to control high hedges.
Whether they will introduce a bill to control high hedges.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
15 July 2003
Answered on
15 July 2003
Subjects
Hedges and ditches; Legislation; Nuisance
Date
15 July 2003
Reference
651 c759-60
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
1st supplementary on same.
1st supplementary on same.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
15 July 2003
Subjects
Hedges and ditches; Legislation; Nuisance
Date
15 July 2003
Reference
651 c759-60
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
High Hedges Bill (HL). Lords second reading debate. Agreed to on question and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
High Hedges Bill (HL). Lords second reading debate. Agreed to on question and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lead member
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Answering member
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
Type
Debates on bills
Legislative stage
Second reading
Legislation
High Hedges Bill (HL) 2002/03
Subjects
Complaints; Costs; Hedges and ditches; Gardens; Local government; Nuisance
Date
10 December 2002
Reference
642 c156-69
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
1st supplementary on position when a tree causing nuisance has a preservation order on it.
1st supplementary on position when a tree causing nuisance has a preservation order on it.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
31 January 2002
Subjects
Liability; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance; Property; Repairs and maintenance; Trees
Date
31 January 2002
Reference
631 c341
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether they propose to amend the Trees Act 1970 in the light of the House of Lords decision in the case of Delaware Mansions Ltd and others v The City of Westminster and, if so, whether they will include hedges in any proposed new legislation.
Whether they propose to amend the Trees Act 1970 in the light of the House of Lords decision in the case of Delaware Mansions Ltd and others v The City of Westminster and, if so, whether they will include hedges in any proposed new legislation.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Filkin
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
31 January 2002
Answered on
31 January 2002
Subjects
Liability; Hedges and ditches; Nuisance; Property; Repairs and maintenance; Trees
Date
31 January 2002
Reference
631 c341
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords