Agenda item

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.     Key Issues

High Hedges Act – the review of the process

From April 2012 to date the service has dealt with 119 complaints in relation to high hedges the majority of these by telephone.  All but one of these complaints was dealt with informally.  The one complaint that did proceed through the formal route was completed without any appeal with the service receiving the £350 required fee.   The officers however have dealt with over 1300 calls requesting advice and guidance on the legislation.  Nine months into the new legislation there is still an uncertainty about the volume and patterns around the enquiries going forward.

Originally the DoENI scoping consultation had estimated that there could be a backlog of 800 high hedge problem cases which will be required to be determined by district councils in the first 2 to 3 years that the legislation is in operation.

The experience to date therefore is that the service is working hard with residents to resolve issues regarding high hedges through the informal process.  The service will continue to improve the communication of this legislation and has information packs available and detailed information on the website which it will continue to maintain and promote.

Committee is therefore to note that the unit wishes to continue with the existing process as it has been tested and proven successful.  Committee is asked to recognise that the service being provided is proving to be more in relation to advice and guidance through the stage one of the process and that only one complaint has gone through all the stages of the process.  The financial implications in relation to this are set out below.

2.      Resource Implications

In the report to committee in March 2012 the view was that the High Hedge fee of £350 would cover the costs associated with administering this new legislation.

Currently there are two fixed term officers providing advice and support in this area at a cost of £54k.  The estimates for 13/14 include both officers’ costs however there is associated income from other projects to offset their costs.  The assessment is that sustaining this level of income over time is unlikely.

It is recommended that the current provision of service with the two officers as set out above continue as is and review after a further period of a year. It is acknowledged that there are peaks and troughs in the requirement for advice and guidance provided by the unit. However both officers are also involved in supporting other funded work that is provided by the unit and officers are satisfied that both posts can be covered by the income from these projects for the next year subject to review and the impact of RPA on the unit.

3.      Equality Implications

DoENI have undertaken an equality impact screening of the High Hedges Bill and the High Hedges fee regulations concluding that ‘there is no adverse impact for any of the nine categories listed under Section 75’.

The High Hedges legislation was presented to the Council’s equality consultative forum and it was suggested that the High Hedge process was reviewed after a 12 month period. From the analysis of the enquiries/complaints that we have received we do not feel that there is any adverse impact on any of the nine categories under Section 75.  Also as the majority of the cases were resolved without any fee being levied we do not feel our process is prohibitive due to a fee being applied where relevant.  However we will review this again in 12 months.

4.      Recommendations

Note the success of the informal process to date

Note that the formal process has been tested successfully

Agree to maintain the resources currently in place for the service with a further review in a year’s time.” 

            The Committee adopted the recommendations.