www.stoneroof.freeserve.co.uk). The Code of Practice for Slating is moving forward into draft stages and will be discussed again at the next meeting. Both papers will be presented to the !HBC Technical Committee and endorsement of the documents by the IHBC is being explored. Training for slaters in this traditional craft has been identified as an objective. Links with current and future training structures are being loo keel into and in December the SRWG presented the case for training in stone and metamorphic slating to the organisation which is researching the need for craft training on behalf of the Lottery Heritage Fund. As usual, conservation training seems to have overlooked what happens above the rafters. It is hoped that there may be funding programmes available from both HLF and European grants. Training for the specifiers is also to be addressed; and the SRWG hopes to link forthcoming technical clays with practical specification workshops. It is hoped that the first of these clays will be held in the South West area, possibly at the Lady Hungerford Almshouses, Corsham, cluring the next phase of major stone slate works in spring 2000. Archaeology and recording of roofs, use of reclaimed stone slates, Landfill Tax and VAT issues were also raised at the meeting and it is hoped that the Code of Practice may provide some practical guidance for local Conservation Officers on some of these topics. Highhedges:possibleoptions Graham Arnold discusses a DETR consultation paper for England and Wales. The DETR has issued a 52 page consultation paper for England and Wales on this emotive subject. It is mainly concerned with the effects of un-neighbourly high hedges which cut out sunlight and daylight on adjoining property, block views, damage drains and nearby structures and contribute to poor soil conditions. Scotland will be producing a separate consultation paper and it will be up to Northern Ireland to decide whether to take action and what form it will take. To ameliorate the problem in the longer term, the Leylandii Working Group has produced guidance on the suitability of different types of plants for specific locations which is being disseminated at point of sale to enable consumers to make more informed choices about plants used for hedging. Leylandii can grow by 1 m each year and reach an ultimate height of 30 m. Other plants of concern are Lawson cypress, Thuja (western red cedar), privet, yew and holly. A 1993 report Treesin Towns indicated that 22 %of urban trees were cypress types including Leylandii, Thuja and Lawson cypress rising to 31% of trees between five and ten years old. The government paper views the problems as one of towns or suburban areas, Context65 March 2000 and that in industrial and agricultural locations there can be benefits of screening or windbreak. The problem is seen as essentially one of impact on adjoining property and its occupiers. There is no consideration of the amenity effects in areas of character and quality such as conservation areas. For existing and likely future problem hedges, the paper identifies four options for action which are not mutually exclusive but may be used in combination according to circumstance: □ promote existing remedies such as mediation and the new fast track procedure for small claims in the courts which may help where mediation fails; □ extend the non-legislative app roach through guidance to developers strengthened through planning conditions and covenants; c new legislation to allow people to acquire rights to light by way of easements, though this would be only to remedy existing nuisance situations; □ new specific legislation for local authorities to deal with complaints. If a complaint is upheld the local authority would require a hedge owner to take action. There would be an appeal procedure and powers of enforcement. The government is worried that this may be too intrusive in what are essentially neighbour disputes and that there will be implications for local authority resources. The procedure would be restricted to hedges in residential areas The consultation paper does not consider the wider perception of unneighbourliness of inappropriate hedging material in conservation areas where the wrong choice can adversely affect their character and appearance. Rather than problems for individual adjoining occupiers, there are issues related to wider areas which should be taken into account. Option 2 indicates that gu idance could be given to local authorities on the need for sympathetic boundary treatments in new developments, which they could take account of in their planning decisions, by imposing conditions relating to the planting of hedges -possibly as part of a wider landscaping scheme. Perhaps conservation area appraisals should identify the basic landscape character, point out inappropriate hedges and trees and use this analysis in preparing policy for individual conservation areas where existing hedging is inappropriate or where new planting of such hedges would adversely affect character and appearance. Such policies could also be applied to developments within the curtilage of listed buildings or developments which affect the setting of listed buildings. Existing hedges within conservation areas or adjoining listed buildings and new hedges planted otherwise than as part of development are far more problematic to deal with. Yet cumulatively these are more likely to have an effect on character and appearance. It is probably unlikely the government would alter legislation to bring such matters under control. The consultation paper sets out criteria against which the options should be assessed taking account of the Human Rights Act 1998 □ effective addressing of the problems of high hedges □ minimal interference with people's rights to do what they want with their property □ transparency, so that it is clear whether a particular hedge would be affected □applies only to problem cases and does not impose rules where there are no problems TECHNICAL □avoids exacerbating neighbour disputes □ easy to enforce □ not costly to administer To control existing and new hedges in conservation areas on grounds of character and appearance could be considered to be subjective and could very well be considered not to meet criteria 2,3,4 and 5 in the previous paragraph. Under option 4 the pa per floats some objective measures which might trigger relevant complaints such as 2 m in height (as in other countries) or 34 m for hedges on boundaries with limits for hedges away from boundaries of the same height as their distance from the boundary. There may be a case for arguing more stringent height limits in conserva~ tion areas but to do so the IHBC would need to demonstrate that there are hedges which are a considerable visual problem and which adversely affect the character and appearance of conservation areas. Perhaps Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 could be extended in operation or concept to deal with high cypress hedges where "the amenity of a part of a conservation area ... is adversely affected". The Consultation Paper concludes that the first question is whether it is the role of government to intervene in the matter of high hedges in what is essentially a private dispute between neighbours, in which a balance between the rights of hedge owners and their neighbours in the enjoyment of their prope1ty must be balanced. The options have their advantages and disadvantages. Reliance on existing remedies as in Option 1 would leave many problem cases unresolved. Option 2 may prevent further problem cases from arising but would not guarantee this and would not tackle existing problems. Option 4 would be difficult to implement and far from straightfo1ward due to the complexity of neighbour relations. It would also require primary legislation and have implications for local authority resources. Graham Arnold !HBC Consultations Secretary 43
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=