S4M-05535 High Hedges (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-05535, in the name of Mark McDonald, on the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill. I call Mark McDonald, who is the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion.

14:21
... ... ...
15:18

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP):

My congratulations to Mark McDonald on his progress on this issue so far.

Much of the detail of the bill and of the committee report has already been covered, so I will address one or two wider issues that relate to the subject, in which there may be a need for a change of behaviours consequent on the passage of the bill.

The bill is relatively simple and is informed by legislation elsewhere in these islands of which we are a part. The message from the evidence that the committee received from the Isle of Man is to keep it relatively simple and not to try to solve every possible issue that may arise with shading vegetation, because that is probably impossible. England’s example tells us that behaviours start to change relatively rapidly and that after a short settling-in period people stop creating monster hedges that cause disputes.

Does that mean that naturally—although not necessarily consciously—disputatious people will simply find something else to argue with their neighbours about? The jury does not seem to have much evidence to suggest that. There is certainly little evidence that the creation of a law such as this can make things worse by making new casus belli—new battle fronts on which antagonistic neighbours can engage. The evidence appears to lead in a different direction, towards a general lowering of the temperature of neighbour disputes.

So what more could be done to capitalise on the opportunity for reasonable debate on issues between neighbours? Firstly, perhaps planners and architects—whom Colin Keir referenced—should have in their approach to their job a greater emphasis on design choices that will reduce the potential for tensions. For example, they could include sightlines from windows and conservatories that make little impact on what others see as their privacy. Perhaps we could have fewer straight lines of houses and a little bit of a wiggle so that windows are less likely to look into other people’s properties. Perhaps there could be cleverer use of facing blank walls close to each other so that there is genuine space on the other side of the house plot. I am sure that there could be much more. The real point is that the professionals should be thinking about this.

Very few house purchases happen without a lawyer being party to them. Perhaps lawyers should consider advising their clients—a simple leaflet produced by the Scots Law Society might suffice—on behaviours that will avoid tensions with neighbours and could draw attention to the act. Indeed, in many housing developments, a simple inclusion in the title deeds to restrict some behaviour and define how boundaries may be delineated would be helpful in certain circumstances.

Christine Grahame: In some developments, conditions, called deeds of conditions, already are put in that prohibit certain fencing and barriers.

Stewart Stevenson: I am aware of that from personal experience, which is why I think that there is a case for looking at how we can use experiences here to help with the bill.

When council officials are in an area to deal with this kind of problem they could look for potential issues and then help.

Issues with the power to modify the meaning of “high hedge” through subordinate legislation could perhaps be resolved by picking up what is in the ancillary provision in the bill, which talks about making provisions “in consequence of” and relating to the act. If that was put into the section on the power to modify the meaning of “high hedge”, some of the concerns about the use of subordinate legislation would likely be addressed.

The issue appears to be largely urban and affects areas of greater rainfall, where things grow faster, but the regionality of the impact is not an excuse for inaction. I may be the only member who cannot recall ever having been approached on the issue, but in my constituency people have large plots in rural areas, which is quite different. However, from the evidence that I heard in committee, I absolutely recognise that this is precisely the kind of bill that we should progress, on precisely the kind of issue that a member should pursue.

I welcome Government support for the bill, I look forward to its passage and I am happy to support it.

15:23