Communities and Local Government
A selection of images representing communities.
Direct contact 020 7944 4400- contactus@communities.gov.uk
Loss of view
Is loss of a cherished view a valid ground of complaint? The advice in High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure appears contradictory.
There are several strands here that need to be considered separately, but in sequence, for it to make sense.
First, the definition of a high hedge. The Anti social Behaviour Act 2003 talks about "a barrier to light or access". In our view and according to the Concise Oxford English dictionary "access" is not just about physical entry (could you pull someone through the hedge backwards?) but also about being able to see something/anything. What you see is not relevant at this stage. So it is not about loss of a particular view but whether or not it is possible to see whatever happens to lie behind the trees or shrubs in the hedge. If you can't see what is the other side of the hedge, and it has all the other attributes set out in section 66 of the Act, then it is a high hedge and can be the subject of a complaint under Part 8.
The references to "view" in paragraphs 4.18 and 4.19 of High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure relate, therefore, purely to the physical characteristics of the hedge and applies only when assessing whether or not a hedge meets the definition of a high hedge.
Turning next to the grounds of complaint, these comprise a set of allegations. Under Part 8 of the Anti social Behaviour Act 2003, a complaint is valid if it is alleging that the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of their property is adversely affected by the height of a high hedge. Loss of view is about height and the amenity/enjoyment of the property and so fits into this category, making it a valid ground of complaint.
However, in considering the allegations and determining the complaint, the Council has to look at things from the objective position of the enjoyment that a reasonable person might expect. This might be different to the complainant's expectations. Thus the complainant might attach particular value to a view along the coast or of the countryside but we suggest (in paragraph 5.87 of High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure) that is an unreasonable expectation. Loss of a particular view is unlikely, therefore, to have a significant impact on "reasonable" enjoyment of property and so would be given little weight in the decision making process.
Essentially, there are two separate steps here. Someone can make an allegation or put forward grounds of complaint that are valid. But this might still amount to a weak case because of the way that Councils assess and weigh matters. Paragraphs 4.41 and 4.42 of High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure draw attention to this and suggest that complainants should use the guide to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case before submitting their complaint.
The basic message is that loss of view is a valid ground of complaint but, by itself, is unlikely to be enough to justify a remedial notice being issued.
You may also be interested in …
On this site
- Limits of the legislation
- Pre-complaint advice
- Hedge owner's perspective
- Party hedges
- Council as hedge owner
- Overhanging branches
- Fees
- Public registers
- Protected Trees
- Planning conditions
- Hedge height and light loss
- Remedial works
- Enforcement
- Extending the legislation to other trees and hedges
- Alternative legislative remedies
- Hedges and planning
- Further information
Energy performance certificates for new homes
Read about our guidance on energy performance for new homes.
