Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 18 December 2014
285. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her plans to introduce legislation to set a maximum tree height limit similar to the UK, to avoid disputes among neighbours; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49014/14]
View answerDifficulties experienced by property owners arising from trees and high hedges on neighbouring land were raised in both the Dáil and Seanad during passage of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. My Department consulted on the matter with the Law Reform Commission and it took the view that unreasonable interference caused by high trees or hedges was a matter in any particular case for tort law or more generally for planning or environmental law.
In England and Wales, for example, legislation makes provision for local authorities to determine complaints by the owners or occupiers of domestic property who are adversely affected by evergreen hedges over 2 metres high. Broadly similar legislation, i.e. the High Hedges Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, came into operation in Northern Ireland on 31 March 2012.
The manner in which problems associated with high hedges and trees are resolved in both England and Wales and Northern Ireland demonstrates a clear preference for the resolution of such disputes at local level, preferably by mediation, with recourse to the courts only as a last resort. This reduces the risk of prolonged and costly litigation, and the further risk that court proceedings could leave a legacy of bitterness between neighbours and ill-feeling in the local community. The introduction of such legislation in this jurisdiction would be a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and his Department.
Under our existing law, a person may be in a position to seek damages or an injunction requiring the cutting of boundary hedges or trees under the tort of nuisance. In order for the nuisance to be actionable, the person would have to show that an easement existed and that there had been a substantial interference with that right.
