In the first instance, the High Hedge Law requires that ‘all reasonable steps’ have been taken to resolve the matter before a formal complaint is made to the Minister. Therefore, before going on to consider the merits of the complaint, the Minister must be satisfied that this is the case. As can be seen from the correspondence submitted by both parties, there is some dispute as to the amount of contact which has taken place between them on this matter. The complainants state that several requests have been made for action to be taken, whereas the owners’ advocate claims that just a single meeting occurred before the complaint was submitted. Under the law, the definition of High Hedge is as follows; High hedges (1) In this Law “high hedge” means so much of a barrier to light as – a) is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of 2 or more evergreens; and b) rises to a height of more than 2 metres above ground level. A description of the trees has been provided above and the Department is satisfied that, with the exception of the White Poplars, they meet the criteria and do constitute a ‘high hedge’ for the purposes of the law. The High Hedge Law requires the Minister to determine whether; ‘the reasonable enjoyment of all or part of the property for domestic purposes is being adversely affected by the height of a high hedge on land owned or occupied by another person’ On this occasion, the complainants’ main concern is the debris which falls off the tree (branches and pine needles) which they claim causes damage to their garage building as well as cars parked on the driveway. This has more to do with the type of tree, its condition and its proximity to their property, rather than its height per se, and it is difficult to see how any remedial action which the Minister would be entitled to require (i.e. some reduction in height), would completely resolve this problem. The Minister is not entitled to require the hedge to be removed altogether. Whilst falling debris is their main concern, the complainants are also concerned with loss of light to the lower end of their garden. In line with his method of calculation, the surveyor has recommended a maximum height for the hedge of 5.81m above the driveway. However, the States arboricultural officer has stated that the large tree may not recover from being reduced in height to this extent and he recommends that the tree not be reduced to a height of less than 8m. Even with the full reduction to 5.81m, the problem of falling debris would likely persist, although any reduction would help to reduce the problem even if it wouldn’t solve it. The high hedge law also requires the Minister to take into account ‘whether the hedge existed at the time the complainant acquired an interest in the domestic or residential property specified in the complaint and, if it did, the height of the hedge at that time…and also any extent to which the hedge…adds to the privacy and enjoyment of the neighbouring land’. In this regard, the Minister will note the owners’ advocate’s comments in respect of the age of the large tree as well as his comments concerning the complainants’ new garage extension – this extension has now been granted consent and, should it be built, the owners are concerned that their own privacy might be affected if the hedge were required to be removed. Having regard to all material considerations, the Department’s view is that the hedge does adversely affect the complainants’ reasonable enjoyment of their property and that some reduction in height would go some way to resolving their concerns regarding falling debris, although it wouldn’t overcome them altogether. A reduction in height would be beneficial regarding their concerns to do with loss of light. Accordingly, the Department recommends that action be taken, as outlined below, in order to address this problem under the provisions of the High Hedge legislation. | 
gov.je