Debate contribution: High Hedges Act (Northern Ireland) 2011
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- High Hedges Act (Northern Ireland) 2011
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4269825
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. The High Hedges Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 is intended to provide a mechanism by which a complainant can resolve a problem that is caused by a high evergreen hedge through their local council if they have approached their neighbour and asked them to reduce its height but have been unable to resolve the issue through discussion. I recognise the problems that hedges can cause if they are neglected or allowed to grow unchecked, which can have a significant impact on householders. Information that has been gathered on the initial functioning of the Act between 2012 and 2016 shows that only a small proportion of initial enquiries that were received by councils progressed to formal complaints. Further information for the period of 2016 to 2020 indicates that the number of formal complaints remains low. In addition, the number of queries that have been received by the Department annually is also small, with no significant issues regarding its operation having been raised. I have been presented with no evidence to suggest that a review of the high hedges legislation is needed at this time. I will, however, meet council chief executives in due course through their representative body, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE). I will be happy to discuss any issues that they have with the application of the Act.
231 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.61).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.01 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.61 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:50 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.