Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 4 March 2024

Introduction

The consultation on protecting hedgerows in England ran for 12 weeks from 28 June to 20 September 2023. It set out the government’s proposals to replicate the hedgerow management rules in the EU’s cross compliance framework into domestic legislation. These rules included maintaining green cover 2 metres from the centre of a hedgerow, prohibiting hedge cutting between March 1 and August 31 and the relevant exemptions related to these rules. The consultation also proposed a suite of civil sanctions that could be used to address non-compliance with the rules as part of a proportionate, supportive regime.   

This document provides a summary of responses to the consultation and the government’s response, including proposed next steps.

About the responses

In total, the consultation received 8,841 responses, of which 8,809 were received through the online Citizen Space survey, 31 were received via email and 1 was received by post. We identified 66 responses sent on behalf of an organisation. These are listed in Annex 1.

134 responses were identified as duplicates and excluded from the analysis. Not all of those submitting email and postal responses answered the consultation questions directly. The figures used throughout this report are therefore based on a total sample of 8,692 responses. More detail on the approach to analysis and demographics of respondents can be found in Annexes 2 and 3 respectively.

In questions 1 to 8, respondents were able to provide demographic information about themselves. Questions 9 to 24 then asked a series of questions about hedgerow management measures.

Campaigns

We think approximately 2,289 responses received were influenced by campaigns organised by Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Wild Justice. This equates to 26% of total analysed consultation responses, of which 22% (1,939) were influenced by Wild Justice and 4% (350) were influenced by RSPB. More information on how we identified campaign responses can be found in Annex 4. 

Both campaigns were broadly supportive of our proposals and in many cases wanted us to go further to protect hedgerows due to the environmental and wildlife benefits that hedgerows can bring.   

RSPB responses focused on the importance of hedgerows for meeting key environmental targets, maintaining and strengthening regulatory protections and the use of Environmental Land Management schemes. Wild Justice influenced responses focused on strengthening regulatory protections and ensuring robust enforcement of regulation.

Summary of the responses

Stakeholders

In general, respondents agreed that hedgerows are valuable assets to our landscape and an important resource for the 130 priority species associated with them. There was a broad consensus that because of their value, hedgerows should be protected through regulation.

Generally, those who were replying from an environmental perspective have encouraged Defra to take this opportunity to strengthen the protections on hedgerows and go further than previous measures. Those responding on behalf of the farming sector have asked us to balance the need to protect the environment with farm productivity and simplicity. 

Several environmental non-governmental organisations raised concerns over regulatory gaps in protection as we move away from cross compliance, and this concern impacted how they responded to the consultation questions. 

Other key themes amongst stakeholders included the need to be fair and not overly burdensome towards farmers, to be consistent in terms of how we enforce regulation and to ensure that the enforcement solution devised is well resourced.

Government response and next steps

After careful consideration of consultation responses and the overwhelming support for action to protect hedgerows from both the farming and non-farming community, the government intend to bring forward new legislation to protect hedgerows in England as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

Though this consultation asked specifically about protecting hedgerows on agricultural land, we also asked you where you would like us to focus our ambitions for future hedgerows policy. We want to thank you for the level of responses to this question which showed strong support for extending protections outside of agricultural land. As many of you said, all hedgerows are important havens for wildlife. We will continue to consider how we can best support the sustainable management and protection of hedgerows in different contexts, taking account of the views expressed through this consultation.

We have decided to replicate the requirements that farmers are familiar with from cross compliance, but with a simpler, fairer and more proportionate approach to enforcement. As stated in the consultation, we intend for the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) to be the regulator. We intend to introduce a range of Civil Sanctions through the Regulation and Sanctions Act 2008 (RES Act), which RPA will use as part of their enforcement approach to help landowners come into compliance. We will consult further in due course on the statutory guidance to support this approach to ensure that we deliver a regulatory system that works both for farmers and for protecting the environment.

In summary, the new rules will aim to:

Buffer strips

• replicate the 2m requirement for buffer strips and not increase the required width
• continue to offer payment for buffer strips wider than 2m
• continue to allow the spot application of pesticides within buffer strips to control the spread of invasive and injurious weeds
• continue to measure the 2m buffer strip from the centre of a hedgerow as this takes into account hedgerows of all densities
• replicate the exemption for the 2 m buffer strip requirement for hedgerows under 5 years old
• replicate the exemption for field sizes under 2 hectares

Cutting ban and related exemptions

• maintain a cutting ban period and maintain the dates from 1 March to 31 August
• permit cutting or trimming during the cutting ban period
  • if the hedge overhangs a highway, road or footpath over which there is a public or private right of way and the overhanging hedge obstructs the passage of, or is a danger to, vehicles, pedestrians or horse riders
  • if the hedge is dead, diseased, damaged or insecurely rooted and because of its condition, it or part of it, is likely to cause danger by falling on to a highway, road or footpath
  • if the hedge obstructs or interferes with the view of drivers or the light from a public lamp
  • if it is to carry out hedge-laying or coppicing during the period 1 March to 30 April (inclusive)
  • if it is to trim a newly laid hedge by hand, within 6 months of it being laid
  • if the Secretary of State has, in order to enhance the environment, improve public or agricultural access, or for reasons relating to livestock or crop production, given the beneficiary written permission to do so
  • in the interests of human or animal health or safety
• permit cutting or trimming a hedgerow, or a tree growing in a hedgerow, in August for the purposes of sowing oilseed rape or temporary grassland during the same August provided that the RPA has been notified

Notification

We intend to introduce a streamlined notification process for farmers needing an exemption to cut hedges in August if they are sowing oilseed rape or temporary grass to replace the longer process of waiting for approval under cross compliance. Farmers will be required to notify RPA in writing of their intention to sow in specific fields before planting, and document all works carried out to justify action in case of future inspection. This simplifies the regulatory process for the farming industry in line with best practice.

Enforcement

In the legislation we propose to:

• introduce an enforcement mechanism to support the new regulation which will look very different from that seen under previous regimes
• advice and guidance will be the default to help farmers and land managers adopt the best hedgerow management practices, become compliant with the new legislation, and focus on outcomes
• introduce some Civil Sanctions, namely Stop Notices, Compliance Notices, Restoration Notices and Variable Monetary Penalties – these will allow the RPA, as the regulator, to take proportionate and effective actions where necessary in more serious cases to ensure that hedgerows continue to be protected
• include criminal sanctions to enable the RPA to take appropriate actions against anyone causing serious or repeated damage
• in view of the need for proportionality, we have decided on balance not to include Fixed Monetary Penalties in the new legislation

Further consultation

As required by statute, we will consult further on the proposed enforcement measures and will set out in detail how the RPA will use the enforcement sanctions. We will work with industry and key stakeholders to shape the new enforcement regime to ensure it is fair and achieves the desired outcomes.

Analysis

Questions 1 to 8 related to respondents’ characteristics. The consultation itself began at Question 9.

Question 9: Should we maintain the requirement for buffer strips that are 2m from the centre of the hedgerow?

96% (8,384) of respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question and 3% (271) answered ‘no’. Less than 1% (37) did not respond to this question or did not provide a comment to indicate whether they supported the proposal or not.

Maintaining the requirement for buffer strips that are 2m from the centre of the hedgerow was strongly supported by those in the farming sector with 82% (702) saying yes, as well as those not in the farming sector with 98% (7,157).

It should be noted that 2,155 of those saying we should maintain the requirement for buffer strips that are 2m from the centre of the hedgerow were believed to be campaign responses (37 farming sector and 2,118 non-farming sector). 

Graph 1: Should we maintain the requirement for buffer strips that are 2m from the centre of the hedgerow?

	Yes total	No total
Farming sector	82%	18%
Non-farming sector	98%	1%
Total	96%	3%

Those not responding to this question are not included in this graph due to the low sample size.

Key themes

Almost all respondents who commented on this question recognised the environmental benefits of buffer strips, from protecting the hedgerow itself, to their use as a habitat for a variety of wildlife and promoting biodiversity.

Many respondents suggested that the width of buffer strips be increased from 2m to benefit wildlife and the wider environment. The current 2m requirement was felt by some to be not ambitious enough, including responses from both campaigns which suggested widening the current buffer strip to 3 or 4 metres. Some respondents, both members of the public and those who identified as a farm business, suggested that widening the buffer strips should be subsidised.

Most respondents who identified as a farm business and who selected ‘no’ to this question, mentioned the need to control weeds within buffer strips to ensure a well-established and healthy hedgerow, including the need to use appropriate chemicals.

In addition, some respondents who identified as a farm business raised the need for flexibility when measuring 2m from the centre of a hedgerow, not wanting to be penalised for small areas of a buffer strip which fell slightly short of 2m.  

There were also comments from several respondents who felt the way that the buffers were measured should be changed. This included the suggestion that the 2m strip is not wide enough or that measuring from the edge of the hedgerow would be better. Among the reasons given for this were concerns that where hedges were wide, measuring from the centre could result in buffer strips that were too narrow; the difficulty for inspectors in measuring from the centre and the general desirability of a wider buffer strip for its environmental benefits.

Key stakeholders

Farming organisations were generally supportive of replicating the previous buffer strips requirement, although some, such as the NFU, noted the need for financial incentives should the width of buffer strips be increased.

Government response and next steps

After careful consideration of the consultation responses, alternative options and evidence, we intend to: 

• replicate the 2m requirement for buffer strips and not increase the required width
• continue to offer payment for buffer strips wider than 2m. The payments currently available are set out in Annex 5
• continue to allow the spot application of pesticides within buffer strips to control the spread of invasive and injurious weeds
• continue to measure the 2m buffer strip from the centre of a hedgerow as this takes into account hedgerows of all densities, without additional burden or complexity and is believed to be the most practical way to protect hedgerow roots from spray drift

Question 10: If we maintain the 2m buffer strip requirement, should we also replicate an exemption for field sizes under 2 hectares?

22% (1,920) of respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question and 77% (6,656) answered ‘no’. 1% (116) chose not to answer this question.

Opinion within the farming sector was split. 52% (442) of respondents from the farming sector answered ‘no’ to this question, while 47% (400) answered ‘yes’.

Respondents from the non-farming sector showed strong opposition to the replication of the exemption. 80% (5,809) of non-farmers answered ‘no’, whilst 19% (1,390) answered ‘yes’.

Of the responses to this question that were identified as belonging to campaigns, 96% (2,097) responded ‘no’, while 4% (94) responded ‘yes’.

Graph 2: If we maintain the 2m buffer strip requirement, should we also replicate an exemption for field sizes under 2 hectares?

Sector	Yes total	No total
Farming sector	47%	52%
Non-farming sector	19%	80%
Total	22%	77%

Those not responding to this question are not included in this graph due to the low sample size.

Key themes

The majority of respondents did not want to replicate this exemption. The predominant justification for this was that the size of a field does not affect the positive benefits offered by healthy hedgerow and that all hedgerows, no matter their location, should be treated in the same way.

Most respondents who supported this exemption thought that food production and the economic viability of farmers should be the priority, arguing that removal of the exemption could affect the productivity of smaller fields and that smallholdings needed to make use of all their land to stay in business. Alternatively, some respondents argued that smaller fields were often low input grassland, not arable fields, so that a buffer strip would not take land out of food production.

Some respondents believed there should be a payment associated with buffer strips, stating that they were previously paid for under Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), and that the current Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes do not pay enough. Additionally, some respondents felt that this payment should be higher for smaller fields to compensate for the loss of productive land.

Others wanted to change this exemption, although suggestions for how it should be changed varied greatly. Some respondents suggested that the width of buffer strips should be decided according to field size. Opinion varied on whether two metres was an appropriate proportion for smaller fields. Some respondents who identified as farming businesses stated that a 2m buffer on a field under 2 hectares is disproportionate and there would be negative implications if this exemption was not replicated. Others suggested increasing or decreasing the 2 hectares field size to qualify for the exemption.

The two campaign responses that were identified for this question disagreed with replicating the exemption, citing the importance of small fields for wildlife and the value of healthy hedgerows in reducing inputs and increasing crop yields.

Key stakeholders

There was a split in stakeholder responses. Some environmental NGOs including the National Trust and Nature Friendly Farming felt that 2 m is a narrow requirement and represents a small protective boundary in practice. Others such as the Country Land and Business Association and the NFU supported the exemption, acknowledging the higher proportion of land area that a buffer strip would constitute in smaller fields.

Government response and next steps

After careful consideration of the varying views on this exemption, we propose to replicate the exemption for field sizes under 2 hectares in the new regulation. This acknowledges the proportion of productive land that would be removed in smaller fields and the challenges for fields that are smaller than 2 hectares.

Question 11: If we maintain the 2m buffer strip requirement, should we also replicate an exemption for hedgerows under 5 years old? 

19% (1,610) of total respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question and 80% (6,946) answered ‘no’. Less than 1% (120) chose not to answer. It is worth noting that there were some discrepancies between respondents’ fixed response and their free text response, indicating some difficulty in answering this question. Comments indicated agreement that the most important aim was to encourage the planting of hedgerows but disagreement about whether the proposed exemption would achieve this aim.

There was some variation in opinion between the farming and non-farming sector. 57% (489) of farming sector respondents responded ‘no’, whilst 40% (343) responded ‘yes’. For the non-farming sector, there was stronger disapproval for the replication of the exemption, with 83% (6,035) responding ‘no’ and 16% (1,156) responding ‘yes’.  

Of those saying that the five-year exemption should not be introduced, 2,129 were believed to be campaign responses, with 38 of these being from the farming sector and the remaining 2,091 being non-farming sector responses.

Graph 3: If we maintain the 2m buffer strip requirement, should we also replicate an exemption for hedgerows under 5 years old?

Sector	Yes total	No total
Farming sector	40%	57%
Non-farming sector	16%	83%
Total	19%	80%

Those not responding to this question are not included in this graph due to the low sample size.

Key themes

There was a consensus among respondents that the most important aim was to encourage the planting of hedgerows but disagreement about whether this exemption would help or hinder that.

Many respondents pointed out that newly planted hedgerows required control of weeds and invasive species in order to allow the hedgerow to thrive in its early years; this was especially noted by respondents who identified as farm businesses. However, there was disagreement over whether this exemption would help establish a healthy hedgerow by allowing for space and protection from chemicals or hinder it by making it harder to protect the new hedgerow from livestock or invasive species. Some of those who identified as members of the public believed that spraying would damage hedgerows.

Many of those who disagreed with replicating the exemption argued that exemptions overall provided less protection to hedgerows, with some respondents adding that they believed this particular exemption would lead to a decline in wildlife, while others felt that there was no reason for this exemption to be replicated.

Key stakeholders

There was a split within stakeholder responses. Arguments both for and against the exemption centred around the need to protect newly planted hedges until they become established. Hedgelink and the Tree Council were in favour of maintaining the exemption to enable farmers to manage competing vegetation. Conversely, other scientific bodies or eNGOS opposed this exemption, including the RSPB who believed spraying would damage a young hedgerow.  

Government response and next steps

After careful consideration of the consultation responses, we propose to replicate the exemption for the 2m buffer strip requirement for hedgerows under 5 years old to allow spot-application of herbicides to control weeds and help the young saplings to become established.

Question 12: Should we maintain a no cutting period to ensure hedgerows are managed in a way which protects important bird species?

98% (8,503) of total respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question and 2% (158) answered no. Less than 1% (31) chose not to answer.

There was strong agreement about maintaining the no cutting period among both farming and non-farming sector respondents. 85% (723) of farming sector respondents and 99% (7,239) of non-farming sector respondents answered ‘yes’.

It should be noted that 2,193 (25%) of those who answered that we should maintain a no cutting period were identified as campaign responses, with 40 being from the farming sector and 2,153 from the non-farming sector.

Graph 4: Should we maintain a no cutting period to ensure hedgerows are managed in a way which protects important bird species? 

Sector	Yes total	No total
Farming sector	84.6%	15.1%
Non-farming sector	99.4%	0.3%
Total	97.8%	1.8%

Those not responding to this question are not included in this graph due to the low sample size.

Key themes

The vast majority of respondents from all sectors supported keeping a no cutting period. The main reason given was that a no cutting period is crucial for maintaining bird populations and biodiversity and protecting wildlife breeding, nesting sites and habitats.

Many respondents questioned the term ‘important’ and highlighted that a no cutting period is of benefit to all birds not just ‘important’ species, as well as other hedgerow-dependent species of insect, mammal, amphibian etc. There was particular mention of moths, butterflies, dormice and hedgehogs in many responses. There was some confusion in that some respondents mistakenly believed we were suggesting that only ‘important’ species would be protected. These respondents felt that all birds should be protected, and that it would be very difficult for farmers to differentiate between important and non-important species.

Many respondents highlighted that all nesting birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA), and that a cutting ban helps prevent inadvertent breaches of the WCA. The vast majority of responses raising this issue were identified as campaign responses (Wild Justice). A few respondents noted difficulties with the enforcement of the WCA, suggesting that a cutting ban period is therefore crucial to protect nesting birds effectively, whilst a small number felt the protection offered by the WCA was sufficient and a cutting ban period was therefore not needed.

Alternative regimes

Many respondents felt that in addition to a no cutting period, Defra should be encouraging alternative cutting methods and regimes with the main reason being to preserve food sources for wildlife. The most common suggestions were that hedges should be cut only every 2-3 years, or that alternate sides of a hedge should be cut on alternate years. Other suggestions included encouraging incremental cutting, implementing a minimum height or width for hedgerows or encouraging hedge laying. Some respondents expressed concern about the damage caused to hedgerow plants and habitats by ‘aggressive’ cutting or flailing damaging and felt flailing should be banned completely, whilst others suggested that there should be a maximum diameter branch size for flailing as flails cause damage and are likely to promote the spread of disease.

Many respondents felt that financial incentive schemes should be used to encourage hedgerow management to benefit wildlife, although the majority of these were identified as campaign responses (RSPB). A few respondents who answered ‘no’ to the main question, felt that a cutting ban itself should be paid for, rather than being a mandated requirement.

Some respondents, including those who answered ‘no’ to the main question, suggested a blanket cutting ban does not work for all farms. They suggested that traditional hand cutting could be done at all times of year, or that there should be different rules for mechanical and non-mechanical cutting.

Cutting ban dates

Although not specifically asked about in this question many respondents gave their opinion about the timing of the cutting ban. These are reported here but the issue is further explored in question13.

A wide variety of opinions were expressed on the timing of any cutting ban period. Some respondents felt the current system is simple and well understood so it should be maintained, whereas others wished for the cutting ban period to be lengthened, shortened, or implemented flexibly rather than applied uniformly.    

A majority of those who felt the current cutting ban period is too short and should be extended suggested that it was important not to begin cutting until later into winter or spring to ensure that food sources are available for birds and other animals in autumn or early winter. Other arguments for this approach included the impact of climate change on bird nesting and the needs of late-breeding species such as turtle doves and yellowhammers.

In contrast, those who felt the cutting ban period is too long and should be shortened largely thought the cutting ban should end on 31 July rather than 31 August, with the main reasons being a belief that birds were no longer nesting in August, and practicalities around weather and sowing crops.

Some respondents felt the cutting ban dates should be reviewed in line with lifecycles of other species, not just birds, or that the cutting ban period should depend on geographical location or species of hedgerow tree. Others felt the cutting ban should adapt each year to weather, bird breeding or food supply.

For those who answered ‘no’ to the overarching question of a cutting ban, the majority felt that fixed date periods do not work for everyone, as they do not take account of regional variation or soil conditions, and farmers should be allowed to use pragmatism and common sense.

Other themes

Other themes raised by a smaller number of respondents included:

• the importance of effective enforcement of a cutting ban period, with many using the opportunity to highlight witnessed examples of the existing rules being flouted or ignored
• the need for exemptions to any cutting ban, with those identifying as farmers mentioning the need for a variety of exemptions, including for early-sown crops and road safety, whilst those identifying as members of the general public were much more concerned about exemptions for reasons relating to health and safety, road safety and rights of way
• that cutting ban rules should apply to hedges outside of agricultural land, including those managed by local authorities and in private gardens, on the basis that it was unfair to single out farmers and that other hedges and their wildlife were just as important
• the need for guidance and education around best practice, both for farmers and the general public, and for clearer information on how members of the public could report breaches of hedgerow rules

Key stakeholders

All key stakeholders agreed that a cutting ban period should be maintained as it provides necessary protection for priority species. 

Government response and next steps

In line with the majority of consultation responses, we intend to maintain a cutting ban period.

Question 13: Should the no cutting period remain as 1 March to 31 August, or be amended to an alternative?

At the total sample level there was a clear preference for extending the cutting date period beyond 31 August with 49% (4,260) of the total sample selecting this option.

However, it should be noted that this was heavily influenced by non-farming sector responses with 54% (3,922) of non-farming sector respondents saying that the no cutting period end date should be extended beyond 31st August, but only 15% (126) of those in the farming sector agreeing. It should also noted that this option was heavily influenced by campaign responses with 1,779 possible campaign responses selecting this option.

The farming sector tended to favour the no cutting period end date remaining 1 March to 31 August, with 36% (305) of those in the farming sector choosing this option, followed by the option to bring the end date forward to 31 July, with 27% (230) of farming sector responses choosing this option, and 9% (74) choosing that the no cutting period end date should be brought forward to 15 August.

Graph 5: Should the no cutting period remain as 1 March to 31 August, or be amended to an alternative?

Sector	Combined bring end date forward	Remain 1 March to 31 August	End date extended beyond 31  August	Alternative suggestion
Farming sector	36%	36%	15%	12%
Non-farming sector	2%	36%	54%	6%
Total	6%	37%	49%	7%

Those not responding to this question are not included in this graph due to the low sample size. Categories for bringing cutting end dates forward have been combined due to low sample sizes.

Key themes

As demonstrated in the quantitative analysis above, there is large variation in opinion around the most appropriate dates for a cutting ban period. However, a majority of respondents felt that the cutting ban dates should reflect whether birds or other wildlife are still nesting or rearing chicks, and this applied regardless of their view on what specifically the dates should be.  All date options are therefore supported by respondents arguing that their selection covers the ‘nesting season’. Both major campaign responses cited bird breeding seasons as the main factor in determining cutting ban dates.

In addition to this, a number of respondents suggested that the dates for a cutting ban should be decided on the basis of the latest available evidence or expert advice and that both this and the impact of climate change should be kept under review. Around half of those who responded on these lines were identified as part of the RSPB campaign.

In addition to bird breeding seasons, a large number of respondents argued that we should be doing more for the environment and wildlife generally or linked their arguments to other environmental benefits. The vast majority of respondents under this theme wished to extend or maintain the cutting ban period and were identified as campaign responses (Wild Justice).

Many respondents expressed the opinion that cutting to preserve berries, fruit and nuts as food sources should be prioritised and the vast majority of these were in favour of extending the end date beyond 31 August in order to ensure that these food sources are available for birds and other animals in the autumn or early winter. A small minority of respondents who mentioned food sources opted for bringing the end date forward to 31 July, suggesting that earlier cutting gives time for the hedge to recover before autumn while still producing berries or other food sources.

Some respondents used the opportunity to suggest alternative cutting methods or regimes, such as cutting every 2 to 3 years, cutting alternate sides of a hedge, or only cutting a certain percentage of hedges each year. Over half of those respondents who mentioned alternative cutting regimes gave preserving food sources as one of their reasons. Alternative cutting regimes were mentioned by respondents across all cutting ban date variations, not just those wishing to extend the cutting ban. For example, some farmers would like the option to cut earlier than 31 August if they cut on rotation, only cut a small proportion of hedges, or hedges are only hand trimmed.

For those respondents who wanted the cutting ban dates to remain as before, the main reason given, in addition to it aligning with bird breeding seasons, was a general consensus that keeping the same dates would avoid confusion and aid compliance as there is good understanding of the current system. Some respondents also describe the current dates as a good compromise between maximising protections for birds and other wildlife, and the practicalities of hedgerow management for farmers.

For those respondents who wish to shorten the cutting ban period, the main reasons given were practical farming considerations including being able to cut in drier weather to avoid field damage and soil compaction, to align with harvest times and to facilitate early sowing of crops such as oil seed rape, or due to other time pressures such as the availability of hedge-cutting contractors.

Other themes

Other themes raised by a smaller number of respondents included:

• suggestions around the start of the cutting ban (which was not given as a multiple-choice option), with most respondents suggesting the start date of the cutting ban should be changed to 1 February (or earlier in February) due to the belief that the seasons are changing due to climate change
• the desire for flexibility in cutting ban dates, either different dates based on region (such as North vs South), or annual variation in dates based on weather conditions
• the suggestion that dates should reflect what is best for the health of the hedge, particularly waiting until the hedge is dormant before trimming
• the need for exemptions to any cutting ban, with similar themes raised as in the previous question
• suggestions around payment for different variations of extended no cutting periods

Key stakeholders

There were very mixed views on what cutting ban dates should be. Only the NFU supported a shortening of the cutting ban period. All other key stakeholders either felt the period should remain as is or be extended. There was some suggestion that an extended cutting ban period could be delivered through payment schemes.

Government response and next steps

On balance after careful consideration of the consultation responses, we intend to maintain the cutting ban between the 1 March and 31 August.

We have commissioned additional research from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) to explore this issue further and will release this information to help the industry stay up to date with the latest best practice. We will commission further studies in the future to keep this information up to date and understand how climate change may be impacting the bird breeding season and whether any changes are required in the future.

Through the Sustainable Farming Incentive, there are additional payments available for bi-annual cutting. The details of these schemes can be found in Annex 5.

Question 14: If we maintain a no cutting period, should we also replicate exemptions to the regulations?

At the total level 25% (2,163) answered ‘yes’ to this question and 72% (6,281) answered ‘no’. Only 3% (248) of respondents chose not to answer.

There was a notable split of opinion between farming and non-farming sectors for this question. The farming sector tended to support this measure, with 63% (537) saying we should also replicate exemptions to the regulations, but only 20% (1,475) of the non-farming sector agreeing.

Campaign responses tended to believe that we should not replicate exemptions to regulations, with 1,993 selecting the “no” option.

Graph 6: If we maintain a no cutting period, should we also replicate exemptions to the regulations?

Sector	Yes total	No total
Farming sector	63%	35%
Non-farming sector	20%	77%
Total	25%	72%

Those not responding to this question are not included in this graph due to the low sample size.

Key themes

The vast majority of respondents were not in favour of replicating exemptions to the cutting period. There was general concern regarding the possible misuse of exemptions and a common belief that they should be applied only in exceptional circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. Some respondents also stated that it would make the process clearer and simpler if there were no exemptions at all.

Respondents expressed concern for wildlife in relation to the cutting period, in particular damage to habitats affecting food preservation, nesting birds and wildlife connectivity. Although they did not agree with exemptions, these respondents acknowledged that exemptions would be needed in limited circumstances where there was a risk to the public from blocked paths or threats to road safety. There was also a view that the need for exemptions could be avoided by changing to cutting hedges only every two or three years.

A small number of respondents agreed with all the previous exemptions being replicated for exceptional circumstances such as maintaining hedgerows near to highways and the planting of oil seed rape. Most of the respondents who said yes stated that it would be simpler to replicate the previous exemptions.

Key stakeholders

Most key stakeholders agreed with the replication of at least some of the exemptions. The general consensus was that exemptions relating to safety should be replicated. There was less agreement on the replication of exemptions for crop growing with mostly environmental stakeholders, saying that yearly hedge cutting is not necessary and some farming stakeholders, stating that it is necessary to prevent crop damage.

RSPB did not agree with the replication of any exemptions, they are concerned about certain bird species that nest in the outermost areas of roadside hedges. They have advocated for earlier, pre-emptive trimming alongside roads.

Government response and next steps

After careful consideration of the consultation responses, we propose to keep the exemptions from previous legislation as they are well understood by the farming sector and enable them to manage the needs of food production and environmental benefits in a balanced way.   

For clarity the exemptions we intend to replicate will permit cutting or trimming during the cutting ban period: 

• if the hedge overhangs a highway, road or footpath over which there is a public or private right of way and the overhanging hedge obstructs the passage of, or is a danger to, vehicles, pedestrians or horse riders
• if the hedge is dead, diseased, damaged or insecurely rooted and because of its condition, it or part of it, is likely to cause danger by falling on to a highway, road or footpath
• if the hedge obstructs or interferes with the view of drivers or the light from a public lamp
• if it is to carry out hedge-laying or coppicing during the period 1 March to 30 April (inclusive)
• if it is to trim a newly laid hedge by hand, within 6 months of it being laid
• if the Secretary of State has, in order to enhance the environment, improve public or agricultural access, or for reasons relating to livestock or crop production, given the beneficiary written permission to do so
• in the interests of human or animal health or safety
• cutting or trimming a hedgerow, or a tree growing in a hedgerow, in August will be permitted, if the RPA has been notified for the purposes of sowing oilseed rape or temporary grassland during the same August

Question 15: If you answered yes to the previous question, should there be a requirement to apply to the relevant authority for an exemption?

51% (4,405) of the total sample answered ‘yes’ to this question and 8% (681) answered ‘no’. 41% (3,605) of total sample did not answer this question as responses were required only from those who had answered ‘yes’ to Question 14: If we maintain a no cutting period, should we also replicate exemptions to the regulations? However, it should be noted that this question was not routed and was available for all to answer. Base sizes suggest that some of those that said “no” at question 14 chose to answer this question.

There was a split in response between farming sector and non-farming sector opinion with the farming sector less keen on a requirement to apply to the relevant authority for an exemption as 41% (351) selected “no” to this question. Non-farming sector responses looked on the measure more favourably, with 53% (3,849) saying “yes”.

Of those saying there should be a requirement to apply to the relevant authority for an exemption 1,538 were believed to be campaign responses

Graph 7: If you answered yes to the previous question, should there be a requirement to apply to the relevant authority for an exemption?

Sector	Yes total	No total	Not answered total
Farming sector	34%	41%	25%
Non-farming sector	53%	4%	43%
Total	51%	8%	41%

Key themes

Most respondents agree that there should be a requirement to apply for an exemption to the cutting ban, stating that this will help to monitor and control the use of exemptions and prevent abuse or misuse.

Many respondents expressed concern about Defra’s capacity to respond to applications within appropriate timescales, with numerous suggestions that this process would need to be adequately funded and resourced.

The minority that disagreed with the need to apply for exemptions stated that we should trust farmers to do the right thing and that the process would create unnecessary bureaucracy during a busy time for farmers.

There were two alternative suggestions to applying for an exemption. The first was that farmers should keep a record of any cutting done inside the cutting period as evidence ready for inspection. Another alternative suggestion was to simplify the process by farmers submitting a notification rather than an application which could then be challenged retrospectively and enforcement action taken if needed.

Key stakeholders

In their response, the NFU were concerned about the time it would take to get a reply to an application and suggested a notification rather than an application based approach. They were the only key stakeholder to respond ‘no’ to this question. The Country Land and Business Association (CLA), who responded ‘maybe’ also supported the idea of notification rather than prior application and additionally suggested that further guidance should be issued on what evidence would be required.

The Tree Council agreed with the need to apply for an exemption provided that the exemptions are reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose.

All other key stakeholders agreed with the requirement to apply for a permit, on the understanding that the relevant authority would be well resourced and financed to deal with the requests within a reasonable timescale. Hedgelink and RSPB were concerned that the removal of the need to apply for a permit would weaken the protections already in place.

Next steps and government response

After careful consideration of the consultation responses, we intend to introduce a simple notification process for farmers needing an exemption to cut hedges in August if they are sowing oilseed rape or temporary grass.  Farmers will be required to notify RPA in writing of their intention to sow in specific fields before planting, and document all works carried out to justify action in case of future inspection. This simplifies the regulatory process for the farming industry in line with best practice.  

Question 16: Should we introduce a new exemption to the hedgerow management requirements for farms under 5 hectares?

86% (7,457) of total respondents believed we should not introduce a 5 hectare exemption while 9% (787) of total respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question. 5% (416) of respondents chose not to answer.

The farming and non-farming sectors were broadly in agreement that there should be no new exemption for farms under 5 hectare with 87% (7,457) of non-farming sector and 75% (644) of farming sector saying “no”.

Of those saying we should not introduce a 5 hectare exemption 1,972 were believed to be campaign responses.

Graph 8: Should we introduce a new exemption to the hedgerow management requirements for farms under 5 hectares?

Sector	Yes total	No total	Not Answered Total
Farming sector	19%	75%	3%
Non-farming sector	8%	87%	5%
Total	9%	86%	5%

Key themes

The vast majority of respondents were not in favour of introducing a 5 hectare farm exemption. They highlighted that hedges on smaller farms were just as important as those on larger farms providing the same environmental benefits. In some cases, the farming practices used could mean that hedges on small farms were even more important.

A number of respondents felt that the hedgerow management regulations should be applied to all, and views were also expressed that the introduction of an exemption would add further complexity to the regulations.

A small number of respondents felt that a holding under 5 hectares was not really a “farm”, as these sizes of holdings are not commercially viable. A small group also felt that payments for smaller farms to maintain their field boundaries should be made available, with higher payment rates for more positive actions.

Key stakeholders

All except one of the key stakeholders disagreed with this exemption. They felt that wildlife does not discriminate between large and small farms, that an arbitrary exemption would create an unequal approach to different size holdings and that regulation should maintain a level playing field to ensure everyone is meeting common minimum standards. They also believed that maintaining the existing requirement would not introduce additional burden on farmers.

The Country Landowners Business Association agreed with the exemption stating that farms under 5 hectares not subject to these requirements in the past should not be included until there is evidence to prove that it’s removal would have a significant benefit to the environment at a reasonable cost to the farmer and enforcement.

Government response and next steps

Given the overwhelming lack of support for this proposal, we do not intend to introduce an exemption for farms under 5 hectares.

Question 17: If we amend the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 to include additional management measures, we will require an additional definition of what constitutes an important hedgerow for the proposed measures. Do you agree with the below definition of an ‘important hedgerow’ for hedgerow management activities only?

“Hedgerow management rules apply to any hedgerow growing in, or adjacent to, any land which forms part of the agricultural area of a holding which has one of the following:

• a continuous length of at least 20 metres, or is part of any such length
• a continuous length of less than 20 metres where it meets (at an intersection or junction) another hedge at each end

Any gap of 20 metres or less and any gap resulting from a breach of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 will be treated as part of the hedge.”

80% (6,967) answered ‘yes’ in agreement to the definition of an important hedgerow given, 11% (966) answered ‘no’, and 9% (759) of total respondents chose not to answer or did not indicate whether agreed or not.

There was general agreement with the proposed definition of an “important” hedgerow between farming and non-farming sectors, with 75% (640) of farmers saying yes, compared with 81% (5,921) of non-farming sector respondents.

1,765 of those saying that they agreed were believed to be campaign responses.

Graph 9: Do you agree with the below definition of an ‘important hedgerow’ for hedgerow management activities only?

Sector	Yes total	No total	Not answered total
Farming sector	75%	21%	4%
Non-farming sector	81%	9%	9%
Total	80%	11%	9%

Key themes

The majority of respondents agreed with the additional definition proposed, though there were many related suggestions made. Broadly, respondents focused on the potential for all hedgerows to be considered important, the potential length required for a hedgerow to be considered paramount, land types which should be covered, and whether there are other ways to define importance which are not considered by the current draft definition.

Potential for all hedgerows to be considered important

Many responses to this question focused on the potential for all hedgerows to be considered ‘important’. Many respondents felt that there should be equity in the treatment of all hedgerows and mentioned that this was because all hedgerows have value as habitats and from a climate change perspective regardless of their length, age, location or other factors. Therefore, many said that all should be classed as important for the purposes of the proposed new definition. Some respondents mentioned that there should be a way of defining what a hedgerow is, perhaps to include other features such as Devon banks and stone walls more generally. Some also suggested that the original definition of importance under the 1997 Regulations should be changed, and the requirement for a hedgerow to be 30 years old should be removed.

Length of important hedgerows

Some respondents also commented on the proposed length of hedgerow which should be considered as important. Most respondents who mentioned this theme felt that hedgerows which are less than 20m in length should also be considered important. Many suggested a length of 5m, 10m or 15m as a baseline for importance. Conversely, some respondents felt that 20m was too short of a length to be an important hedgerow, with suggestions such as considering only those that are over 50m in length. Some also felt that the length of a hedgerow was an arbitrary factor which may not be necessary for defining importance at all.

Other suggestions for defining importance

Some respondents also suggested that importance should be defined in a different way altogether. Responses were quite mixed on this point, with some respondents suggesting species should be used to define the importance of a hedgerow rather than other measurements such as width or height. Some respondents also suggested placing more weight on habitat connectivity and whether hedgerows join with others at either end for judging whether it is important. Others suggested that levels of wildlife were a better way to define importance. Some respondents pointed out that importance is hard to define out of context and recommend that hedgerow importance should be judged in the context of its local environment.

Coverage of different land types beyond agricultural land

Many respondents questioned why new protections would not extend the rules to all land types featuring hedgerows, as they feel there is nothing specifically worthy of protection about hedges on agricultural land as opposed to other land types. Land types mentioned by these respondents included residential and urban, commercial, equestrian, recreational green space and disused former agricultural land (though some respondents suggested that residential hedgerows should be excluded). Some respondents felt that the rules should apply to the edges of land sold for development. Others suggested that hedgerows alongside roads should be offered any new protections as well. However, some respondents also suggested that an exception should be made for hedgerows alongside roads.

Key stakeholders

On the types of land to which the new rules should apply, many key stakeholders and respondents from farm businesses said that the rules should be binding on other landowners, not just farmers. Respondents from farm businesses also mentioned that the new rules would need to apply to developers.

Stakeholders and some other respondents often mentioned the need for a clear definition of a hedgerow, so that it is clear what is being protected. The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and the Wildlife Trusts called for a comprehensive definition of a hedgerow to be established, ideally in law, as a priority. Butterfly Conservation said that any definition of hedgerows should include other “structural components of hedgerows” such as trees, margins and ditches. People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) said that any definition for management purposes should include lines of trees.

Many stakeholders including National Farmers Union (NFU), CPRE, CLA and RSPB said that having a new definition of ‘important’ would be likely to cause confusion alongside the existing definition and suggested that another term for this could be used, such as ‘significant’. The Forestry Commission and Archaeology UK suggest that there are other elements which should be considered to determine the importance of a hedge. These included historic, archaeological and landscape factors. NFU also raised a risk that over time the proposed new definition could restrict farmer’s ability to manage hedgerows and gaps effectively, for example where gaps are used for access purposes.

Government response and next steps

We are considering carefully the feedback from this consultation in developing the definition of an important hedgerow for the purposes of our proposed legislation.

Question 18: Where should we focus our ambitions for future hedgerows policy?

This question was a write in answer question only and therefore analysis is qualitative only rather than including any quantitative findings.

Key themes

The broad scope of this question allowed for a variety of responses and various ideas were proposed. The most popular theme centred around the environmental importance of hedgerows for wildlife, climate change, flood defences and biodiversity and a plea to ensure that future policy delivered further protections, restoration and planting.

Many respondents also focussed on enforcement, namely that there was little point in regulation if it was not properly enforced and that current enforcement is lacking. Some respondents suggested that a hot line for reporting breaches could be set up. Others, especially those identifying as farm businesses, wished to see regulation and enforcement covering land outside of agriculture, specifically land controlled by local authorities and housing developers.

Several respondents requested clearer guidance to be issued on hedgerow protections, particularly for farmers, though there was a lack of consensus about how specific this should be. Some respondents also mentioned that more general educational guidance would be beneficial.

Several respondents identifying as both members of the public and farming businesses suggested that training in traditional management techniques was needed.

A small number of respondents, identifying as farming businesses and members of the public, highlighted the cultural importance of hedgerows and their contribution to the character of the landscape.

Key stakeholders

The NFU would like to see future policy broaden the scope of protection to hedges not currently covered by the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. They also believe that positive environmental steps should be delivered via ELMs rather than regulation.

Those identifying as farming businesses, though supportive of future protections, stressed that these needed to be properly incentivised as restoring, maintaining and planting hedgerows was costly for farmers.

RSPB and Wild Justice responses were keen to see more ambitious policy relating to planting and maintenance, particularly the management of hedgerows in an environmentally friendly manner and to dissuade the practice of flailing.

Government response and next steps

The purpose of this question was to gauge where stakeholders thought we should focus our ambitions for future hedgerow protections. As such, all of the responses were read and forwarded to the appropriate policy teams to aid future policy thinking; they will not be actioned within the course of this legislative process.

Question 19: If we develop further protections, should we consider extending them to hedgerows outside of agricultural land? 

There was strong agreement with considering extending further regulations beyond agricultural land. 96% (8,378) of respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question and 2% (209) answered ‘no’. 1% (86) chose not to answer this question.

Whilst the farming sector were less in favour of this measure than the non-farming sector they still strongly supported it with 85% (731) saying “yes”.

2,176 of those agreeing that we should extend further protections outside of agricultural land were believed to be campaign responses.

Graph 10: If we develop further protections, should we consider extending them to hedgerows outside of agricultural land? 

Sector	Yes total	No total
Farming sector	85%	11%
Non-farming sector	98%	1%
Total	96%	2%

Those not responding have not been included due to the low sample size

Key themes

There was overwhelming support for hedgerow management measures being extended beyond agricultural land. Respondents felt that all hedgerows are beneficial to wildlife and the environment, irrespective as to their size or location, acting as wildlife corridors and habitats for a variety of species. Views were largely that all hedges are important and should all be subject to the same rules, including domestic hedgerows, public parks, industrial estates, and land owned by local authorities. They felt protection of existing hedgerows should be working alongside the creation of new ones to slow the reduction of biodiversity.

Some respondents suggested raising public awareness of the benefits of hedgerows and how to manage them would be beneficial, encouraging people to keep or plant hedgerows rather than lower maintenance features that offer fewer or no environmental benefits. Several also recommended the provision of financial incentives and grants to encourage additional planting.

Whilst supportive of the same protections being extended to land outside of agriculture, many respondents expressed concerns over how this could be effectively enforced. Views were that enforcement was a key part and that any fines or actions should be sufficiently high to act as a deterrent.  

Key stakeholders

All but one of the key stakeholders were in agreement that protections should be extended beyond agricultural land. CLA were the only one who were unsure and stated that they would need more information on the scope and impacts before establishing a position.

NFU were supportive of extending protections to land outside of agricultural saying ‘wildlife does not discriminate between hedgerows in scope and not in scope of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997’.

RSPB would welcome the extension of hedgerow protections to hedgerows outside of agricultural land. This would be a ‘no regrets’ step towards meeting England’s biodiversity and carbon targets.

Government response and next steps

All of the responses to this question were read and forwarded to appropriate policy teams to aid policy thinking about future protections for hedgerows. This legislative process will not enable the extension of protections for hedgerows beyond agricultural land.

Proposed enforcement measures common themes (Questions 20-24)

For the questions relating to enforcement, there were a lot of identical or very similar responses. This was partly owing to campaign responses (see Annex 2), but there were some strong common themes across questions 20-24 as to how respondents felt enforcement of the rules should work. We have, therefore, summarised most enforcement question responses together to provide a cohesive picture and avoid repetition.

Sanctions

Overall, there was a high level of support for introducing a combination of enforcement mechanisms to create a fair, proportionate system that does not further burden farmers. This included support for the introduction of Civil Sanctions, namely Stop Notices, Compliance Notices, Restoration Notices, Variable Monetary Penalties and Fixed Monetary penalties.

Many supported the proposed enforcement measures in principle but expressed a desire to know more about how they would work in practice. There was a strong feeling, mainly amongst non-farmers, that the regulator must have sufficient powers to issue strong penalties for those people damaging hedgerows.

There was a commonly held view that civil sanctions in the form of stop, compliance and restoration notices should be used, but go further and be accompanied by hefty fines as a deterrent.

Another commonly held view was that timely follow up checks would be a vital part of the proposed mechanism to ensure appropriate actions had been taken. Concerns were raised over the practicalities of these checks and how important it was for the regulatory body to have sufficient resources to be able to carry out these checks at the right time.

Concern was expressed about how important it is to have a clear appeals mechanism, available at all stages of enforcement, including who would arbitrate the appeals process.

More details of responses to the Variable and Fixed Monetary penalties can be found below under the question specific sections (Q23 and Q24).

Regulator

Many respondents missed that the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) were named in the consultation as the regulator, and raised questions about who would enforce, as well as making comments relating to other regulatory bodies, and whether they would have sufficient experience, resources, and funding to carry out their role effectively.

With effective enforcement in mind, a small number of respondents suggested a new regulator should be established, independent of government, to monitor and enforce hedgerow management.

Alternative suggestions

Some respondents felt that education, understanding, collaboration and guidance should be used before civil sanctions are imposed. This group believed that land managers should be encouraged and incentivised to responsibly manage hedgerows.

Payments to farmers to maintain hedges was raised by several respondents as an option, rather than penalising them after the harmful action has taken place. This was a view mainly expressed by respondents identifying as farm businesses, although not exclusively.

Planting or restoring more hedgerow than the length damaged was also suggested as an alternative to penalties or notices.

Key stakeholders

NFU would like more information as to how the range of sanctions would be used. They are supportive of proportionate sanctions including notices if they are issued in an appropriate timeframe to support farmers. They indicated that post inspection dialogue would help farmers understand what has been found and how to rectify the issue. They did, however, express concern there may be additional burden on the farmer to evidence compliance.

All key stakeholders were in favour of a proportionate set of sanctions that can be used in combination with each other to encourage desired outcomes, with education at the centre of any new process.

CLA felt that the Variable Monetary Penalties (VMP) should be linked to the value of the land or wealth of the perpetrator.

CPRE believed the preferred option of a range of tools would be necessary to deliver the protections needed for hedgerows (prior to compromising activity and following on from said act).

Government response and next steps

We have taken all views into consideration, and we intend to introduce an enforcement mechanism to support the new regulation which will look very different from that seen under previous regimes. Advice and guidance will be the default approach to enforcement to help farmers and land managers adopt the best hedgerow management practices, become compliant with the new legislation, and focus on outcomes.

We also intend to introduce some Civil Sanctions into the legislation, namely Stop Notices, Compliance Notices, Restoration Notices and Variable Monetary Penalties. These will allow the RPA, as the regulator, to take proportionate and effective actions where necessary to ensure that hedgerows continue to be protected, including by providing advice and guidance as the first intervention where appropriate. 

Criminal sanctions will also be part of the new legislation to enable the RPA to take appropriate actions against anyone causing serious or repeated damage. There was some support in the consultation for Fixed Monetary Penalties, however there was also a strong theme throughout that the new enforcement mechanism must be proportionate. Fixed Monetary Penalties have been described as a blunt tool which does not allow for proportionality. Therefore, on balance, we have decided not to include them in the new legislation,

As part of introducing the enforcement actions, the RES Act requires Defra to consult on the proposed enforcement measures, including the Civil Sanctions. We will therefore run a small additional consultation once legislation is in place. In this consultation we will set out in detail how the RPA will use the enforcement sanctions and we will work with industry and key stakeholders to shape the new enforcement regime to ensure it is fair and achieves the desired outcomes.

Question 20: Do you agree Stop Notices should be introduced, prohibiting a person from continuing a harmful activity?

There was strong support for the introduction of stop notices, 96% (8,334) of respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question and only 3% (224) answered ‘no’. 1% (115) or respondents chose not to respond. There were 2,160 responses that agreed with the introduction of stop notices flagged as possible campaign responses.

Both farming and non-farming sectors strongly agreed with the introduction of stop notices, but the degree to which they agreed differed with 76% (654) of farmers agreeing versus 98% (7,153) of non-farmers.

Graph 11: Do you agree stop notices should be introduced, prohibiting a person from continuing a harmful activity? 

Sector	Yes total	No total
Farming sector	76%	20%
Non-farming sector	98%	1%
Total	96%	3%

Those choosing not to answer this question have not been included due to the low sample sizes

Question 21: Do you agree Compliance Notices should be introduced, requiring a non-compliant person to undertake certain actions to bring themselves back into compliance?

Similar to question 20, there was strong support for the introduction of compliance notices with 96% (8,335) of respondents answering ‘yes’ to this question and 3% (223) answering ‘no’ and 1% (115) chose not to respond.

Both farming sector and non-farming sector responses agreed that compliance notices should be introduced, with 77% (655) of farming sector saying “yes” compared with 98% (7,151) of non-farming sector. 2,164 of those agreeing with the introduction of compliance notices were flagged as possible campaign responses.

Graph 12: Do you agree compliance notices should be introduced, requiring a non-compliant person to undertake certain actions to bring themselves back into compliance?

Sector	Yes total	No total
Farming sector	77%	20%
Non-farming sector	98%	1%
Total	96%	3%

Those choosing not to answer this question have not been included due to the low sample sizes

Question 22: Do you agree Restoration Notices should be introduced to rectify any harms resulting from non-compliance?

Support for the introduction of restoration notices was high with 96% (8,335) of respondents answering ‘yes’ to this question, and 1% (115) chose not to answer the question.

The introduction of restoration notices was supported by 78% (664) of farming sector responses and 98% (7,168) of non-farming sector responses, making this the most supported measure by the farming sector, although only by a very small margin. 2,159 of those agreeing with the introduction of restoration notices were flagged as possible campaign responses.

Graph 13: Do you agree restoration notices should be introduced to rectify any harms resulting from non-compliance?

Sector	Yes total	Not total
Farming sector	77.7%	18.2%
Non-farming sector	98.4%	0.3%
Total	96.2%	2.1%

Those choosing not to answer this question have not been included due to the low sample sizes

Question 23: Do you agree Variable Monetary Penalties should be introduced, increasing in value relative to the severity of actual harm?

Whilst there was still stronger general support for the introduction of variable monetary penalties than other measures there was slightly lower support for this measure. 93% (8,046) of total respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question, and 2% (149) chose not to answer the question.

There was a more pronounced difference between agreement from farming and non-farming sectors with 63% (537) of farming sector responses supporting this measure versus 93% (7,003) of non-farming sector responses. 2,142 of those agreeing with the introduction of variable monetary penalties were flagged as possible campaign responses.

Graph 14: Do you agree variable monetary penalties should be introduced, increasing in value relative to the severity of actual harm?

Sector	Yes total	No total
Farming sector	63%	32%
Non-farming sector	96%	2%
Total	93%	5%

Those choosing not to answer this question have not been included due to the low sample sizes

Key themes

Although the above graph shows there was a lot of support for Variable Monetary Penalties (VMPs), most respondents felt that restorative actions would be more appropriate than financial penalties. They felt that VMPs may not be a deterrent to larger landowners who may factor any monetary fine into their business overheads.

Some felt that the enforcement costs would be too great and the system too bureaucratic and would not incentivise good behaviour.

A large number, (predominantly campaign respondents) felt that a combination of enforcement sanctions were necessary including the follow-up monitoring and maintenance of the re-established hedgerow. They also believed the sanctions should extend further than the agricultural community.

Respondents also made comments about the use of financial penalties, their justification, and how or when they might be applied. Most felt that any penalty should reflect the level of damage done, remaining cognisant of individual circumstances of the offence and perpetrator. Several felt that they should be used as a last resort whilst others believed any fine would need to outstrip any monetary gain from the offence, and therefore, be set extremely high.

Using monies received from VMPs to plant or upkeep more hedges or to fund the enforcement process was also a common suggestion.

Others suggested that the penalty should be greater for repeat offenders, whilst a few felt that repeat offenders should be given criminal or custodial sentences or environmental community duties in local wildlife trusts or community groups.  

Question 24: Do you agree fixed monetary penalties should be introduced, and used at the discretion of the regulator?

Whilst there was support for fixed monetary penalties (FMP) used at the discretion of the regulator at the total level with 78% (6,790) of respondents answering ‘yes’ to this question there was a strong difference between farming and non-farming sector responses. Only 49% (419) of farming sector responses supported this measure compared with 78% (5,951) of non-farming sector responses. 1,995 of those agreeing with the introduction of fixed monetary penalties used at the discretion of the regulator were flagged as possible campaign responses, and 4% (341) chose not to answer the question.

This was the least well supported form of penalty overall and across sectors, particularly amongst the farming sector.

Graph 15: Do you agree fixed monetary penalties should be introduced, and used at the discretion of the regulator?

Sector	Yes total	No total	Not answered total
Farming sector	49%	45%	2%
Non-farming sector	82%	14%	4%
Total	78%	17%	4%

Key themes

In response to this question, the suitability of Fixed Monetary Penalties (FMPs) as an enforcement mechanism and when and how they should be applied were key themes raised. Respondents from the farming sector generally felt that FMPs were not appropriate. Some of these thought VMPs were a better option as they believed them to be more proportionate to the level of harm caused.

A smaller number of non-farming respondents felt that an FMP would not be large enough to deter offending, some of which felt that a criminal sanction would be more appropriate.

There were also a number of respondents who felt that FMPs should be applied only in specific cases which were easy to assess. However, there was feeling that these fines should be large – £5,000 or over – in order to be effective.   

Key stakeholders

There was greater concern around FMPs than other enforcement sanctions from the key stakeholders mostly focusing on fairness, proportionality and the regulator’s ability to effectively monitor compliance.

Question 25: Please give us any comments you have on the tool, including suggestions on how we could improve it.

More than 50% of respondents commented on the format and content of the consultation document. Most of those felt that it was easy to use, whilst others suggested ways in which it could have been improved. These comments were passed back to the policy team responsible, who will take this feedback on board and consider it for any future consultations. The majority of the remaining responses repeated views which had been expressed in response to other questions in consultation.

Government response and next steps

The comments made in this section were fed back to the consultation team to help improve future consultations that Defra launch in the future.

Annex 1: organisational responses

Organisations and stakeholder groups were able to submit responses to the consultation on behalf of their members. These responses were received online through Citizen Space and by email. This list summarises those organisations we identified as submitting responses. It is not exhaustive.

Amphibian & Reptile Groups of the UK

Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC)

Ancient Tree Forum

Bat Conservation Trust

Boston Spa, Wetherby & Villages Community Green Group

British Association of Shooting and Conservation

Butterfly Conservation

Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV)

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists or Council for British Archaeology

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

Cornwall Wildlife Trust

Country Land and Business Association

CPRE The Countryside Charity

CPRE Staffordshire

CPRE Norfolk

CPRE Shropshire

CPRE Somerset

Cranborne Chase AONB

Devon Hedge Group

EarthShare CIC

Essex County Council

Fawkham Parish Council

Friends of the Lake District

Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust

Greater London Authority

Hazlerigg Parish Council

HedgeLink

Heritage Alliance

Hertfordshire County Council

Historic England

Kent County Council

Lichfield District Council

Littleham and Landcross Parish Council

Malvern Hills Trust

Mendlesham Parish Council

National Association for AONBs

National Association Local Councils

National Association of Agricultural Contractors (NAAC)

National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs

National Trust

Nature Friendly Farming Network (NFFN)

Nature Watch Group

National Farmers’ Union (NFU)

North York Moors National Park Authority

Open Spaces Society

People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES)

Plantlife

Queen Thorne Parish Council

South Downs National Park

Stokenham Parish Council

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA)

The Heritage Alliance

The Royal Horticultural Society

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Tree Council

UK Environmental Law Association

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Wildlife and Countryside Link (WCL)

West Sussex County Council

Westmorland and Furness Council

Wickham Bishops Parish Council

Wildlife Trusts

Withyham Parish Council

Woodland Trust

Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service and Landscape and Conservation, Worcestershire County Council

Yorkshire Dales Rivers Trust

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

Annex 2: about the analysis

It is important to keep in mind that public consultations are not necessarily representative of the wider population. Since anyone can submit their views, individuals and organisations who are more able and willing to respond are more likely to participate.

Because of this likelihood for self-selection, the approach of this analysis has been to combine quantitative and qualitative data collection with the aim being to understand how different respondents held particular views, to understand the range of key issues raised by respondents, and the reasons for holding their particular views. This includes potential areas of agreement and disagreement between different groups of respondents.

In presenting the results, we have aimed to provide a broad picture of all views and comments. Therefore, a range of qualitative terms are used, including ‘many’, ‘some’, ‘most’ and ‘a view’. Interpretation of the balance of opinion must be taken in the context of the question asked, as not every respondent answered all the questions, and not every respondent who provided an answer to a closed question provided additional detail. In this respect, qualitative terms are only indicative of relative opinions to questions on the basis of who responded. Therefore, they cannot be assumed to relate numerically back to the total number of people and organisations.

The objective of a meaningful consultation is to be as inclusive as possible and we encouraged everyone who cares about hedgerows – including farmers, stakeholder organisations and members of the public – to share their views on our plans. Respondents were able to submit responses online via Citizen Space, as well as by email and by post. Details of how we brought together and analysed this data is discussed further below.

Citizen Space

Online responses were analysed individually.

The qualitative part of the responses (where respondents had added free text) for each question were read and then coded depending on the themes being discussed by respondents. A code is a word or short phrase that assigns a theme which captures the essence of a portion of text enabling us to understand the different views expressed by respondents.

Quantitative responses (responses to the closed questions) were statistically analysed. Data were collated within a spreadsheet and ‘cleaned’ to ensure they were formatted into suitable categories for quantitative analysis. Responses to the question about country location were assessed and amended where respondents had entered free-text responses that did not correspond to a singular country. Border farms were aggregated into one category, and other responses were converted to a national scale i.e. England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. Any responses indicating countries outside of the United Kingdom were aggregated into the ‘Other’ category.

Sector category was amended where participants had described their role in the industry. Where respondents self-identified as farm advisors, farm businesses or farm supply chain, for example, they were aggregated into the ‘Farmer’ category. Any respondents not directly self-identifying as working within the farming sector, for example members of NGOs or the general public were aggregated into the ‘Non-Farmer’ category.

Duplicate responses were identified using conditional formatting to highlight responses submitted using the same email address. 297 were found to have the same email address as another response and reviewed. These were then corroborated with the name of respondents, to identify those instances where multiple respondents shared a single email address for submissions, and these were regarded as separate responses.

The duplicate responses were then flagged in our dataset and additional flags were added to count the number of submissions per respondent and their occurrence. These submissions were assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine which response should be included in analysis. This decision was made according to the time interval between submissions – where participants may have forgotten they had already submitted a response, their most recent response was taken as a reflection of their most current opinion. Overall, 134 responses were identified as duplicates and removed from further analysis.

Issues with CitizenSpace

There were some issues identified with the set-up of the CitizenSpace survey for the first few days of the consultation period.

For question 11, there was initially no free text comment box available. This meant respondents were only able to add a yes or no response to the question but no additional comment. This was identified and fixed on 3rd July 2023 and only affected the first 423 respondents. It did not affect the quantitative analysis for this question.  

For questions 20 to 24, there was initially an additional multiple-choice option for respondents which meant they were able to answer ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Comment’. This was identified and fixed on 6 July 2023 and affected the first 544 respondents. Over the 5 questions, the ‘Comment’ option was selected 143 times. We have looked closely at the affected responses and this issue does not affect the outcome of the analysis for any individual question, the overall analysis, or our decisions on how to take enforcement forward.

Email and post

Responses could be submitted directly by email or post. These were analysed using the same approach as those responses submitted via Citizen Space.

Annex 3: sample demographics

Sector breakdowns 

Respondents were asked the question “Which of these sectors do you most align yourself or your organisation with?”

The farm sector was comprised of farm businesses, farm advisors, and farm supply chains. The majority of those that were analysed as farming sector respondents were farm businesses comprising 80% (723) of this sub-sample. Farm advisors were 17% (155) of this sector and respondents identifying as farm supply chain were 3% (26).

Graph 16: Breakdown of farming sector respondents by sub-sectors

Sector	Count	%
Farm business	723	80%
Farm advisor	155	17%
Farm supply chain	26	3%

The non-farm sector were comprised of those that identified as representing a number of other sub-sectors. The full list and numbers can be seen in the table below.

Table 17: Breakdown of non-farming sector respondents by sub-sectors

Sector	Count	%
Member   of the general public	6,757	89%
Non-governmental   organisation	383	5%
Public body	222	3%
Academic body	129	2%
Manufacturing industry	39	1%
Retail industry	37	0%
Trade body	22	0%

A total of 639 respondents gave an answer of “other”. They are included in question analysis at the total level, but not included in the sector breakdowns. Similarly, 82 respondents did not provide any answer to this question. These respondents were again included in question analysis at the total level, but not included in the sector breakdowns.

Enterprise

A number of different farming enterprises were represented amongst the farming sector responses. Lowland grazing livestock were the most represented at 23% (411) and specialist poultry the least represented (27). It should be noted that respondents could select more than response for this question leading to a greater number of farm enterprises being represented that there were farmers.

Graph 18: Breakdown of farm enterprises represented

Enterprise	Count	%
Lowland grazing livestock	411	23%
Other	308	17%
Cereals	294	16%
Mixed	231	13%
General cropping	189	11%
Horticulture	115	6%
Less Favoured Areas (LFA) grazing livestock	114	6%
Dairy	77	4%
Specialist pigs	29	2%
Specialist poultry	27	2%

Location

Respondents were asked “In which part of the United Kingdom are you based?”. The majority of respondents, 59% (5,153), selected England. Responses were received from across the UK, but at typically much lower levels than those form England. This is expected as the consultation focuses on regulations that will apply to England only.

Respondents were able to write in the area in the UK that they were based. A reasonable number chose to write in answers with 33% (2,852) writing in “United Kingdom” and 1% (74) opting to write in a range of other answers such as “Cornwall” or “Great Britain”.

All responses were included in the consultation analysis, with no one being excluded based on their given location.

Graph 19: Breakdown respondent locations

Country	Count	%
England	5,153	59%
United Kingdom	2,852	33%
Wales	293	3%
Scotland	262	3%
Other	74	1%
Northern Ireland	34	0%
Non-Responder	24	0%

Annex 4: campaigns

Approximately 2,289 of the responses received were believed to have been influenced by suspected campaigns organised by RSPB and Wild Justice. This equates to 26% of total analysed consultation responses, of which 22% (1,939) came from Wild Justice and 4% (350) from RSPB.

In this summary of responses, we refer to campaign responses when organisations coordinated responses with their members. These were typically based on standard wordings or templates provided by the campaign organiser and submitted via Citizen Space. Campaign responses were identified from the inclusion of some standard campaign text. This was done through a process of manual searches during the process of reading through every response submitted to the consultation.

In these campaign responses, respondents could submit standard wording as their response. These responses are referred to as standard campaign responses. Alternatively, respondents could edit a campaign template, add their own comments, or provide information that supported the standard campaign response. These responses are referred to as non-standard campaign responses. We have summarised these additional points of value alongside standard campaign responses. Campaign responses were analysed in the same way as individual responses and are summarised alongside.

Although a large number of responses were identified as being part of a campaign, due to the high level of personalisation of some responses, and lack of self-identification, this number is a conservative figure. Therefore, the figures quoted for each campaign in this document are also conservative, based on the number of responses containing standard campaign text.

Annex 5: overview of schemes

We want to make the most of the benefits existing hedgerows offer to wildlife, water quality and carbon sequestration. That is why, alongside regulation, we are ensuring that our Environmental Land Management schemes recognise the importance of hedgerows.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Under the Sustainable Farming Incentive, we have introduced a new hedgerow standard which focuses on improving management to provide well-developed hedgerows and hedgerow trees.

This standard contains actions to assess and record hedgerow condition (HRW1), manage hedgerows on a rotational basis (HRW2) and maintain or establish hedgerow trees (HRW3).

Together, these actions aim to help farmers to understand and plan management of their hedges, provide habitat and resources for wildlife and provide carbon storage.

Countryside Stewardship

Through Countryside Stewardship, we already pay for the management of hedgerows by rotational cutting and leaving some hedgerows uncut (BE3), restorative pruning of fruit trees (BE7) and capital grants to plant and restore hedgerows.

We also pay to enhance hedgerows by extending buffer strips from the regulated 2m, to either 4m or 6m (SW1). There are also schemes which pay to manage hedgerows for the benefit of certain species, including wildfowl and waders (GS 9,10 and11).