Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 54a:

In page 18, line 18, after “road” to insert the following:

“and, in the opinion of the owner, is dangerous to persons using the public road on account of its age or condition”.

On amendment No. 54, the purpose of exempting trees within 10 m of a public road is for reasons of public safety. This is particularly important when trees become dangerous due to their age or condition or as a result of ground suitability. Deputies will recall that during the storms earlier this year, trees fell on public roads throughout the country because the ground was waterlogged and could not support their weight. The provision in the Bill, as it stands, will allow landowners to manage trees adjoining public roads without the requirement to obtain felling licences. While I do not believe that what is proposed will lead to the widespread felling of all roadside trees, amendment No. 54a seeks to address concerns to the effect that the exemption from the felling licence regime in respect of all trees outside forests which are located within 10 m of public roads is too broad and could lead to the widescale removal of such trees. As the principal reason for exempting such trees relates to the safety of road users, I now propose to impose an additional requirement on landowners in order to ensure that only trees they reasonably consider to pose a threat to public safety can, on the grounds of age or condition, be removed without a licence.

On amendment No. 55, applying a size threshold in respect of the hawthorn and blackberry species would prove impractical and would place an unnecessary administrative burden on landowners and the Department, particularly during the period each year when hedge cutting traditionally takes place. As part of good agricultural practice and hedgerow management, farmers, without the need for regulation, leave individual trees, including the hawthorn and blackthorn species, alone.

I cannot accept amendment No. 56, which requires landowners to apply for felling licences in order to remove from hedgerows trees with trunks greater than 4 inches in diameter. Farmers have been cutting hedgerows for decades as part of normal agricultural practice. The provision in section 19 allows for the felling of trees for the purpose of trimming hedges but it does not provide for the removal of hedgerows. The purpose of the 20 cm threshold is to allow all trees with trunks of a smaller diameter to be felled, lopped or trimmed as part of good hedgerow management and to provide landowners with the flexibility to manage hedgerows without being required to obtain felling licences in respect of every tree. The removal of hedgerows is regulated by other legislative instruments such as the Wildlife Act and the regulations introduced by the European Union in 2011.

On amendments Nos. 57 and 58, the protection of hedgerows of historical, ecological or landscape significance was raised during consultations with environmental stakeholders. On Committee Stage, I introduced an amendment which was designed to address some of the concerns that were expressed in so far as was practical and appropriate in the context of the Bill before the House. The amendment to which I refer is reflected in section 192. I am introducing another amendment to the section in order to extend further the protection relating to certain classes of trees. I will comment further on that matter when we reach the amendment. I reiterate that the Bill does not relate to regulating the alteration or removal of hedgerows in general. The Wildlife Act and the Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) Regulations 2011 deal with this issue. There is no national register of hedgerows which are deemed to be of historical, ecological or landscape significance. In the absence of such a register, it would be the responsibility of a landowner to decide if a tree is located in a hedgerow of historical, ecological or landscape significance in order to determine if a felling licence is required to cut or remove a tree. While environmental stakeholders have suggested a set of criteria to assist landowners in identifying such hedgerows, the criteria are relatively complex and highly subjective and would place an unwanted administrative burden on both landowners and my Department. Furthermore, it would be impossible to prosecute any person alleged to have removed such a hedgerow after the event because, in light of the absence of a register, there would be no means of determining whether said hedgerow was of historical, ecological or landscape significance. Consequently, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 57 and 58.

On amendment No. 59, I recognise the importance of scrub woodlands as a reservoir for certain species and as areas of biodiversity. I also recognise that there are many benefits to encouraging the development of scrub woodlands. However, farmers must be allowed to leave fields in agricultural production if that is their choice. While I am keen to increase the level of forest cover, I must also acknowledge the importance of agricultural food production in this country. If an area of scrub woodland falls within the definition of what constitutes a forest as outlined in section 2 of the Bill, then a felling licence will be required in respect of the cutting or removal of any tree within that woodland. It would not be appropriate to categorise or define scrub as "agroforestry" within the terms of the Bill because this would imply that all scrub would be managed in association with agricultural activities. While some landowners may wish to pursue this model, others may wish, as is their right, to prevent scrub development in order to retain fields solely for agricultural production. There may also be individuals who may wish to retain scrub solely for conservation purposes.

As I indicated on Committee Stage, concerns were raised during consultations with stakeholders with regard to the need to ensure that larger, established trees in hedgerows and individual old or veteran trees will be protected under the felling licence regime. Amendment No. 60 seeks to extend the protection for trees within the environs of national monuments, archeological sites, protected areas and designated European sites and for those which are more than 150 years old. The amendment goes as far as is practically possible to address the concerns raised by Deputies Boyd Barrett and McNamara on Committee Stage, when I expressed an intention to provide an appropriate and workable balance. As stated previously, I do not want to include farmers and other landowners from felling, for example, trees that are in a dangerous condition or from continuing to manage appropriately and maintain hedgerows in accordance with good agricultural practice.

The provision requires that landowners may apply for felling licences if they wish to remove trees in designated or protected areas and, more generally, in the case of trees that are more than 150 years old. I do not believe that this will unduly restrict landowners in their activities. I am of the view, however, that the added protection in respect of veteran trees located in areas designated on the basis of their landscape, architectural or environmental value is important and I am pleased to make provision in respect of it within the legislation.

The purpose of amendment No. 60a is to ensure there is no ambiguity between the provisions of section 19 and any other legislative requirements governing the removal of trees. In other words, if restrictions are placed on the removal of trees by other legislation, the provisions of section 19 will not apply.

Amendment No. 66b is a technical amendment inserted by the Office of the Attorney General and involves the rewording of the text to make the intention of the subsection clearer. It does not alter the intention of the original text.

See this speech in context