Introduction

The consultation on the regulatory approach and use of civil sanctions for hedgerow management regulations ran for 6 weeks from 29 October to 10 December 2024. It set out the Government’s proposed approach to using the civil sanctions detailed in the Management of Hedgerows (England) Regulations 2024 (the Regulations) and accompanying statutory guidance. This consultation also covered aspects of the regulatory approach such as appeals, and the proportionality of enforcement actions.

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 175 responses, of which 167 were received through the online Citizen Space survey and 8 were received by email. 17 responses were sent on behalf of an organisation. These are listed in Annex 1. Many of these organisations are umbrella groups and have responded on behalf of their member organisations and individuals.

Two responses were identified as duplicates and excluded from the analysis. The figures used throughout this report are therefore based on a total sample of 173 responses. More detail on the approach to analysis and demographics can be found in Annex 2 and 3 respectively.

Summary of Responses

Question 1: Do you agree with our proposed approach to the application of civil sanctions?

68.8% of respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question and 31.2% answered ‘no’. While farming sector respondents were almost twice as likely to respond ‘no’ than non-farming sector respondents, over 60% of them still responded positively to this question.

Many of the comments from respondents in the farming sector state the approach is too heavy-handed, broad-brush, bureaucratic or punitive. Others in the sector encourage greater trust in farmers’ ability to manage their own hedgerows.

Responses from non-governmental organisations and members of the public raise concerns that the penalties do not adequately reflect the seriousness of environmental harms and that the ‘advice and guidance-first’ approach is too lenient, given that farmers are already aware of the current rules. ​Some suggest sanctions should be balanced out with educational initiatives and biodiversity monitoring.

Graph 1: Do you agree with our proposed approach to the application of civil sanctions?

	Yes %	No %
Farming sector	61.05	38.95
Non-farming sector	78.21	21.79
All	68.79	31.21

Key stakeholders

Key stakeholders who answered this question directly were split 50% in favour and 50% against.

Some of the stakeholders were supportive of an advice and guidance led approach (CLA, NFU), others were not supportive of this approach (PTES, Wildlife and Countryside Link, RSPB, Woodland Trust). Reasons for not supporting this approach included that most farmers are well versed in the rules, and that it would be a weakening of enforcement compared with the previous cross compliance requirements linked to scheme payments.

Some responses expressed concern about the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ requirement for using civil sanctions (PTES, Wildlife and Countryside Link, Hedgelink, Woodland Trust).

Some stakeholders were uncertain about the design, purpose or application of stop, compliance and restoration notices, or asked for changes in how they are used (PTES, Hedgelink, RSPB, NFU). There was also a desire for clarification on calculations for variable monetary penalties (VMP) (PTES, Hedgelink, NFU).

Government response

In line with the majority of consultation responses, the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) intend to maintain the outlined approach to civil sanctions.

While the majority of respondents were supportive of an advice and guidance led approach, some concerns were raised about what this meant in practice. We intend to implement an advice and guidance led approach, balancing advisory and other enforcement actions for more serious and/or repeat offences. Each case will be assessed individually taking into account a number of factors to determine the most appropriate, fair and proportionate action. This could result in a civil or criminal sanction being issued for a first offence where appropriate. We have updated the statutory guidance to clarify this.

Although this is a new domestic law, the rules are very similar to the cross-compliance rules that were previously in place. Most of the agricultural sector should therefore have a reasonable awareness of these rules and this may also be a factor taken into consideration by the regulatory oversight panel when deciding the best course of enforcement action. As with all offences, each case will be considered individually on its facts.

Several responses raised a concern that the bar is set too high for issuing civil sanctions by saying we must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ is a requirement set out in law for the issue of compliance notices, restoration notices and VMPs and therefore cannot be altered. Stop notices have a different level of proof requiring only a ‘reasonable belief that an offence has been or is likely to be committed’. We have updated the statutory guidance to clarify this.

Question 2: Do you agree with our proposed approach to appeals?

80.92% of respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question, 19.08% answered ‘no’. 64% of negative responses were given by farm businesses and advisors. The views of farming sector and non-farming sector respondents were less divergent on this question, with 77.89% of farming sector respondents responding positively compared to 84.62% of non-farming sector respondents.

Comments on this question from the farming sector are similar to those on Question 1, citing concerns about bureaucracy and government overreach. Several comments also expressed concerns about the time and expense (for example legal costs) of lodging an appeal. There are also blanket objections to the sanctions themselves and scepticism over the qualification of people overseeing the appeals process. Other comments from respondents outside the farming sector raised concerns that having an appeals process would increase the likelihood of non-compliance and/or deprioritise conservation and biodiversity.

Graph 2: Do you agree with our proposed approach to appeals?

	Yes %	No %
Farming sector	77.89	22.11
Non-farming	84.62	15.38
All	80.92	19.08

Key stakeholders

Key stakeholders who answered this question directly were 100% in favour.

One stakeholder thought that an express statutory body may be beneficial in considering appeals for the cases of the most serious breaches (UKELA).

Government response

In line with the majority of consultation responses, RPA intend to maintain the outlined approach to appeals. The appeals process to the First-tier tribunal is set out in separate legislation and is out of scope of this consultation.

We will endeavour to ensure that the process for representations, objections and offers of undertakings made to RPA are as streamlined as possible, taking a fair and consistent approach.

Question 3: Do you agree with our proposed approach to publishing details of enforcement actions taken?

74.57% of respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question, 25.43% answered ‘no’. This question had the biggest gap between farming sector and non-farming sector respondents, with 92.31% of non-farming sector respondents supporting the approach compared to just 60% of farming sector respondents, a 32.31% difference.

A recurring objection is that the proposed approach to publishing would include unnecessary detail where less would suffice. Most of these objections reflect a fear among farmers around potential ‘naming and shaming’ of offenders and concerns about maintaining privacy. Some comments from the non-farming sector echoed this sentiment, expressing concerns about unnecessary details becoming public and urging a softer approach.

Graph 3: Do you agree with our proposed approach to publishing details of enforcement actions taken?

	Yes	No
Farming sector	60	40
Non-farming sector	92.31	7.69
All	74.57	25.43

Key stakeholders

Key stakeholders who answered this question were in favour but requested further clarification on the content of published data.

Government response

While most respondents support this approach, there is a clear concern from many in the farming sector that individuals and businesses will be named and shamed, if they break the rules.

Publishing details of enforcement actions taken does not mean naming individuals. The Regulations require publication of the number of cases where a civil sanction has been imposed, and where a variable monetary penalty (VMP), restoration notice, or compliance notice have been accepted. This will not include information which can be used to identify individuals.

RPA will follow the Regulators’ Code and RPA Regulators’ Code on sharing personal data.

Common themes about the statutory guidance

A recurring theme within comments on the statutory guidance is concern over a lack of detail on how the Regulations will be enforced.

Some respondents were worried that the enforcement processes were not robust enough, potentially leading to the requirements of the Regulations being ignored. Others were more concerned about how the enforcement of different civil sanctions would impact them.

Some responses expressed concern about how RPA plans to monitor compliance. Key NGO stakeholders wanted clarity on how RPA will spot breaches and are concerned that there will be an over-reliance on reporting by the public. This could have a disproportionate effect on farms in more populated areas. Comments suggested establishing a mechanism through which the public can report incidences of non-compliance, and RPA publishing their rationale for which premises they plan to visit.

A further recurring theme was a need for greater clarity of language in the statutory guidance.

There was a consensus among environmental NGOs that the term ‘serious’, as in serious damage or serious harm, was ill defined in the statutory guidance.

A number of the responses requested that RPA implement a review period for the Regulations, in order to assess whether or not we have produced the desired deterrent effect, and sanctions are being used appropriately.

Government response

RPA has provided further clarification and refined and added to the examples in the statutory guidance to demonstrate how enforcement will work in practice.

Part 5 of the Regulations requires the Secretary of State to review the enforcement aspects of the Regulations, as well as all issuable notices, at least 3 years after the Regulations came into force. The rules themselves (referred to as regulatory provisions in the Regulations) must be reviewed every 5 years.

Additionally, RPA will regularly review the effectiveness of any advice and sanctions issued and may choose to adjust our approach accordingly to ensure outcomes are being achieved.

RPA operates a referral process where members of the public and any other interested bodies can telephone email or write to inform us of potential offences. Full details on how to do this can be found in the ‘Report of a Suspected Breach of the Rules’ sections at Hedgerow management rules: cutting and trimming and Hedgerow management rules: buffer strips.

Currently, RPA operate a reactive visit regime based on referral information received. Referrals of potential offences are all assessed and triaged to ensure our approach is proportionate and fair. Additionally, we aim to monitor and support compliance through risk-based activity covering all of England. This includes minimising the burden of site visits by taking an evidence-based approach, utilising intelligence data analysis, geospatial monitoring and compliance history to address priority risks. This will be used to help inform any risk selections we may make and target areas we need to cover.

We have used plain English standards across the statutory guidance wherever possible. However, due to legal requirements there is some terminology we are unable to change.

Additional points out of scope of this consultation

Several responses commented on the rules and the Regulations. The rules were consulted on in 2023 and the results were used to inform the content of the Regulations. The Management of Hedgerows (England) Regulations 2024 has been law since May 2024 and therefore any such comments are out of scope of this consultation and do not form part of the analysis.

Some respondents commented on how the penalties should be linked to scheme payments. Although the rules are similar to rules that applied to scheme claimants under cross compliance, the Regulations are domestic law and must be followed by everyone irrespective of whether they are claiming any subsidies. Non-compliance will be dealt with under the law using the suite of tools available.

Enforcement Cost Recovery Notices

The Regulations enable RPA to issue Enforcement Cost Recovery Notices (ECRNs), which allow us to charge for the costs we incur in relation to enforcing these Regulations. As stated in the statutory guidance we do not intend to serve ECRNs initially, as we do not yet have a full picture of likely enforcement costs, but this position will be kept under review. If we decide to bring into force the relevant provisions in future, we will issue further guidance.

Next steps

All responses to the consultation have been carefully considered and the statutory guidance has been updated to address as many of the points raised as possible. This is indicated in the relevant sections above.

The revised statutory guidance will now be published, and RPA will enforce the Regulations, including the use of civil sanctions where appropriate in line with this guidance.

The Regulations and use of civil and criminal sanctions will be reviewed as detailed above.

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.

Banwell Parish Council

Bats Conservation Trust

Colwall Parish Council

Country Land and Business Association (CLA)

CPRE Kent

Dart Harbour Communities Group

Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group South West

Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust

Hedgelink

National Farmers Union (NFU)

People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES)

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Staffordshire County Council

The Woodland Trust

UK Environmental Law Association

Wildlife and Countryside Link

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

Annex 2: about the analysis

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 using Citizen Space, as well as by email and post.

Annex 3: characteristic questions

Location

Respondents were asked ‘In which part of the United Kingdom are you based?’. Respondents were able to select more than one location answer for this question, resulting in 189 responses in total.

The majority of respondents, 90% (171), selected England. Responses were received from across the UK, but at typically much lower levels than those from England. This is expected as the consultation focuses on regulations that will apply to England only. While some organisations which operate across the UK responded only on behalf of their English members, others reflected the views of their whole membership.

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

Graph 4: breakdown of location

	Count	Percentage
England	171	90
Scotland	7	4
Wales	7	4
Northern Ireland	4	2

Sector breakdowns 

Respondents were asked the question ‘Which of these sectors do you most align yourself or your organisation with?’ and were able to select a single answer. 52% (90) of respondents were from farm businesses, with the next two biggest respondent groups being members of the public (27) and, public bodies and local authorities (19).

Thirteen respondents chose ‘Other’ as their sector. Six of these have been reclassified as farm businesses due to their description given, while another 6 can grouped together as ‘Forestry and hedge management’. The remaining respondent described their business as carbon management. These last 2 groups have stayed in the count as ‘Other’, as their described categories do not fit within the given list.

Graph 5: breakdown of sector

	Count	Percentage
Academic body	1	0.5
Equestrian body	3	2
Farm advisor	11	6
Farm business	90	52
Member of the general public	27	16
NGO	13	7.5
Other	7	4
Public body or local authority	19	11
Trade body	2	1