Miss E Payne contacted the Society to see if we could give evidence of a practical kind to the above Committee. I was chosen to do so.

  I am Miss Valerie Greaves, of 17, Sandhills Road, Barnt Green, near Birmingham, a founder member and vice president of the Society. I was its publicity officer until increasing age (70+) made travelling all over the country, with our display, to shows ranging from the "Royal" ploughing matches and half day conservation events, too exhausting.

  I do actually lay hedges and have an ATB Proficiency Certificate for it, as well as having been placed in competition, including the National Championships.

  Born on a 100 acre farm, I helped from an early age, then at age 15, ran it as well as going to school, practical work, organising labour, paperwork and all (a 20 hour day) during my grandfather's illness and subsequent death, until its future was decided, months later. Until reaching its age limit I belonged to a local Young Farmers' Club and was a committee member.

  Ever since I have had contact with both agricultural and urban folk, hearing both sides of the hedge question from years before Mr Ainsworth's proposed Bill, and its successors.

  From the above you may feel I have some knowledge of the matter under discussion.

The Society's View

  The Society obviously wants hedges to survive, but we do not think stronger compulsion is the right way to go about it. That only antagonises farmers and landowners who were previously happy to retain most of their hedges where they did not make cultivation needlessly time consuming and expensive. It also makes them wonder about replanting, since if a field needed enlarging 30 years later (a short time in agriculture) it would be necessary to apply for permission to remove the hedge.

  It is worth considering that few other countries hedge round individual fields as we do. In spite of this they possess plenty of wildlife. Therefore, it is obvious that hedges, though attractive and desirable, are hardly essential for farming or wildlife.

Cries for Hedge Protection

  Since most cries for hedgerow protection come from well meaning, but ill informed people of urban origin we should start with basics, possibly using a "complete" dictionary, to give a more informed picture.

  The meaning of "hedge" as a row of bushes or low trees between fields, is in most cases, a recent one.

  In very early times it was fence of cut branches pushed into the ground to act as a defence against predators, e.g., wolves, or enemies. Sometimes these boughs rooted and became a living hedge.

  Field boundaries were often stones placed at corners, or a dug ditch with soil piled on one side as a bank. This was called a hedge.

  Since animals were herded on open ground in day time, and kept inside the village barrier (sometimes banked as well as "bushed") at night, secure field hedges were not needed.

  Later, in more settled times, the village hedge, or a row of bushes round part of a wood, were maintained as a source of building material, firewood, and, in bad winters, fodder for animals. Thus by our standards parts of them were regularly "damaged, lost or removed", nothing new.

  Later still, villages built over their earlier "hedges" as the population grew, or ploughed over the field banks to grow more food. Sometimes a "dead hedge" (branches cut and stuck in the ground) was built round the area where corn was grown that year, in case a herded animal left the group; or similar barrier was made round a wood by the "Lord of the Manor" to keep deer inside for him to hunt (See early paintings).

  Few "hedges" as we know them came before "enclosures" so the "ancient" or "historical" ones are not so numerous as the general public believe. Some Tudor enclosures were big, 100-600 acres, so our "prairie" fields of today are nothing new. Maps name many fields by their size, and "100 acre" is not that rare.

Hedge Dating

  Many folk follow the formula created by Dr M D Hooper (a biologist) and generally stated as "every species in a 30 yard length equals 100 years, (so five species = 500 years). This was in his book, 1974.

  Unfortunately, that is as far as they go, so "find" thousands of "ancient hedges". Had they looked at that book, or "Hedges and Local History" in which he writes a section, they would find that he only used 227 hedges for which he had documentary evidence, and that furthermore he admits flaws in this theory!

1.  Results can vary 200 years either way, e.g. you find 11 species and say hedge is 1,100 years old. It could date to 900 or 1,300! Four-hundred years difference is hardly accurate!

2.  Management of a hedge, by removing elderberry (which kills nearby bushes), (or poisonous plants) can alter the result.

3.  The number of species in a hedge depends on the number of species originally planted! Some 17th Century leases stipulated a variety of shrubs. This radically alters the result! (A 10 year old hedge planted with thorn, hazel, holly and blackthorn could be dated as 400 years old by an urban volunteer surveyor. Recently a Warwickshire group advertised for such volunteers).

4.  Documentary evidence must exist for the surveyed hedge to prove its age. Observe these points and again "ancient hedges" decrease in numbers.

A real example of applying the formula unthinkingly

A hedge dated this way is considered 500 years old. It runs along a railway not built till late 1800s. Trains in 1498? Actually, sparks from steam trains set parts on fire and the owner filled the gaps with any handy bush.

  This by the way holds good for hedges damaged due to discarded cigarettes, glass catching the sun, cars or lorries crashing through them or by straightening or widening roads in places etc.

Documentary evidence is difficult to find,but can be interesting

  Searching through an index in Birmingham Central Library, which starts at 700AD, there are many records of land deals or arguments or cases of damage. The work "hedge" occurs at times, but obviously means "bank", when it means "bushes" that is stated, and less than half a dozen occur till the end of 1700s.

Banks which are called Hedges

  Mr Hooper's colleague, Mr Hoskins, talks about boundaries made by digging a ditch and piling the soil on one side as a bank. He assumes hedge was planted on top. WHY? Devon/Cornwall turf or stone "hedges" (really banks) are seldom planted, "but acquire bushes by natural seeding. Sometimes these are trimmed as "hedges" but not always.

  These banks, round big fields in which were many strips (plots) belonging to the villagers, were far from immovable!

  The process for creating them was referred to as "digging down and stocking up". If more people lived in the village the boundary of the field was extended by moving the bank, though the field still kept its name! So beware!

  Crafty folk sometimes moved a bank at night to steal more land. Near me, the Lord of the Manor did this, and was arraigned in his own manorial court by his tenants, and forced to remake the boundary on the original site. (They had this right as it was the privilege of a Royal Manor).

  When land was enclosed, the owner had to create such a bank and plant bushes on top round his boundary. The presence of a ditch and bank therefore does not automatically indicate antiquity, as some enclosures were made as late as the latter part of the 1800's.

Hedge Removal on a Large Scale

  This was encouraged by the Government, when the change from horse power to tractor power made small fields difficult and expensive to manage "utilitarian forces created enclosures and are now destroying them. We must make the landscape contain as much beauty as it replaces". (Very different, but not worse).

  This has now slowed down. Grants have stopped. There was a flaw in the legislation. No one had the sense to set a limit on the unhedged field size so we got large Tudor style enlosures back! Had that been done, say 100-150 maximum size, there would have been no fuss now.

  However, hedgerow "loss" is not as much as the records suggest, since hedges with wide gaps are written down by many surveyors (shown on TV) as hedges "lost", "no longer viable", etc., when in fact a skilled craftsman could easily restore them by laying them"

  Ironically, should a farmer remove such a hedge, without getting permission, and someone reports it, the council will inspect, find that, including gaps, it is over 30 yards long, they are then likely, under present rules to prosecute the farmer for removing what is recorded as "lost". Rules want it both ways seemingly!

An Anomaly Distorting Records

  Strangely enough, if a council gives planning consent for a housing development, new roads, greenfield business park, supermarket with large car park, leisure complex, etc., THAT OVER- RIDES THE NEED TO GET CONSENT TO REMOVE HEDGES, so loss of hedges for non-agricultural purposes are not recorded! Here the general public who want these developments, are themselves responsible for hedge loss! But in their minds this does not register, they consider only landowners and farmers are guilty of such a crime! Why are town hedges excluded? Wildlife has more need of them there!

Seeking permission for removal

  Council planning departments (usually town ones, since many rural district councils have been absorbed into the urban ones) have 48 days to consider granting or refusing an application, and are asking for a longer period.

  The farmer has only 28 days to appeal against a decision.

  Both have to seek out "documentary evidence", but this is part of a normal day's work for the official. For the farmer it is an extra chore, necessitating him leaving day time farm work to visit libraries, record offices, etc., during their opening hours, then trying to catch up on ploughing shearing or whatever at night, and often in the dark.

  This is hardly fair, the farmer should have as much time or more as the council to do research.

  Another problem, seasons and pattern of work, (as "Rules for Hedge Management below") control what farmers can do at any period. Should permission be granted too late for the work to be done that year, would the permission be valid the next year without question? Council meetings take no account of seasons or their variations.

Hedge replanting

  A great deal of this is being done, but is discounted by those wanting control of "loss", so it is rarely mentioned and gets little if any press coverage, so the general public are unaware of it and believe we will soon have no hedges left, hence the panic.

*F.W. 31 Ocotber 1997 Tewyn Evans of Wales replanted 800 m in two years

*F.W. 13 February 1998 David Thislewaite replanted 4,200 m in five years

  *They were lucky, the agricultural press noticed, but the ordinary press did not. This needs publicising.

  While taking our display to shows, many people came to ask advice on planting hedges, (some big landowners among them from the lengths they mentioned). We do have useful information for such folk, so we know a lot of planting is going on. Some folk came to tell us the lengths they have planted, and asked advice on the right stage of growth to have the hedge laid. We supplied the answer here too.

  Unfortunately, being very busy with visitors to the stand and only myself there, I could not take down names, addresses lengths, etc., so cannot give figures. I just know there was a lot of planting.

Rules for Hedge Management

  These are doubtless intended to bother the farmer as little as possible, but in fact are troublesome, on occasion, to a large degree.

  The problem is that dates are set for when certain activities may be undertaken.

  Farming and nature work according to the seasons not the calendar, and seasons vary enormously. Hedges can sprout leaves as early as February or as late as early May. (This to a degree influences birds nesting). Hedges shed their leaves as early as September or as late as early November. Any care, such as planting, cutting, laying or coppicing must be done when the presence or absence of leaves direct. An "average" date will not do.

  Since the main business of a farmer is to produce food, and that too depends on the season, hedge care must also slot in with ploughing, reaping, lambing or whatever, depending on when a man (or woman) and tractor is free for an hour or so.

  Because the general public do not understand this, the proper planting, laying cutting or coppicing legally permissible, public complaints of "damage", "destruction" are made, on occasion to a council causing an official wasting time in inspecting and the farmer ditto to meet him. All hedge layers, cutters and so on have complaints, and sometimes abuse, hurled at them on many occasions.

Examples

1.  Laying an overgrown hedge, "you are killing it" "what about blackbirds, robins . . . " "The view is spoilt". Only sometimes do they accept that the hedge is being improved, that small birds were not nesting there, as magpies and crows did, and attacked the nests, eggs and nestlings of small birds.

2.  Coppicing on overgrown or poor hedge. Reaction is worse, and explanation less acceptable. (Here I agree it does look drastic).

3.  Machine cutting "You are ruining the hedge". "It won't survive". "It looks terrible". "What about wildlife." "What about my tyres". Admittedly a badly cut hedge looks, and is, a mess (and here I blame the firms' salesmen demonstrators, who gaily go back and forth, at least half the time against the line of growth or lay, (like planning wood the wrong way), thus shredding rather than cutting. Of course the buyer follows the directions of the demonstrator. I have had words with a demonstration team regarding this and was told "the lads won't stand for it" i.e., doing it properly. However, the majority of machine cut hedges look good but the general public refuse to accept that a machine did it and insist it was hand done! You can't win!!

Wildlife

  The claim that hedge loss leads to loss of birds is not valid. True birds use hedges, but just because hedges are there. A patch of scrub land in a corner difficult to cultivate, or damp, are just as attractive to birds and small mammals.

  The "corridor" idea does not apply to birds as they fly, and I often find frogs, toads, occasional snakes, small rodents, etc., happily crossing a field, sheltered only by crops or grass, scorning the hedge.

Real causes of wildlife loss

  What does cause loss is the failure to withdraw protection orders on a species which have become over populous. Magpies kill small birds, destroy their nests, eggs and nestlings. They have even come into a building while I was there to destroy a blackbird's nest on a roof beam and because they are still protected there was nothing I could do. Protected badgers love eggs and take them from ground nesting birds. Hawks, also protected, naturally feed on small birds and mammals.

  Not to mention large parties of ramblers, complete with children and dogs. However meticulously they keep to the path, close gates, etc., their sheer presence causes birds to desert their nests. Strangely, wildlife has learnt to ignore farm machinery, but let the operator leave his cab, that is a very different story!

  Perhaps there should be a "close season" for rambling as there is for fishing, shooting, etc??? Just a thought.

Astounding lack of knowledge re farming

  The manager of an LEAF demonstration farm who has had groups of intelligent people such as scientists, experts of various sorts, conservation officials, etc., come on visits, and by their comments show that real knowledge of the work of a farm is almost non existent. He has found the same in Australia and California.

  I too have found this in talking to people interested in hedges, but urban based. They often feel that what the farmer does is wrong, but when I explain the reasons, they exclaim, "I never thought of it that way, it makes sense now". If I had a pound for every time I heard similar comments I would be very rich now.

  Yet it is these same people who are given the responsibility for deciding what farmers can or cannot do with their hedges!

Two case bear considering

  1. The Flamborough hedge, press of 9 August 1996 and 23 February 1997:

A judge ruled against the councils wish to remove a hedge on the grounds that it existed before pre-enclosure acts, and the local act said it "must be maintained for ever". This is on a par with wills and leases from 1600s onwards, leaving the land to certain use for 1,000 years (I have seen these). Had the above judge been around in 1800s much of Birmingham, London and other big cities would not be in existence now. A poor decision in a test case (and spoiling facilities for locals who had saved up for a bowling green) present rules could not touch it as it was under the 30 yard limit.

  2. A Suffolk farmer had permission to remove a hedge refused ont he grounds that it appeared on the 1840 title map proving that it was an integral part of a field system predating the enclosure act. If the press report is accurate the remark proves nothing. Unless the enclosure was a very late one, the hedge could easily have been planted after the enclosures, in fact, if planted in 1820 it would have been a big strong hedge by 1840, and thus included on the map anyway.

  Both cases indicate that much more care needs to be taken with "documentary evidence". No suppositions of inferences should be allowed, and only proved if there were references to that particular hedge for at least 100 years before any such map was made.

  I have copies of local "Poor Law Assessment Maps" of 1792 and the title maps of 1840 for the same area, (during the change over from strip farming to enclosure). In the period 1792-1840 many boundaries changed, aided too by canals and reservoirs, later railways being constructed and causing roads to be realigned. Hence my scepticism.

Pressure groups

  The literature published by some conservation groups contains many of the points made in these comments.

  Sadly the more vociferous "urban folk living in the country" (and often well off and well educated) members fail to note anything that does not conform to their idea of hedge loss, ancient hedges and so on, so any government department is offered a one sided influential view, not the more reasoned one of the group founders.