1. The Legal pretext should be either "Loss of Reasonable Enjoyment of a Home or Garden" or "Nuisance".

2. The context for the legal pretext should be "High Hedges and Other Nuisance Vegetation".

3. There should not be a constrictive definition of a hedge but guideline definition of what would constitute a "Loss of Reasonable Enjoyment of a Home and Garden" or "Nuisance" as assessed by inspection by an empowered authority, similar to a planning authority.

4. Should a resident feel unable to negotiate a fair solution with a neighbour or other problem vegetation owner then they could apply to their Local Authority who would call on a single inspectorate who would assess the case and if a complaint is justified, issue a compulsory remedial order or arrange for appropriate remedial work to be done at the vegetation owner's expense.

5. The aim is to avoid vested interests going into direct conflict where the conflict would not provide equality of authority or personality (As things stand the complainant, the Local Council, and Lawyers have no authority over the problem vegetation owner who may deploy plants vindictively).

6. There should be an appeals process should the decision of the inspectorate be deemed to be outwith the "Guidelines".

7. If any inspection fee is levied it should not be at a level which would inhibit use of these measures. Any such fee should be paid by the party which the inspectorate identifies as being in the wrong.

8. These provisions are superior to any T.P.O.s as they are in England and Wales.

These measures are not anti-tree or any other kind of vegetation which if properly managed can contribute to our environment. The injustice which sustains the "Hedge Dispute" is the issue. Where this has been corrected typically 90% of potential disputes end quickly by capitulation of the party who foresees failure at inspection by a sensible third party and an ensuing forced compliance.