High Hedge: Cornville, Tabor Heights, St. Brelade

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (30.01.09) to reject an application for a remedial notice in respect of a high hedge at Cornville, Tabor Heights, St. Brelade.

Decision Ref:	MD–PE–2009-0015
Subject:	High Hedge: Cornville, Tabor Heights, St Brelade
Decision Summary Title :	DS - High Hedge: Cornville, Tabor Heights, St Brelade
DS Author:	Kevin Pilley: Assistant Director, Policy and Projects
DS Date:	22 January 2009	DS Status:	Public
Written Report Title :	WR - High Hedge: Cornville, Tabor Heights, St Brelade
WR Author:	Kevin Pilley: Assistant Director, Policy and Projects
WR Date	22 January 2009	WR Status:	Public
Oral Rapporteur:	Kevin Pilley: Assistant Director, Policy and Projects
Decision(s):	The Minister for Planning and Environment determined that this application be rejected and that no remedial notice be issued.
Reason(s) for Decision:	Taking all of the relevant factors into account, the Minister considered that there was no justification to require the management of the trees because he considered this particular case to be marginal in that the hedge, comprising two large cedar trees, only just fell within the legal definition of a high hedge; they had some amenity value; that their impact was not that of a dense, impenetrable screen to light; and that to manage them would expose them to some degree of risk from disease and loss.
Legal and Resource Implications:	The Minister is empowered to determine this application under the High Hedges (Jersey) Law 2008. The complainant has a right of appeal under Article 12 of the Law.
Action required:	Advise the hedge owner and complainant of the Minister’s decision.
Signature:
Position:	Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different to Date Signed):

High Hedge: Cornville, Tabor Heights, St. Brelade

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill,

St Helier , Jersey , JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 725511

Fax: +44 (0)1534 768952

Planning and Environment Department

High Hedge Report

Application Number	HH/2008/2016
Site address	Cornville, Tabor Heights, St Brelade
Complainant	Mr and Mrs W Hobbs, Seaforth, Tabor Heights, St Brelade
Hedge owner/ occupier	Mr J de la Cloche, 8 La Court Piece, La Verte Rue, St Brelade
Description	Two Blue cedars, over 11 metres in height, along western boundary of complainant’s property.
Date validated	17/09/2008
Planning policy and legal context	The site is in the Built-up Area. There are no known legal constraints.
Complainant’s case	The complainant’s state that these two pines increasingly shade their house and also restrict the use of their garden. The trees existed when the complainant’s moved in to their property in 1992. Cedars are not fast-growing trees, and it is considered that these particular trees may be 30-40 years old.
Owner’s case	No comment received
Consultations	Surveyor’s report This indicates that these two trees, comprising a hedge under the definition of the law, form a barrier of about 17 metres in length, adjacent and to the west of most of the complaint’s south-facing garden (which is 20m deep). The closest window on the south elevation of the property is approximately 4 metres from the boundary. Taking into account factors relating to the aspect of the hedge; the orientation of principal windows of the complainant’s dwelling; and its relationship to the complainant’s garden, the report states that: Any hedge above a height of 3.48 metres is likely to block too much light from the complainant's dwelling, and that: Any hedge above a height of 10.01 metres is likely to block too much light from the complainant's garden.
	The report is based on the methodology set out in Hedge height and light loss (2004) Paul J. Littlefair: BRE. Ecologist’s report This suggests that whilst the trees have little or no wildlife value, the potential for height reduction is limited by the likely damage to the visual amenity of the trees that would arise.
	Arboriculturalist’s report The Arboriculturalist is of the view that any works to take the tops of these trees and to reduce them in height would likely lead to their decline, as cedars do not respond well to the removal of large limbs and renders them susceptible to fungal decay.
Appraisal	The two pine trees which comprise the hedge existed at the time that the complainant’s moved in (in 1992). It is apparent that some work has been undertaken to manage the trees during this time, principally to cut them along the boundary of the two properties, giving the trees a somewhat unbalanced appearance. These two trees do not serve to protect privacy. They are, however, significant features in the local landscape, comprising and are likely to contribute to the skyline when viewed from St Brelade’s Bay. It is evident, on the basis of the details of the complaint; the site assessment; photographic evidence and a survey of the site, that the presence and height of these two trees does have some adverse effect on the levels of light and residential amenity enjoyed by the complainants.
Summary/ conclusions	Taking all of the relevant factors into account, it is considered that the presence and height of the two Blue cedars adjacent the complainant’s property does cause some harm to their residential amenity, albeit that the trees do not form a dense impenetrable screen to light. Whilst the hedge does not serve to provide any privacy, it is a significant feature in the local landscape which comprises dwellings and gardens, and may contribute to the wider landscape setting of St Brelade’s Bay: the hedge is, therefore, considered to have some amenity value. It is also evident that extensive works to reduce the height of the trees may prejudice their survival. On the basis of all of the above, therefore, it is considered that there is justification to require the management of the trees to ameliorate the problems that they cause for the adjacent dwelling, but that this has to be balanced against amenity and arboricultural considerations.
Officer recommendation	Issue a remedial notice requiring appropriate management of the Blue cedar trees forming a hedge adjacent Seaforth, Tabor Heights, St Brelade.
Remedial Notice conditions and reasons	1) Initial action a) Thin the crowns of the two trees comprising the hedge by 25%; b) Remove deadwood c) Reduce lower branches away from neighbouring property Reason Thinning and raising the crowns of the trees will seek to maintain their amenity value and function whilst enabling a greater level of light to filter through the trees.
	2) Preventative action a) Annual inspection of the trees by a qualified tree surgeon; b) Pruning every 5-7 years, depending on the vigour of the trees. Reason A maintenance regime is required to ensure that the trees are managed to ensure their contribution to visual amenity whilst ensuring that the crowns are managed to permit light to filter through to the adjacent garden and property.
	3) Time for compliance The initial action, as specified at 1 above, shall be complied with in full within three months of the date when this Notice comes into effect. Reason To ameliorate the loss of light to the garden and dwelling of Seaforth.
Background papers	Location Plan Surveyor’s report dated September 3008 Ecologist’s report dated 22 September 2008 Note of meeting with Arboriculturalist dated 07 October 2008
Endorsed by