Issuing of High Hedge remedial notice for The Willows, Le Chemin des Pietons, 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (21.11.2008) to issue a remedial notice requiring a reduction in the height of the hedge adjacent to Le Chemin des Pietons, St. Brelade.

Decision Ref:	MD–PE–2008-0141
Subject:	High Hedge: The Willows, Le Chemin des Pietons, St Brelade
Decision Summary Title:	DS - High Hedge: The Willows, Le Chemin des Pietons, St Brelade
DS Author:	Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director
DS Date:	14 November 2008	DS Status:	Public
Written Report Title:	WR – High Hedge: The Willows, Le Chemin des Pietons, St Brelade
WR Author:	Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director
WR Date	02 October 2008	WR Status:	Public
Oral Rapporteur:	Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director
Decision(s):	The Minister for Planning and Environment determined that a remedial notice be issued requiring a reduction in the height of the hedge adjacent Le Chemin des Pietons, St Brelade. The Minister also determined that the Notice should specify the following: 1. Initial action a) Reduce the hedge to a height not exceeding five metres above ground level along the whole of its length; b) Reduce the width of the hedge by cutting it back to suitable growth points 2. Preventative action The hedge to be maintained, along its length, so that at no time does it exceed a height of six metres above ground level 3. Time for compliance The initial action, at 1. above, shall be complied with in full within three months of the date when this Notice comes into effect.
Reason(s) for Decision:	Taking all of the relevant factors into account, it is considered that the considerable height of the Leyland cypress hedge adjacent Le Chemin des Pietons is such that it causes harm to the residential amenity that the occupants of 1 Springvale Cottage might reasonably expect to enjoy. Whilst recognising that the hedge does provide some privacy and security to the owner of the Willows, Le Chemin des Pietons, it is further considered that a lower hedge could adequately serve these purposes without detriment to the hedge owner’s reasonable expectations of residential amenity, and that there are no overriding public amenity, landscape or wildlife objectives which would mitigate against a reduction in the height of the hedge. Justification for the specification of the Notice is as follows: 1. Initial action The hedge is required to be reduced to this height and width to reduce the problems caused by it whereby it adversely affects the level of daylight enjoyed by principal elevation of the complainant’s property, whilst ensuring the survival of the hedge. 2. Preventative action To ameliorate the impact of the hedge upon the adjacent property whilst seeking to ensure the survival of the hedge. 3. Time for compliance To provide a reasonable period of time within which the initial action might be carried out
Legal and Resource Implications:	The Minister is empowered to determine this application under the High Hedges (Jersey) Law 2008
Action required:	Issue a remedial notice to the hedge owner and complainant update the register of remedial notices
Signature:
Position:	Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different to Date Signed):

Issuing of High Hedge remedial notice for The Willows, Le Chemin des Pietons, St. Brelade

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Planning and Environment Department

High Hedge Report

Application Number

HH/2008/0386

Site Address	The Willows, Le Chemins des Pietons, St. Brelade.

Complainant	Mr & Mrs E Pinel 1 Springvale Cottage, Les Chemin des Pietons, St Brelade

Hedge owner/ occupier	Mr A Gorvel The Willows, Le Chemins des Pietons, St. Brelade

Description	Leylandii hedge causing loss of light

Date Validated	26/02/2008

Policy and legal context	The site is in the Green Zone. There are no known legal constraints

Complainant’s case	The complainants state that the reasonable enjoyment of their lounge, kitchen and conservatory is adversely affected by the height and proximity of the high hedge to the north and that they have to have lights on in their property all year round. The complainants have stated that they acquired their property in 1985 at which time, it is claimed, the hedge was ‘2-3 metres’ high: no evidence is provided in support of this. It is stated that there has been no management of the trees since that time, despite approaches to the owner.

Owner’s/ occupier’s case	The owner makes reference to previous legal dispute with the complainant about property issues, including a boundary hedge and its apparent earlier removal, and its subsequent replacement with the current hedge, together with issues about responsibility for maintenance. No evidence is provided in support of this and it is not considered material to any assessment of the existing hedge and its impact on the complainant’s property. The owner states that the hedge existed at the time that the complainant’s acquired an interest in their property. He states that it was about 3-4 metres high. No evidence is provided in support of this. The owner’s dwelling is approximately 20 metres to the north of the hedge. The hedge owner states that the hedge provides some security and privacy to his property. The owner acknowledges that a reduction in the height of the hedge would benefit both he and the complainant.
Consultations	Surveyor’s report The surveyor’s report indicates that the hedge is presently over 13 metres high. It runs the full length of the hedge owner’s southern boundary at about 18.5m long. Taking into account factors relating to sloping land; the aspect of the hedge; and the orientation of the principal windows of the complainant’s dwelling, the report states that any hedge above a height of 3.93 metres is likely to block too much light from the complainant’s property. This report is based on the methodology set out in Hedge height and light loss (2004) Paul J. Littlefair: BRE. Whilst the hedge is greater in length than the frontage of the complainant’s property affected by the hedge, the fact that the hedge is to the north of the complainant’s property renders it desirable for any lowering of the height of the hedge to occur along its entire length. Failure to do so would have the potential of continuing to reduce levels of daylight (as opposed to direct sunlight) to the complainant’s property. Aboriculturalist’s report The arboriculturalist advises that the hedge belongs to a species of Leyland cypress (Cupressocyparis leylandii ‘Castlewellan Gold’) which is a golden yellow form, becoming bronzy-green with age, that is slower-growing and more suitable for hedging than some of the other forms of Leyland cypress [1]. It is evident that some management work has been undertaken to the trees in the past, to raise the crown over the stream and the car parking on the southern side of the hedge, which has left brown wood on that aspect. The Arboriculturalist has advised that any management of the trees needs to ensure that livewood is retained to ensure the continued survival of the hedge. Ecologist’s report The ecologist reports that despite claims of nesting birds, bats and squirrels, this is unsubstantiated and unlikely and, as the hedge is not part of a connecting corridor, its wildlife value is limited. . It is evident that some management work has been undertaken to the trees in the past, to raise the crown over the stream and the car parking on the southern side of the hedge, which has left brown wood on that aspect.

Appraisal	The complainant’s two-storey single aspect property sits at the base of the valley with its principal elevation facing north, towards the hedge. The southern (rear) elevation of the property is hard against sloping ground and has no fenestration thus the principal outlook for all of the living rooms of the complainant’s property is to the north elevation. The high hedge affects the north elevation of 1 Springvale Cottage and is between 5.5m and 6.7m from the principal windows of the dwelling, separated by the access road forming Le Chemin des Pietons. It is evident, on the basis of the details of the complaint; site assessment; photographic evidence and a survey of the site, that the current height of the hedge adjacent to Le Chemin des Pietons adversely affects the residential amenity of the complainant. This effect relates to both the internal and external space of the dwelling, including the principal living rooms of the house. It is exacerbated by the fact that the property is single aspect, with its principal elevation to the north, facing the hedge. It is clear that the hedge existed at the time that the complainant acquired an interest in the property but, whilst there is no definitive evidence of its height at the time, it is evident that it has grown relatively unchecked since then to its current proportions. Whilst there is some benefit to the hedge owner provided by the hedge, through the provision of security and privacy, it is considered that a hedge of a much reduced height would continue to perform these functions without undue prejudice to the amenity that the hedge owner might reasonably expect to enjoy. There is approximately 30m distance between principal elevations of the complaint’s and hedge owner’s dwellings. It is relevant to note that the complainant’s property essentially comprises two floors of residential accommodation whilst that of their neighbour’s comprises three. Whilst a reduction in the height of the hedge would, therefore, have the potential to lessen the total privacy currently enjoyed by the hedge owner, it is considered that a significant reduction of the height of the hedge would not unduly prejudice the privacy of the hedge owner’s property given the considerable distance (of 30m) between principal elevations. Privacy at ground floor levels would be maintained. The hedge is a non-native species in, what is in effect a semi-wooded valley, where its contribution to public amenity, landscape and wildlife value is not considered to provide any justification against any action being undertaken to reduce its height.

Summary / conclusion	Taking all of the relevant factors into account, it is considered that the considerable height of the Leyland cypress hedge adjacent Le Chemin des Pietons is such that it causes harm to the residential amenity that the occupants of 1 Springvale Cottage might reasonably expect to enjoy. Both parties acknowledge that the hedge existed when the complainant’s acquired an interest in their property. There is disagreement about its height and no evidence on either side, but it would appear to have been between 2-4m high. Whilst recognising that the hedge does provide some privacy and security to the owner of the Willows, Le Chemin des Pietons, it is considered that a lower hedge could adequately serve these purposes without detriment to the hedge owner’s reasonable expectations of residential amenity. It is also relevant to note that there is a distance of approximately 30 metres between principal elevations which serves to promote visual privacy from overlooking from adjacent upper floors of accommodation. Privacy at ground floor would be unaffected by a reduced hedge. There are no overriding public amenity, landscape or wildlife objectives which would mitigate against a reduction in the height of the hedge, however, any management of it needs to ensure that it remains viable.

Officer Recommendation	Issue a remedial notice requiring a reduction in the height of the Leyland cypress hedge adjacent Le Chemin des Pietons, St Brelade

Remedial Notice conditions	1. Initial action a) Reduce the hedge to a height not exceeding five metres above ground level along the whole of its length; b) Reduce the width of the hedge by cutting it back to suitable growth points Reason The hedge is required to be reduced to this height and width to reduce the problems caused by it whereby it adversely affects the level of daylight enjoyed by principal elevation of the complainant’s property, whilst ensuring the survival of the hedge. 2. Preventative action The hedge to be maintained, along its length, so that at no time does it exceed a height of six metres above ground level Reason To ameliorate the impact of the hedge upon the adjacent property whilst seeking to ensure the survival of the hedge. 3. Time for compliance The initial action, at 1. above, shall be complied with in full within three months of the date when this Notice comes into effect. Reason To provide a reasonable period of time within which the initial action might be carried out

Background Papers	1:1000 Location Plan 1:1000 Aerial photograph Photographs of the site EXEMPT 3.2.1(a)(i) and (b) Complainant’s case (dated 20 Feb 2008) EXEMPT 3.2.1(a)(i) and (b) Owner’s case (of 03 April 2008) Surveyor’s report (dated 02 April 2008) Ecologist’s report (dated 29 April 2008) Arboriculturalist’s report (dated 20 May 2008)

Endorsed by:

Date:

[1] Hillier Manual of Trees and Shrubs (1996) (1996)