Government of Jersey

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 19 October 2009 regarding: Reduction of hedge height - Field 797, La Rue des Sauvalleries, St. Peter.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2009-0169			Application Number: HH/2009/0984 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Field 797, La Rue des Sauvalleries, St. Peter,		Date of Decision Summary:		14th October 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Alistair Coates		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written with Oral presentation		Person Giving Oral Report:		Alistair Coates, Senior Planner
Written Report Title :	High Hedges Application: Field 797, La Rue des Sauvalleries, St. Peter.		Date of Written Report:		4th September 2009
Written Report Author:	Alistair Coates		Written Report : Public or Exempt?		Public
Subject: High Hedges (Jersey) Law 2008: Field 797, La Rue des Sauvalleries, St. Peter - Pine trees causing loss of light.
Decision(s): In accordance with Article 7(1)(b) of the High Hedges (Jersey) Law 2008, the Minister agreed that a Remedial Notice be issued requiring an initial reduction in hedge height to 7m with maintenance thereafter to keep the hedge at a maximum of 8m. The application was considered by the Minister, sitting with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Panel, in public at a meeting held at St Helier Town Hall on 16th September 2009.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister considers that the considerable height of the hedge is such that it causes harm to the residential amenity that the occupiers of the accommodation within Jersey Bowl might reasonably expect to enjoy.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Reduction of hedge height - Field 797, St. Peter

Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

HH/2009/0984

Site Address	Field 797, La Rue des Sauvalleries, St. Peter.

Complainant	Mr D Lyons Jersey Bowl

Hedge Owner/Occupier	Jersey Hockey Club

Description	Hedge (36m long) consisting of mature Pine trees, approximately 16m high and running alongside the boundary between the Jersey Bowl and the Jersey Hockey Club site.

Type	High Hedge

Date Validated	12/05/2009

Zones / TPO	Countryside Zone. There are no TPO’s relating to these trees.

Officer Recommendation	That a Remedial Notice be issued, requiring an initial reduction in the height of the hedge to 7m with maintenance thereafter to keep the hedge height at a maximum of 8m.

Complainant’s Case	The complainant, who lives in the Manager’s accommodation at the Bowl, alleges that the hedge severely obstructs light to his property. The hedge was, in the Complainant’s view, approximately 2m in height when the he moved in 1994. The Complainant’s full case is appended to this report.

Owner/occupier’s Case	The Leyland Cypress hedge was planted in 1976 and was, in the Owner’s view, approximately 15m high when the Complainant moved into the property. In February 2009, 41 Cypress trees were felled to help solve the problems. The site’s tenants (Jersey Wanderers) have responsibility to maintain the trees, but do not have the funds. Overhanging branches have been removed to within the boundary line to ensure they do not trespass and cause nuisance and to maintain privacy between the two sites. The Owner is not inclined to remove the trees that pre-date the existing building. The owner contests the removal of the final row of trees on the grounds of safety and privacy. Neither of these two concerns are material to this case. The Owner’s full case is appended to this report.

Consultations	Principal Ecologist (Environment Division) The hedge has little or no wildlife value. If the hedge is removed, consideration should be given to some replacement. States’ Arboricultural Officer Species: Cuppressus leylandii Age: 20-30years Age class: Mature Future life expectancy 50 plus years Health and Vigour: Good, around half a metre a year. The tree has been planted typically close to the neighbouring boundary. Recently the complainants side has been cut back heavily and to past live wood. This will not recover fully and always look unsightly. On the Hockey club side the branches have not been cut hard and provide a good green screen. Contribution to public Amenity: Good. I have been informed that the hedge not only provides a green screen but also provides a living fence. If the hedge was to die then the Hockey club would have to provide a very high fence in order to stop footballs going into the neighbouring property. Recommendations: N S J Charted Surveyors report indicates that the hedge should be reduced to a height of 8.11m. This would have to be maintained on a regular basis given the vigour of the trees being half metre I would suggest an agreed minimum height of 7m. This would allow for depending on the vigour a minimum of two years of new growth before requiring reduction again to 7m. Regular small amount of reduction should be carried out on the hockey side in order to maintain a green hedge. Independent Surveyor (Mr B Livesey) Comments that the hedge is approximately 16m high with an effective length of 36m. Using an accepted methodology (Hedge Height & Light Loss 2004 by PJ Littlefair: BRE) the Surveyor concludes that any hedge height above 8.11m is likely to block too much light from the Complainant’s apartment.

Appraisal / Conclusion	The Jersey Bowl is, of course, a commercial undertaking, but it does have staff accommodation within and as such, the High Hedges Law can be applied. The Department can not be drawn into issues of liability, funding or the state of the Bowl’s existing roof and gutters. It is accepted that the hedge existed prior to the Complainant acquiring an interest in the property. The height of the hedge at that time has not been established with any confidence. From the consultation responses, it is evident that the high hedge is responsible for a decreased enjoyment of the neighbouring land by virtue of impact on light to a residential property. It is also accepted that the hedge does not make a significant contribution to the amenity of the area. Taking all of the relevant factors into account, it is considered that the considerable height of the Leyland Cypress hedge is such that it causes harm to the residential amenity that the occupiers of the accommodation within Jersey Bowl might reasonably expect to enjoy.

Officer Recommendation	That a Remedial Notice be issued, requiring an initial reduction in the height of the hedge to 7m with maintenance thereafter to keep the hedge height at a maximum of 8m.

Remedial Notice Conditions	1. Initial Action Reduce the hedge to a height not exceeding 7 metres above ground level along the whole of its length. Reason The hedge is required to be reduced to this maximum height to reduce the problems caused by it, whereby it adversely affects the level of daylight enjoyed by the Complainant, whilst ensuring the survival of the hedge. 2. Preventative Action The hedge shall be maintained along its length so that at no time does it exceed a height of eight 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 (1) 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 may be carried out.

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan Aerial photo Photographs of the site EXEMPT: Complainant’s Case (dated 7th May 2009) EXEMPT: Owner’s Case (dated 4th June 2009) Ecologist’s report (26/05/2009) Arboriculturalist’s report Surveyor’s report. 20/05/2009)

Endorsed by:

Date: