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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 18 January 2010 regarding: High hedge remedial notice - Thornton Hall, Upper Kings Cliff, St. Helier.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2010-0006			Application Number: HH/2009/1477 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Thornton Hall, Upper Kings Cliff, St. Helier, JE2 3GP		Date of Decision Summary:		15.01.10
Decision Summary Author:	Planner – Miss M Jones		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written and Oral		Person Giving Oral Report:		Planner – Miss M Jones
Written Report Title :	High Hedges: Thornton Hall, Upper Kings Cliff, St. Helier		Date of Written Report:		15.11.09
Written Report Author:	M Jones		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , Thornton Hall, Upper Kings Cliff, , St. Helier, , JE2 3GP Remove hedge to south east of lantern court.
Decision(s): The Minister decided that a Remedial Notice be issued requiring an initial reduction in the height of the hedge to 2.8m thereafter to be annually maintained to a height of 2.8m. Decision made at meeting on site at Lantern Court on the 15th January 2010 following deferral of application for a site visit at the Ministerial Meeting held on the 27th November 2009. (Present at the site meeting: Minister for Planning and Environment; Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment; Chairman of Planning Applications Panel; Assistant Director (Policy and Projects) & Case Officer.
Reason(s) for Decision: Decision made in accordance with the advice offered by the, Independent Surveyor, States Arboriculturalist and case officer to ensure the reduction to the height of the hedge will alleviate the problems of loss of daylight caused to the Complainants. However, the recommendation has been amended by the Minister to reduce the hedge height to 2.8m annually rather than 3.8m as was originally suggested. This change will be reflected in the Remedial Notice to be issued.
Resource Implications:
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):

High hedge remedial notice - Thornton Hall, Upper Kings Cliff, St. Helier

Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

HH/2009/1477

Site Address	Thornton Hall, Upper Kings Cliff, St. Helier, JE2 3GP.

Complainant	Lantern Court Association

Hedge Owner/Occupier	Thornton Hall Holdings Ltd.

Description	Leylandii hedge (6.6m long) x (5m high at upper ground level) running along the boundary of Lantern Court & Thornton Hall, Upper Kings Cliff.

Type	High Hedge

Date Validated	04/08/2009

Zones / TPO	Built-Up Area. Green Backdrop Zone. There are no Tree Preservation Orders relating to this hedge.

Officer

Recommendation

That a Remedial Notice be issued requiring an initial reduction in the height of the hedge to 2.8m with maintenance thereafter to keep the hedge height at a maximum of 3.8m.

Complainant’s Case	The complainants allege that since the construction of Lantern Court in 1996/’97 the height of the hedge has increased significantly which has affected the level of light coming into the windows in front of the hedge. The location of the hedge affects six apartments who have windows on the gable facing Thornton Hall. The complainants have submitted a photograph of Lantern Court taken in 1997 which reflects the absence of a hedge to the south/east boundary. A second photograph taken at the same location in 2009 shows the hedge at its current height. The Complainant’s full case is appended to this report.

Owner/occupier’s Case	Thornton Hall has existed since the 1850’s. In the early 1980’s the Hall was divided into four duplex apartments retaining a large rear garden to the north of the site. Lantern Court was built in 1996 in the field behind Thornton Hall and trees present in the field were removed to make way for the new development. Lantern Court is built on four levels and required considerable excavation at the time of construction as the height of the land was lowered from the current garden level of Thornton Hall. An old 2 m high wall marks the boundary of Thornton Hall. During the inter-war years rows of trees were located to the other side of the wall. Initial plans for Lantern Court had no windows in the wall adjacent to Thornton Hall. The residents of Thornton Hall planned to grow the hedge of trees to create a green backdrop to the garden; the trees being planted in 1995/’96. The relevant windows in Lantern Court were added to the plans around this time without any reference to the occupants of Thornton Hall. The building of Lantern Court set up a situation where the enjoyment of our property was severely affected. The current tenants of Thornton Hall were fully aware and supportive of the intention for a hedge to be maintained to the rear of the garden to provide a green backdrop to the garden, to safeguard its seclusion and to provide privacy to the rear rooms of the hall. Recent communications with the residents of Lantern Court regarding the hedge resulted in the subsequent cutting of the hedge every 18 to 24 months. The preferred option by the residents of Thornton Hall is that the hedge is reduced to head height of a person standing in an upper apartment of Lantern Court. The suggestions from Lantern Court were not acceptable. One effectively meant that we would be giving up several metres of our garden. The other would have destroyed the green backdrop, the seclusion of our garden and our privacy. We have sought guidance from the planning officer about what constitutes a gap in the hedge sufficient to stop it being a high hedge under the law and I understand there is no precedent under this law. However, we fail to understand how removing every other tree can fail to have a significant effect on the light to Lantern Court. The owner’s full case is appended to this report.

Consultations	Principal Ecologist (Environment Division) - The hedge has little or no wildlife value.

	States Arboricultural Officer Species: Cuppressus leylandii Health & Vigour: Good. The hedge could only be reduced to half the existing height as any height lower than this could cause the decline and vigour of the hedge. I suggest the hedge is not allowed to grow more than 1m above this height in the future. Probable annual growth rate: The hedge could grow 200cm plus every year so recommended cutting should be annually, if not no longer than every three years.

	Independent Surveyor (Mr B Livesey) Comments that this is an unusual application due to the difference in levels between the two properties, the hedge height and light loss document formulae call for an Action Hedge Height of 2m from the garden level of Lantern Court, however, the adjacent ground level and boundary wall to Thornton Hall are both above this height.

Appraisal / Conclusion	The base of the hedge is 2.85m above the ground level (datum) of Lantern Court. The surveyor’s report stated that anything over 2m above the datum ground level causes harm to residential amenity. In other words the loss of amenity is partly a result of the difference in land levels between the two properties and the hedge compounds that harm. However, the High Hedges Law cannot be used to secure the removal of a hedge, or its reduction in height to less than 2m above its base level. (In this case, 4.85m above datum). The States Arboriculturalist is concerned that any reduction in height to below 2.5m (5.35m above datum) would adversely affect the health of the hedge. For this reason, it is recommended that a Remedial Notice be served requiring an initial reduction in height of the hedge to 2.8m above the base level of the hedge, with the height maintained thereafter to a maximum of 3.8m above the hedge’s base level. Base level in this instance relates to the base of the high hedge itself.

Officer Recommendation	That a Remedial Notice be issued requiring an initial reduction in the height of the hedge to 2.8m with maintenance thereafter to keep the hedge height at a maximum of 3.8m.

Remedial Notice Conditions	1. Initial Action Reduce the hedge to a height not exceeding 2.8 metres above the base level of the hedge 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 3.8 metres above the base level of the hedge. 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 within 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: 14th October, 30th June & 5th March 2009) EXEMPT: Owner’s Case (dated 24th August & 19th May 2009) Ecologist’s comments (12/08/09) Aboriculturalist’s comments (05.11.09) Surveyor’s report (26.08.09)

Endorsed by:

Date: