Notice of Listing as Protected Trees. Willow trees at La Remise, Waterworks Valley, St. Lawrence.

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (15/08/2007) regarding: Notice of Listing as Protected Trees. Willow trees at La Remise, Waterworks Valley, St. Lawrence.

Subject:	Notice of Listing as Protected Trees. Willow trees at La Remise, Waterworks Valley, St. Lawrence.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0214	Exempt clause(s):		None
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		N/A
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		RP/2006/2557
Written Report Title:	Notice of Listing as Protected Trees. Willow trees at La Remise, Waterworks Valley, St. Lawrence.	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision The Minister decided to include two Willow trees adjacent to the eastern boundary of the building known as La Remise, Waterworks Valley, in the Parish of St. Lawrence in the List of Protected Trees.
Reason(s) for decision: In the interests of the amenity of the Island, under the auspices of Article 60 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002.
Action required: Notice needs to be served on the owner of the site. Update the List of Protected Trees
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 15.08.07

Notice of Listing as Protected Trees. Willow trees at La Remise, Waterworks Valley, St. Lawrence.

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

Application Number: RP/2006/2557

Planning and Environment Department Report

Site Address	La Remise, Waterworks Valley, St. Lawrence.

Requested by	Lisianski Ltd (Owner)	Agent	Micheal Felton Ltd

Description	Notice of Provisional Listing as Protected Trees - Willow trees at La Remise.

Original Decision	Approval by Planning Application Panel to re-postion House 2 and to retain only 1 Willow tree and permit the replacement of the second Willow tree. The approval was subject to the conditions (mainly landscaping) as noted on the previous report.

Determined by	Sub Committee Approval

Date	02/02/2007

Zones	Green Backdrop Zone Built-Up Area

Recommendation

Include previously retained (northern) Willow tree on the Tree Preservation list.
Do not include the southern Willow tree on the Tree Preservation List and allow its replacement in accordance with the approved landscaping plan.

Comments on Case	The List of Protected Trees protects a particular tree or trees from being removed or from work or damage which might lead to the loss or diminution of their amenity value. The critical issue is therefore the amenity value of the trees. Protected Trees need not contribute significantly to the amenity of the area when viewed from the public realm, however, they should contribute significantly to the amenity of the immediate area. Southern Willow Tree The removal of the southern tree was approved by the Planning Application Panel in January as part of the application to re-site unit 2. The Department’s report stated “With regard to the re-siting of unit 2 and the retention of the existing Willow tree closest to that unit, the States Arboricultural Officer has no objection and the agent has confirmed (e-mail dated 8th December 2006) that the trees [not the southern Willow Tree] will be protected in an agreed manner during the development of the site. It is recommended that Condition 3 is adopted to require a landscaping scheme to be submitted. [This must be include a more appropriate species] to mitigate the loss of the second existing tree on the site that is in poor health and enhance the landscaping overall”. Largely for the reasons reiterated in Mr Felton’s letter, the Department recommended that the tree be replaced with a species suitable to the limited space retained once the dwelling is constructed. The agent states that even if the tree is retained, half of its root system will be removed with the consequence of instability and death within 2 years. The speed and size of growth of the tree will result rapidly in a conflict between the retention of the tree and potential issues of safety and damage to the new dwelling. A replacement tree is permitted and it will grow to improve the amenity of the area as opposed to the likely death and removal of the Willow tree that the landowner is unlikely to want to replace. The retention of the southern Willow tree will not result in the maintenance or enhancement of the amenity of the area. Therefore it should not be included on the List of Protected Trees. Northern Willow Tree As part of the previous permission the northern Willow tree was to be retained regardless of the provisional TPO. The agent states that due to its size and dominance “regular pollarding will be necessary” and it is accepted by the Department that best practice would provide greater space for this tree. However, the advice received as part of the planning application was that the tree could be retained, with protection and a root barrier and pollarding. The circumstances since this information was submitted to the Department have not changed and therefore the tree should remain. The issue is whether the amenity value of this tree justifies its inclusion on the List of Protected Trees.
	This tree will not contribute significantly to the amenity of the area when viewed from the public realm, however, it does contribute to the amenity of the site and to the visual amenity of the neighbouring property to the west. In addition, other Willow trees in the area are not within the same site or ownership and these are described by the States Arboriculturist as “showing signs of decay and neglect” and a number may need to be felled in the future. If these trees are removed it increases the importance of the northern Willow tree to the visual amenity of the area. The retention of the northern Willow tree will maintain of the amenity of the area and therefore should be included on the List of Protected Trees. Public representation One representation has been made. The representation supports the inclusion of both trees on the List because of the wildlife value of the trees and their potential to remove water from the area. Willow trees do have a potentially good value to wildlife however with regard to the southern tree this is academic given that it will not survive as a result of the development. It is however a further justification for placing the northern tree on the List. The issue of flooding have already been resolved by the approved engineering solution.
Recommendation	Include previously retained (northern) Willow tree on the Tree Preservation list. Do not include the southern Willow tree on the Tree Preservation list and allow its replacement in accordance with the approved landscaping plan.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from agent dated 07/06/07 Planning and Environment Report dated 24/01/07 e-mail from States Arboriculturist dated 05/12/06 e-mail representation dated 30/05/07

Endorsed by		Date