Chateau Rocquebrune, Route de St Aubin, St Helier

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (19.03.2009) to determine a remedial notice be issued requiring the management of the hedge adacent to 18 Mont Pelle.

Decision Ref:	MD–PE–2008-0255
Subject:	High Hedge: Chateau Rocquebrune, Route de St Aubin, St Helier
Decision Summary Title:	DS - High Hedge: Chateau Rocquebrune, Route de St Aubin, St Helier
DS Author:	Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director
DS Date:	14 November 2008	DS Status:	Public
Written Report Title:	WR – High Hedge: Chateau Rocquebrune, Route de St Aubin, St Helier
WR Author:	Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director
WR Date	28 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 the management of the hedge adjacent 18 Mont Pelle to effect:  a reduction in the height of the Leyland cypress tree and Holm oak tree which form part of the hedge immediately to the SW and adjacent to the boundary to a height not exceeding 3.85m; and  a raising of the crown of the Monterey pine forming part of the hedge, immediately to the W and adjacent to the boundary, involving the removal of the lower branches of the tree up to a height of three metres The Minister also determined that the Notice should specify the following: 1 Initial action a) Reduce the height of the Leyland cypress tree and Holm oak tree which form part of the hedge immediately to the SW and adjacent to the boundary to a height not exceeding 3.85m; a) Raise the crown of the Monterey pine immediately to the west and adjacent to the boundary, involving the removal of the lower branches of the tree up to a height of three metres 2 Preventative action The Leyland cypress tree and Holm oak tree which form part of the hedge immediately to the SW and adjacent to the boundary to be maintained at a height not exceeding 4.85m. 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(s) for Decision:	Taking all of the relevant factors into account, it is considered that there are compelling reasons to require the reduction in the height of this hedge in order to ameliorate the problems it causes for both the dwelling and the garden of 18 Mont Pelle. There are, however, public amenity and arboricultural considerations which need to be considered in defining the nature of any management of the hedge to be undertaken. Justification for the specification of the Notice is as follows: 1. Initial action a) These two trees forming part of the hedge are required to be reduced to this height to lessen the problems caused whereby they adversely affect the level of daylight and sunlight enjoyed by the western elevation and garden of the complainant’s property, whilst still contributing to public amenity. b) Crown raising the Monterey pine will ensure the health and vigour of this tree, thereby maintaining its public amenity value, whilst also allowing sunlight and daylight to filter through at lower levels to the complainant’s property. 2. Preventative action At any height over and above that specified, the hedge will block too much light. 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):

Chateau Rocquebrune, Route de St Aubin, St Helier - High Hedge

Planning and Environment Department

High Hedge Report

Application Number

HH/2008/1997

Site Address	Chateau Rocquebrune, Route de St Aubin, St Helier.

Complainant	Mr A Farrell, Braidwood, 18 Mont Pelle, Tower Road, St Helier

Hedge owner/ occupier	Mr D Bisson Chateau Rocquebrune, Route de St Aubin, St Helier

Description	High hedge, comprising a mix of species including Leyland cypress, Holm oak and Monterey pine, of heights ranging from 9 – 12.5 m, on south -western boundary of the complaintant’s property.

Date Validated	17/09/2008

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

Complainant’s case	The complainant’s state that the hedge has been planted in the last few years and has grown unchecked. Previously, the complainant enjoyed sunlight in the garden until the evening, but now it is shaded in mid afternoon and there is also a need for the use of electric lights in the lounge and kitchen of the house from late afternoon. The hedge did not exist when the complainant moved into the property in May 1983. It is also stated that one of the trees in particular is in close proximity to the property and poses a potential danger in windy conditions, which are experienced often in this location. This latter point is not material to the matter of deciding whether the hedge creates a problem of loss of light.

Owner’s case	The hedge owner has not sought to submit any representation.

Consultations	Surveyor’s report The surveyor’s report indicates that the hedge ranges in height from approximately 9 to 12.5 metres in height along the south-western boundary of the complainant’s property and it is approximately 7 m away from the western elevation of the complainant’s dwelling. Its total length is approximately 10 metres where it abuts the complainant’s property. 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 6.67 metres is likely to block too much light from the complaint’s dwelling and that;  any hedge above a height of 3.85 metres is likely to block too much light from the complainant’s garden. This report is based on the methodology set out in Hedge height and light loss (2004) Paul J. Littlefair: BRE. Ecologist’s report The Ecologist advises that this mixed planting of trees provides little or no wildlife value. Arboriculturalist’s comments The Arboriculturalist has advised that the hedge comprises a mix of Leyland cypress, Holm oak and Monterey pine and that whilst the two former species are capable of height reduction without adversely affecting their vigour and vitality, similar treatment of the pine would severely harm the tree. Any management of the hedge would, therefore, need to be tailored to the particular species of plant of which it is made.

Appraisal	The hedge was planted after the complainant’s moved in to their property and it would appear that it has not been managed since being planted. Whilst there is a change of levels between the complainant’s property and that of the hedge owner, with the hedge owner at risk of being potentially overlooked, there is approximately 50 metres between the two dwellings and there is other planting, aside from the hedge in question, between the two properties, which would ensure that there is no undue prejudice to the residential amenity of the hedge owner. The hedge does contribute to general public amenity by contributing to the green backdrop of the scarp slope of Westmount, which is important for distant views from around St Aubin’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 current height of the hedge adjacent 18 Mont Pelle adversely affects the residential amenity of the complainant in terms of being able to have reasonable enjoyment of both the garden and the dwellinghouse.

Summary/ conclusions	Taking all of the relevant factors into account, it is considered that the height of the mixed hedge adjacent 18 Mont Pelle is such that it causes harm to the residential amenity that the occupiers of the dwelling (including the garden) might reasonably expect to enjoy. The hedge does serve to protect the privacy of the hedge owner but, the distance between the properties and the existence of other landscaping which helps to safeguard the privacy of the hedge owner, does not preclude the management of the hedge. The hedge has little or no wildlife value but it does have public amenity value and any management needs to account for its value in this respect. Furthermore, as a mixed hedge, any management of it needs to be appropriate to the species which make it up. On the basis of the all of the above, therefore, it is considered that there are compelling reasons to require the reduction in the height of this hedge in order to ameliorate the problems it causes for both the dwelling and the garden of 18 Mont Pelle. There are, however, public amenity and arboricultural considerations which need to be considered in defining the nature of any management of the hedge to be undertaken.

Officer Recommendation	Issue a remedial notice requiring the management of the hedge adjacent 18 Mont Pelle requiring:  a reduction in the height of the Leyland cypress tree and Holm oak tree which form part of the hedge immediately to the SW and adjacent to the boundary to a height not exceeding 3.85m; and  a raising of the crown of the Monterey pine forming part of the hedge, immediately to the W and adjacent to the boundary, involving the removal of the lower branches of the tree up to a height of three metres

Remedial Notice conditions and reasons	1. Initial action a) Reduce the height of the Leyland cypress tree and Holm oak tree which form part of the hedge immediately to the SW and adjacent to the boundary to a height not exceeding 3.85m; b) Raise the crown of the Monterey pine immediately to the west and adjacent to the boundary, involving the removal of the lower branches of the tree up to a height of three metres Reason a) These two trees forming part of the hedge are required to be reduced to this height to lessen the problems caused whereby they adversely affect the level of daylight and sunlight enjoyed by the western elevation and garden of the complainant’s property, whilst still contributing to public amenity. b) Crown raising the Monterey pine will ensure the health and vigour of this tree, thereby maintaining its public amenity value, whilst also allowing sunlight and daylight to filter through at lower levels to the complainant’s property. 2. Preventative action The Leyland cypress tree and Holm oak tree which form part of the hedge immediately to the SW and adjacent to the boundary to be maintained at a height not exceeding 4.85m. Reason At any height over and above that specified, the hedge will block too much light. 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 provide a reasonable period of time within which the initial action might be carried out.

Background papers	1:1000 Location Plan 1:1000 Aerial photo Powerpoint slides Surveyor’s report dated September 2008 Ecologist’s report dated 22 September 2008