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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 26 March 2010 regarding: Hirondelle, La Ruette des Parcqs, St. Helier - reduction in height of hedge.

Decision Ref:	MD–PE–2009-0014
Subject:	Hirondelle, La Ruette des Parcqs, St Helier
Decision Summary Title :	DS - Hirondelle, La Ruette des Parcqs, St Helier
DS Author:	Kevin Pilley: Assistant Director, Policy and Projects
DS Date:	19 March 2010	DS Status:	Public
Written Report Title :	WR - Hirondelle, La Ruette des Parcqs, St Helier
WR Author:	Kevin Pilley: Assistant Director, Policy and Projects
WR Date	22 January 2009	WR Status:	Public
Oral Rapporteur:	Kevin Pilley: Assistant Director, Policy and Projects
Decision(s):	The Minister for Planning and Environment resolved to issue a remedial notice requiring a reduction and subsequent maintenance of the height of the hedge along that part of the eastern boundary of Les Hirondelles, La Ruette des Parcqs, St Helier which abuts the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, St Helier. The Minister also determined that the Notice should specify the following: 1. Initial action For the full length of the hedge abutting the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, St Helier reduce the height of the hedge such that it does not exceed 2.8 metres in height (measured from the ground level in the garden of Hirondelle); 2. Preventative action On two occasions in each calendar year cut the hedge along its full width for the full length of the hedge abutting the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, St Helier so as to reduce the height of the hedge such that it does not exceed 2.8 metres in height (measured from the ground level in the garden of Hirondelle). 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 is justification to require the reduction of the height of the hedge to ameliorate the problems that they cause for the adjacent dwelling, but that this has to be balanced against privacy and arboricultural considerations. Justification for the specification of the Notice is as follows: 1. Initial action The reduction in the height of the hedge is required to ameliorate the impact of its height upon 12 Jardin de la Hauteur whilst seeking to maintain the privacy of Les Hirondelles, without prejudice to the health and vitality of the hedge itself. 2. Preventative action The hedge is required to be maintained at a height such that the impact of its height upon 12 Jardin de la Hauteur is ameliorated whilst the privacy of Les Hirondelles is maintained, without prejudice to the health and vitality of the hedge itself. 3. Time for compliance To provide the hedge owner with a reasonable period of time in which to comply with the requirements of this Notice.
Legal and Resource Implications:	The Minister is empowered to determine this application under the High Hedges (Jersey) Law 2008
Action required:	1. Issue a remedial notice to the hedge owner and complainant 2. Update the register of Remedial Notices.
Signature:
Position:	Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different to Date Signed):

Hirondelle, La Ruette des Parcqs, St. Helier - reduction in height of hedge

Planning and Environment Department

High Hedge Report

Application Number	HH/2008/2019
Site address	Hirondelle, La Ruette des Parcqs, St Helier
Complainant	Mr and Mrs T Darragh, 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, St Helier
Hedge owner/ occupier	Mr E Vibert, Hirondelle, La Deuxieme, St Helier
Description	Leyland cypress hedge up to 4.8m high along full extent (16.7metres) of complainant’s western boundary. Base of trees on land approx. 1metre above complainant’s rear garden.
Date validated	17/09/2008
Planning policy and legal context	The site is in the Built-up Area. The hedge existed at the time of the complainant’s purchase of their property (16 June 2000) and a clause was inserted into the contract of the sale of land by which the purchasers (the complainant’s) acknowledged and accepted that there existed a row of ‘Cypress trees’ and that there was degree of encroachment caused by the trees. Legal advice has been sought on this clause and it is clear that its purpose was to deal with the issue of encroachment of the hedge, and rights of access for the owner to maintain it. It does not preclude the Minister from determining the impact of the hedge upon the complainant’s property by virtue of loss of light, provided that any subsequent action stipulated by the Minister would not result in the loss of the hedge. The complainant has acknowledged that the height of the hedge was not dissimilar to the current height of the hedge at the time that they moved in (in June 2000), at a height of approximately 4.5 metres (it is now approx. 4.8 metres high, from the complainant’s perspective).
Complainant’s case	The complainant’s state that the hedge has resulted in considerably diminished levels of natural light reaching either their kitchen or living room, both of which are on the western elevation of the property at a distance of approximately 5.65 metres from the hedge. It is also evident that the hedge causes loss of light and shading to the complainant’s garden.
Owner’s case	The owners have submitted that the hedge is important in safeguarding their privacy from the adjacent housing development, and specifically 12 Jardin de la Hauteur. It is stated that as the complainant and the owners’ properties are opposite one another that the hedge provides privacy to both properties. It is also stated that the existence and height of the hedge would have been a consideration at the time of the determination of the planning application to develop the housing estate of which no. 12 is a part, forming a visual screen between both existing and new development, the existence of which should not be prejudiced by consideration of the current application. It is submitted by the owners that the hedge is well maintained, is aesthetically pleasing and has amenity value, the corollary of this being that anything to alter its present state will result in a loss of amenity. Finally, the owners argue, through their legal representative, that for a complaint of this kind to be upheld, the complainants must be subject to a ‘substantial’ degree of adversity such that it would almost render the property uninhabitable without serious harm, and that they believe that this is not the case. They also submit that, in support of this assertion, that for such a degree of adversity to be caused by the hedge that it would be experienced, not just by the current occupants of the property, but by ‘any reasonable person’. They submit that there have been two former previous occupiers of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, who have lived in the property and have endured the existence of the hedge, without complaint.
Consultations	Surveyor’s report This indicates that the hedge forms a solid barrier about 4.8 metres high from the level of the complainant’s west facing rear garden, and extends the entire width of their garden boundary, with Les Hirondelles, and beyond. The hedge is approximately 5.65 metres from the rear elevation of the property, which has windows for a number of the dwelling’s principal living rooms. 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 3.06 metres is likely to block too much light from the complainant’s windows, and that: § Any hedge above a height of 2.65 metres is likely to block too much light from the complainant’s garden. The report is based on the methodology set out in Hedge height and light loss (2004) Paul J. Littlefair: BRE.
	Ecologist’s report This suggests that the hedge has little or no wildlife value.
	Arboriculturalist’s report The Arboriculturalist expressed concern that the hedge exhibited a considerable degree of 'die-back’ on the complainant’s side of the property which required consideration in the determination of any potential reduction in the height of the hedge as it may serve to limit the extent of any reduction that might be undertaken without detriment to the viability of part of the hedge.
Appraisal	It is quite clear that the hedge existed at the time that the complainant’s moved in to their property and that, by clear reference to their contract of purchase, were explicitly cognisant of it. There is also agreement that the hedge was at or around its current height. On the basis of the above, it self-evident that the hedge is regularly and well maintained. It is also clear that the hedge is an important visual barrier, providing privacy and screening to both properties from each other. The complainant’s property is two storey’s high and the hedge is important in preventing overlooking into the hedge owner’s garden from first floor rooms. Likewise, the garden of Les Hirondelles is approximately 1 metre higher than Jardin de la Hauteur and the hedge serves to prevent overlooking into the garden and ground floor rooms of the complainant’s property. Leyland cypress hedging is of no wildlife value and the hedge has limited public amenity value and contributes little to the character of the area. 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 presence and height of this hedge does, however, have an adverse effect on the levels of light and residential amenity that the complainants might reasonably expect to enjoy.
Summary/ conclusions	Taking all of the relevant factors into account, it is considered that the proximity and height of the Leyland cypress hedge at Les Hirondelles, adjacent the complainant’s property, does cause some harm to the level of residential amenity that the complainant’s might reasonably expect to enjoy, albeit that they were explicitly aware of the existence and height of the hedge at the time that they purchased their property. The hedge is of limited amenity value but it is does serve to provide an incredibly important visual screen between the hedge owner and complainant’s property. The critical issue in this particular case is the level of height reduction that can be sustained without causing undue prejudice to either party, whilst ameliorating the impact of the hedge, by virtue of loss of light, upon 12 Jardin de la Hauteur. Consideration also needs to be given to the extent of works that can be undertaken without damage to the hedge such that the viability of all or part of it is prejudiced. On the basis of all of the above, therefore, it is considered that there is justification to require the reduction of the height of the hedge to ameliorate the harm that it causes the complainant’s, relative to the reasonable enjoyment of their property. The requirement to reduce the height of the hedge has, however, to be balanced against the impact of any height reduction for the privacy of the hedge owner, together with the arboricultural considerations related to the sustainability of the hedge.
Officer recommendation	Issue a remedial notice requiring a reduction and subsequent maintenance of the height of the hedge along that part of the eastern boundary of Les Hirondelles, La Ruette des Parcqs, St Helier which abuts the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, St Helier.
Remedial Notice conditions and reasons	1) Initial action For the most northerly section of the hedge, which abuts the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, St Helier, running from its most northern extent to the juncture with the cedar tree in the garden of Les Hirondelles; a) Reduce the height of the hedge such that it does not exceed 3.3 metres in height (measured from the ground level in the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur); For the remaining length of the hedge, where it abuts the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, St Helier; b) Reduce the height of the hedge such that it does not exceed 3.8 metres in height (measured from the ground level in the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur); Reason The reduction in the height of the hedge is required to ameliorate the impact of its height upon 12 Jardin de la Hauteur whilst seeking to maintain the privacy of Les Hirondelles, without prejudice to the health and vitality of the hedge itself. a) the most northerly section of the hedge is capable of a greater height reduction without undue prejudice to the health of the hedge or the privacy of Les Hirondelles; b) the southerly section is less capable of as extensive a reduction in height owing to the lesser robustness of part of this section of hedge and the greater potential for overlooking of the garden and dwelling of Les Horindelles.
	2) Preventative action For the most northerly section of the hedge, which abuts the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, St Helier, running from its most northern extent to the juncture with the cedar tree in the garden of Les Hirondelles; a) The height of the hedge to be maintained such that it does not exceed 4.3 metres in height (measured from the ground level in the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur); For the remaining length of the hedge, where it abuts the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur, St Helier; b) The height of the hedge to be maintained such that it does not exceed 4.8 metres in height (measured from the ground level in the garden of 12 Jardin de la Hauteur); Reason The hedge is required to be maintained at a height such that the impact of its height upon 12 Jardin de la Hauteur is ameliorated whilst the privacy of Les Hirondelles is maintained, without prejudice to the health and vitality of the hedge itself. The heights specified make allowance for an annual growth of 1 metre.
	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 the hedge owner with a reasonable period of time in which to comply with the requirements of this Notice.