PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
La Providence, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence –
Inclusion of Mature Trees in the List of Protected Trees
Purpose of the Report
To assist the Minister for Planning and Environment in deciding whether or not the trees at the above site that have been provisionally included in the List of Protected Trees should be permanently included in the List.
Background
A permit was issued for Category A housing development at the above site on 8th May 2007. The permit allows for the retention of trees or groups of trees with amenity value, where practicable. The decisions in this regard were informed by a ‘Tree Survey’ prepared by Michael Felton Ltd (landscape architects) in consultation with the States Arboriculturalist.
Following occupation of much of the main development, the Planning Department became increasingly concerned about the potential removal or damage of trees approved for retention as part of the development consent. Queries were being raised by the developer and property owners about the status of the retained trees, particularly in private garden areas, and it was recognised that the conditions attached to the permit relating to landscaping and tree retention were not sufficient to guarantee the future protection of the trees.
In the event, the decision was taken to provisionally include the trees in question in the List of Protected Trees (The List) and this took place on 28th October 2009. A schedule of the trees, which number over 40, is set out in Appendix 1 and a plan of their location is included in Appendix 2. This decision was taken in the interests of the amenity of the Island, under the auspices of Article 60 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (The Law). Letters of notice were sent out to relevant land owners accordingly and Site Notices to the same effect were served.
In response to the notice given, the Department has received two letters of representation within the 28 day period provided. One is from Dandara Jersey Ltd., which is objecting to the provisional inclusion of 5 trees in the List (see Appendix 3). The other is from a house owner who has asked that the tree in his garden be removed from the List (see Appendix 4).
Under Article 60 of the Law, the Minister has three months from the service of the notices to determine whether or not the trees in question should remain on the List (i.e. by 28th January 2010).
Discussion
The ‘test’ of whether a tree should be included in the List, is whether it is “in the interests of the amenity of the Island”.
Although, trees are one of the most widely valued parts of our environment, given their importance for nature conservation and their contribution to the landscape, determining their amenity value to the Island is not straightforward. In such circumstances, it is normal to defer to expert advice from a qualified arboriculturalist.
To help assess the value of the trees on the site at the outset of the planning process, expert advice was provided in a Tree Survey Report dated March 2004. This was prepared and submitted as part of the planning application for the housing development by Michael Felton Ltd, in consultation with the States Arboricultural Officer. The survey includes a plan showing the location of all the trees on the site and gives details of species, age, girth, condition and retention value. For the purposes of this exercise, the trees were surveyed in accordance with BS5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’. The retention value of the trees was graded into 4 categories, as follows:
A – High – retention is most desirable.
B – Moderate – retention desirable. Potential to develop to higher category.
C – Low – Could be retained, but not worthy of a higher category.
D – Removal – Dead, Dying, Dangerous.
Of the trees approved for retention and provisionally included in the List, 20no have the highest recorded retention value (A) and 23no have the second highest recorded retention value (B). There are two remaining trees, one of which is recorded as grade C and the other has not been categorised.
The case officer visited the site with the States Arboricultural Officer on 7th December 2009 to reassess the status and values of the trees in question, give consideration to the representations received and agree recommendations as to which trees should or should not remain on the List. In most instances, it was agreed that the provisionally listed trees should be recommended for retention on the List. Where representations were made the following conclusions were reached:
Leyland Cypress in Tree Survey Group 3
The developer has requested its removal from the List, because it has been badly storm damaged, there are concerns about its stability in high winds and they regard it as a potential risk to property and a public liability. The States Arboricultural Officer agrees that the tree is potentially weak and the lack of branches on one side of the tree leaves it exposed to easterly gales. It is recommended that the tree be removed from the List, provided it is replaced by a ‘Heavy Standard’ Semi-Mature Pine to retain the important amenity value of the tree group. This will also serve to mirror the existing pine tree which is situated further to the east alongside the estate road.
Black Poplar Tree along the Northern Site Boundary
The developer has raised concern about splits at the base of the tree which could pose a risk of damage to property and be a public liability. It has suggested that the tree be attended to, in order to reduce the risk and that the tree is then reappraised before deciding on whether or nor it should remain on the List. The States Arboricultural Officer has examined the split at the base of the tree and considers that the risks can be averted by removal of the limb closest to the lamppost. In view of its amenity value, it is recommended that the tree remains on the List, on the understanding that the offending limb is removed to reduce the risk of failure, in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the States Arboricultural Officer.
Trees in the garden of Plot 6 along the northern site boundary
The developer has asked that three provisionally listed trees (i.e. a Flowering Cherry, a Wild Cherry and a Garden Plum) be removed from the List, because they are not specimen trees and they would otherwise unnecessarily restrict development opportunities for the future house owner. On mature reflection, it would appear that these trees in question, which were once part of the former orchard, are not particularly good specimens and their main amenity value is in reducing the visual impact of the development from the property to the north. In the circumstances, it is recommended that the trees be removed from the List, provided they are replaced by three ‘Heavy Standard’ Semi-Mature trees along the northern site boundary. This would effectively be an extension of the recent new boundary planting in the garden. The species and exact siting of the new trees will need to be agreed with the Planning Department, in consultation with the States Arboricultural Officer.
Trees in the gardens of Plots 77, 78 and 80
These trees are former hedgerow trees and comprise a Pine (Plot 77) and two Ash trees. The developer is not opposed to their inclusion in the List, but would like to see the crowns lifted to provide greater clearance to the gardens as required. The company suggests this has previously been advised by the States Arboricultural Officer. The company has also advised that a potential purchaser of Plot 80 has expressed the wish to “reduce and/or crown raise” the Ash tree in the garden and it does not wish to lose sales on such a basis. The Planning Department remains of the view that the trees in question have a significant amenity value. They make a valuable contribution to the character of the development, give a sense of maturity and established atmosphere, soften the impact of the new buildings, help to integrate the development with its surroundings, add visual interest and help provide a reminder of the former landscape. The States Arboricultural Officer remains of the view that the Pine tree (Plot 77) can be crown raised and some of the lower branches on the two Ash trees can be removed to allow greater clearance of the gardens without unduly affecting their amenity value. In the circumstances it is recommended that the trees remain on the List on the understanding that appropriate crown raising or lower limb removal works can be carried out. The specific works for each tree will need to be agreed by the Planning Department, in consultation with the States Arboricultural Officer.
Ash tree in the garden of Plot 85
The owner of Plot 85 would like the ability to remove this former hedgerow tree in the future and has asked that it be removed from the List. His grounds are that the felling of the tree would not “cause any harm to the environment or loss to nature as it is not a tree that appears to be inhabited by wildlife. It is also situated in the middle of my garden so it is an obstacle and exclusion for my children.” Having consulted with the States Arboriculturalist, the Planning Department remains of the view that the tree has a significant amenity value for all the reasons already outlined in relation to the trees in Plots 77, 78 and 80. Its prominent corner site location makes the tree particularly important in adding variety and interest to public views in this part of the development and tree provides visual relief from the hard edges of the development. Consequently, it is recommended that the tree remains on the List.
Legal Implications
The trees in question were provisionally included in the ‘List of Protected Trees’ under the auspices of Article 60 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. The Minister is empowered to do this where he “considers it necessary or expedient to restrain an apprehended removal or damage to a tree which he believes should be on the List of Protected Trees”.
Article 58 of the Law provides that the Minister shall include on the List trees which he is satisfied, “in the interests of the amenity of the Island, should not be cut down, lopped, or otherwise altered, harmed or interfered with without the Minister’s permission”.
Article 59 of the Law allows the Minister to consider retaining the trees in question on the List after 28 days has elapsed since the serving of the notice and, in doing so, he must take into account any representations made where they “relate specifically to the proposed inclusion of the tree on the List”. The Minister has until 28th January 2010 (i.e. 3 months after the service of the notice) to decide. If no decision is made, details of the tree/s in question shall be removed from the List.
The effect of including trees on the List is to protect them from felling etc without the Minister’s permission, by making this an offence; unless it can be proven that the tree is dead, dying or dangerous.
It is also an offence under the ‘Conservation of Wildlife (Jersey) Law 2000’ for any person knowingly to “take, damage or destroy the nest of any protected wild bird while the nest is in use or being built”. This applies to all birds except carrion crow, magpie, feral pigeon and starling.
Consultation
There has been consultation with the States Arboricultural Officer, as explained above.
Recommendation
The Minister for Planning and Environment decides:
- To retain all the provisionally listed trees in question on the List of Protected Trees, with the following exceptions / provisos:
- the Leyland Cypress in Tree Survey Group 3 shall be removed from the List and allowed to be felled, on condition that it is replaced by a ‘Heavy Standard’ Semi Mature Pine (Pinus pinaster) to mirror the existing pine further to the east;
- the provisionally listed ornamental and fruit trees in the garden of Plot 6 shall be removed from the List and allowed to be felled, on condition that they are replaced by three new ‘Heavy Standard’ Semi Mature trees planted along the northern garden boundary as an extension to the recently planted line of trees. The species and exact siting shall be agreed with the Planning Department, in consultation with the States Arboricultural Officer;
- the limb nearest to the lamppost of the Black Poplar tree situated at the north-eastern corner of the site is removed, in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the States Arboricultural Officer;
- the former hedgerow Pine tree in the garden of Plot 77 may be crown raised on condition that the works are to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, in consultation with the States Arboricultural Officer; and
- some of the lower limbs of the former hedgerow Ash trees in the gardens of Plots 78 and 80 may be removed on condition that the works are to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, in consultation with the States Arboricultural Officer.
- that no approved tree felling or tree surgery shall be carried out in the generally recognised bird nesting season (i.e. extending from 1st March to 31st July), or where the tree in question contains a protected nest(s) that is in use or being built.
Reason(s) for Decision
- To protect healthy trees with a recognised high retention value, where they make a significant contribution to the character, ecology and amenity of the area, under the auspices of Articles 59 and 60 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002..
- To avoid any detrimental impact on the birdlife of the area.
Action Required
- inform those who were given notice of the provisional listing (including those who made representations) and local political representatives of the Minister’s decision;
- remove from the List of Protected Trees, details of: the Leyland Cypress in Tree Survey Group 3; and the ornamental and fruit trees in the garden of Plot 6.
Written by: | Roger Corfield, Principal Planner |
| |
Approved by: | Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director – Policy and Projects |
| |
Endorsed by: | |
Attachments:
- Appendix 1: A schedule of the trees provisionally included on the List of Protected Trees.
- Appendix 2: A Plan showing the location of the trees provisionally included on the List of Protected Trees.
- Appendix 3: A letter of representation from Dandara Jersey Limited, dated 26th November 2009.
- Appendix 4: A letter of representation from the owner of No.85, La Providence, dated 24th November 2009.
File ref: P/2006/2489
gov.je