Category 'A' Housing Development at Bel Royal, 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (23/07/2007) regarding: Category 'A' Housing Development at Bel Royal, St. Lawrence - Tree Removal.

Subject:	Category A Housing Development at Bel Royal, St. Lawrence – Tree Removal
Decision ref:	MD-PE-2007-0199	Exempt clause(s):
Type of report:	Written and oral	Report file ref:
Person giving report (if oral): Principal Planner
Written report – author: Principal Planner
Written Report Title: Category A Housing Development at Bel Royal, St. Lawrence – Tree Removal
Decision(s): The Minister for Planning and Environment decided to; 1. Approve the lifting of two silver birch trees (nos. 95 and 96) and their relocation in the same vicinity of the site by an approved means agreed with the States Arboriculturalist, on condition that should they fail to survive within a period of five years, they are replaced with two container-grown multi-stemmed silver birch trees planted in the next available planting season; 2. approve the lifting of tree nos. 13 (alder), 15 (evergreen Oak) and 18 (common ash) from the hedgerow along the southern boundary of Field 851 and their relocation elsewhere on the site by an approved means agreed with the States Arboriculturalist, on condition that should any fail to survive within a period of five years, they are replaced by a tree of the same species and planted in the next available planting season; 3. approve the raising of the crowns of tree nos. 81 (common oak) and 82 (common oak); 4. confirm that none of this work shall take place until after the end of July and only then, where no protected birds nests are in use or being built.
Reason(s) for decision: to enable the orderly implementation of the approved development scheme for the north western area of the site, whilst avoiding damage to a mountain ash tree of high retention value and lessening the detrimental impact on amenity associated with the removal of two silver birch trees; to lessen the detrimental impact of removing three trees from the hedgerow to the south of field 851; to allow the removal of dead wood and damaged branches from two oak trees so improving their condition and appearance; to minimise the detrimental impact of tree felling on the ecology of the area.
Action required: inform the land owner and local political representatives of the Minister’s decision.
Signature: Minister

Category 'A' Housing Development at Bel Royal, St. Lawrence - Tree Removal.

		Item No:
		Date:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

Category A Housing Development at Bel Royal, St. Lawrence –

Tree Removal

Purpose of the Report

To consider a request from the applicant for the removal and replacement of two silver birch trees at the above site and other related matters.

Background

1. On 21st March 2007, the Minister for Planning and Environment decided to grant planning permission for development at the site comprising inter alia 102 Category A homes.

2. A permit was issued on the 8th May 2007, which allows for the retention and protection of good quality trees where practicable, the removal of identified trees and the replacement of lost trees. These decisions were informed by a ‘Tree Survey’ prepared by Michael Felton Ltd (landscape architects) in consultation with the States Arboriculturalist.

4. On 29th June 2007, I attended a meeting with representatives of Dandara, Axis Mason and the States Arboriculturalist, where the developers raised a number of issues regarding trees approved for retention.

5. The developers have followed this up with a letter dated 29th June 2007 seeking confirmation of the way forward in relation to the issues raised (see Appendix 1).

Discussion

Silver Birches

There are two silver birch trees (Betula Pendula) in the former orchard to the north of the site, which have been approved for retention on the approved ‘Existing Vegetation and Tree Protection Plan’. Unfortunately, these trees were not shown on the approved ‘Development Plan’ and they present problems for the layout of the development, as approved.

The trees in question are about 15 years old and were given numbers 95 and 96 in the ‘Tree Survey’ (see plan in Appendix 2). The Tree Survey describes them as follows:

Tree No. 95

Species: Betula spp

Age: Mature (i.e. over ⅔ life expectancy)

Girth: 60cm

Height: 10m

Observations: Tall spindly single stem, leaning very slightly. Good even crown.

Retention Value: B

Tree No. 96

Species: Betula spp

Age: Early Mature (i.e. ⅓ to ⅔ life expectancy)

Girth: 58cm

Height: 12m

Observations: Tall even crown, single stem tree.

Retention Value: B

For the purposes of the tree survey, the trees were surveyed in accordance with BS5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’. The retention value of all the trees on the site is 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.

Neither of the trees in question, therefore, is identified as having the highest retention value.

Tree 95 would be too close to the housing block containing units 1-6 and its retention would not be possible without a significant change to the existing layout for this part of the site.

Tree 96 is located to the west of the loop road and this, together with a mountain ash (Tree 101) on the opposite side of the road (N.B. designated with the highest retention value), combine to form a ‘pinch point’. Whilst it might still be possible to build the road between them, it is very likely that the construction work would undermine and damage both trees. In the circumstances, it was considered a better option by the States Arboriculturalist and me, to remove and replace tree 96, adjust the position of the road and preserve the higher value mountain ash tree.

Both officers considered it appropriate to plant replacements for trees 95 and 96 in close proximity to tree 101, in the form of two container-grown multi-stemmed Betula Pendula. These would be about 12-15 feet tall and could be used to reinforce the retained hedgerow to the south of the loop road.

Trees in Hedgerow to South of Field 851

There are three trees in this hedgerow which have erroneously been marked by the architects for retention in the approved plans, including:

· Tree No. 13 – Alder

· Tree No. 15 – Evergreen Oak

· Tree No. 18 – Common Ash

The States Arboriculturalist was of the view that the trees in question had no retention value.

Other Tree Issues Addressed (see plan, Appendix 1)

Raising the Crown of 2 Oak Trees

It was agreed with the States Arboriculturalist that damaged lower limbs could be removed from tree numbers 81 (retention value A) and 82 (retention value B) and the crowns could be raised.

Line of Poplar Trees along the Western Boundary of the Former Orchard

This line of trees is indicated for retention as part of the approved plans. They are referred to as Group 1 in the ‘Tree Survey’, which describes them as follows:

Tree No. Group 1

Species: Populus nigra

Age: Mature (i.e. over ⅔ life expectancy)

Girth: 225cm average

Height: 21 - 25m

Observations: Line of very tall trees located on the boundary of the site. Each tree has been planted between 2no Cupressocyparis leylandii. The trees are visible above the Cupressocyparis leylandii.

Retention Value: B

The Leylandii trees planted between the poplars are already approved for removal. However, the States Arboriculturalist has previously indicated that this could present difficulties in weakening and exposing the poplar trees. It was agreed at the site meeting that the stumps and main roots of the leylandii trees should remain to avoid damage to the poplars.

Unfortunately, the States Arboriculturalist found evidence of ‘Honey Fungus’ on two of the poplar trees at the southern end of the line. He has, therefore, agreed to reappraise the condition of all the poplars once the leylandii trees have been removed. It is likely that infected trees will have to be removed and that the remaining poplars will need to be pollarded to an agreed height to allow them to grow and stabilise. It was also agreed there would be merit in planting additional poplars along the boundary to reinforce the line.

Legal implications

Under planning condition no.20 ‘Tree Protection during Site Works’, the prior written consent of the Minister is required for the felling, lopping, topping, destruction or removal of any tree on the site approved for retention.

Consultation

Recommendation

That the Minister for Planning and Environment decides to:

(i) Approve the felling of two silver birch trees (nos. 95 and 96), on condition that they are replaced in the same vicinity of the site with two container-grown multi-stemmed silver birch trees;

(ii) Approve the felling of tree nos. 13 (alder), 15 (evergreen oak) and 18 (common ash) from the hedgerow along the southern boundary of Field 851;

(iii) Approve the raising of the crowns of tree nos. 81 (common oak) and 82 (common oak).

(iv) Confirm that none of this work shall take place until after the end of July and only then, where no protected birds nests are in use or being built.

Reason(s) for Decision

· To enable the orderly implementation of the approved development scheme for the north western area of the site, whilst avoiding damage to a mountain ash tree of high retention value and lessening the detrimental impact on amenity associated with the loss of two silver birch trees;

· To allow removal of three hedgerow trees to the south of field 851 recognised as having no particular retention value and erroneously included in the approved plans for retention;

· To allow the removal of dead wood and damaged branches from two oak trees so improving their condition and appearance;

· To minimise the detrimental impact of tree felling on the ecology of the area.

Action Required

 inform the land owner and local political representatives of the Ministers decision;

Written by:	Roger Corfield, Principal Planner

Approved by:	Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director – Policy and Projects

Endorsed by:

Attachments:

 Appendix 1: Dr. H. GLYN YOUNG: ‘Rapid Assessment of Breeding Birds at Bel Royal Development Site, La Vallée de St. Pierre, Jersey’, 24th – 26th May 2007.

 Appendix 2: M. FREEMAN, Principal Ecologist: ‘Additional commentary relating to the habitat provided by the trees approved for removal at the Bel Royal Cat A housing development’.

File ref: P/2006/2489