Controversial tree rules pushed back again for more discussion

Thursday 12 October 2023

The debate on controversial new rules around when a tree can be chopped down has been pushed back again to give politicians more time to assess the implications.

States Members were due to discuss a proposed amendment to bring working on trees within the legal definition of “development” on 17 October but this will now be debated on 28 November.

But despite the delay, the politician proposing the law change, Environment Minister Jonathan Renouf, has reiterated his commitment to getting the amendment to Jersey’s planning law over the line.

Deputy Renouf first tried to introduce the law update in March, when the proposals were met with vociferous opposition, particularly from tree surgeons and others involved in land management.

The Minister conceded that his plan then had been “pitched wrongly” which “had been a mistake”.

He recently proposed an updated set of rules, which increase the minimum tree measurements above which permission from Planning would be required to fell it.

Pictured: Deputy Renouf's initial proposals were met with vociferous opposition, particularly from tree surgeons and others involved in land management.

Addressing Scrutiny this week, Deputy Renouf said: “When I brought forward the proposals six months ago, they certainly did not fly below the radar, in that my inbox filled up, I was contacted by people, there were articles and letters in the paper, there was a lot of conversation, and that prompted me to accept that those proposals had been pitched wrongly, and that was a mistake.

“This time, I published the proposals three weeks ago, and didn’t hear a thing until about three or four days ago. 

“I perhaps very naively interpreted the silence that, basically, people were happy with them. But clearly there is still a lot of uncertainty around them, and dissatisfaction in some quarters, so it feels entirely appropriate to have a proper look at this again.

“They may have flown below the radar more because people were preoccupied with other things.”

Explaining the updated proposals, he said: “The original proposals were quite detailed, and in retrospect, pernickety, in that they set standards around exemptions. 

“For example, the original proposals said that for any tree under 8 cm in diameter, at 1.5m in height, work on that tree would potentially need to be notified to the department, as would any work on a branch over 5 cm.

“So, you would have a situation when people would be out with a tape measure for branches and trunks and those trees at 8 cm would potentially be small, garden trees. 

“The debate I have been having with officers is to very clearly say to them that I did not want to capture routine work on trees that anyone would want to get on with in their own properties.

“These rules should be about protecting mature trees. In practical terms, we have abandoned the rule around branches entirely. There is no ‘5cm rule’ on branches.”

Pictured: Environment Minister, Deputy Jonathan Renouf.

Deputy Renouf added: “We have increased the diameter of trees that you can work on without needing any engagement with the Planning department from 8 cm to 25 cm, and to put that in some context, that is typically a tree of 30 to 60 years, so a mature tree.

“So, for any tree under that, get on with it. The only other restriction we are looking at is how much you can reduce the tree, because you could lop a tree down to 2m and argue you have not cut it down. So, the rule we are looking at is a 30% reduction. So, anything up to a 30% reduction will be allowed.

“If you are planning to fell a tree over 25 cm or reduce a tree by more than 30%, you will have to notify the department, which one more significant exception: if you have a large area of trees – such as woodland  - you can apply for a woodland management plan.

“This would be an agreement between you and the department on a series of objectives, such as replanting indigenous trees, creating a habitat corridor etc.”

He added that Planning would have 28 days to respond to an application to fell, and if a response was not heard in that time, it would be regarded as tacit consent. 

Opponents to the amendment include Deputy Philip Bailhache, who argues that the new rules are “a gross intrusion into individual freedom”.