Complaint from Jersey Trees for Life concerning a beech tree at the development site P/2014/1012 Grouville
There has been a long planning process concerning this site. In 2014 the Parish of Grouville considered the density to be too great, and there to be insufficient parking provision. This was mitigated by a reduction from 4 to 3 houses, and the provision of a visitor parking space in Chemin des Maltieres. Planning permission was granted on 1st December 2015, subject to a landscaping scheme, which included the retention of a mature beech.
Drawing JY039/PL-011, a landscape layout, was submitted by the Architects on 25th March 2015, but we don’t have access to that drawing . Did this show the beech tree removed?
11th April 2015 – A member of JTfL notified the committee of a proposed development that would threaten trees and hedging in Rue Horman, Chemin des Maltieres, Grouville
13th April 2015 – JTfL researched online Planning applictions and documents.
17th April 2015 – Site visit. A small oak and hedging had been removed as shown in the plans. Foundations were being laid. The beech ”to be retained” had been excavated around on 2 side and roots exposed
19th April – Nick Armstrong, States Arboriculturalist was notified about our concerns by email, asking for an early inspection with a view to a TPO being put in place.
20th April, 9am – Our member emailed to say men were working on the tree.
21st April 9.30am – The site was visited, photo below. The Foreman said the developer had called in Jonathan Le Maistre because they needed to build a retaining wall where the tree stood.
Clearly planning permission was only given after much discussion, based about density on the site and car parking provision. It appears that the permit was ultimately granted after a further parking site was provided, requiring the removal and re-siting of a retaining wall in Chemin des Maltieres, and the density had been negotiated down to 3 No. 4 bedroom houses re-orientated on the site.
- Why allow a parking space on a site where it will necessitate the removal of a mature tree?
- Why allow 3 houses, with parking “found” and added on another road, when the site cannot provide sufficient?
- Why seek to have a mature tree retained when the houses will obviously be built in too close proximity?
If the Planning Department is serious about caring for existing trees, and providing for more, much greater and more skilled consideration must be given to protecting trees during planning decisions. In this case a parking space has caused the destruction of a fine multi-stemmed mature beech. This will take 50 years to replace.
2 generous homes could have been built on this site, benefiting from retained existing trees and thus providing ample parking.
JTfL 21st April 2015