EROSION could destabilise the cliff above Portelet Bay if a number of trees that have been cut down are not replaced, an environmentalist has warned.
Bob Tompkins explained that there was ‘serious worry’ about stability because of the nature of the soil, but explained that replacement planting would help.
Last month, Environment Minister John Young said he had asked his officers to investigate why a ‘disturbing’ number of trees had been removed from land above the beach.
He added that the incident was another example of why ‘greater protection’ was needed for trees in the Island.
The JEP also spoke to the landowners responsible for felling the trees. They explained that they were undertaking a branchage, as several ‘had begun to lean dangerously over the cliff face onto the beach’.
However, Deputy Young said he was unaware of any ‘issues to do with overhanging’.
The landowners denied that they had been paid to take down the trees by residents of the apartments above the site to allow them to retain their sea view.
Mr Tompkins said: ‘The dominant holm oaks that sit on the cliff face help to retain the thin soils and provide protection from the dominant winds. There is a serious worry that taking these trees down could impact the stability of the cliff face. If you don’t put something back in its place it could de-stabilise the soils. The soil is a wind-blown soil known as loess. It is very powdery and can erode easily.
‘As long as something is planted back, then I don’t envisage a problem. But grass alone won’t hold everything together. If nothing is planted back, then it becomes a problem.’
Mr Tompkins echoed Deputy Young’s thoughts and said that the incident highlighted the need for greater protection of trees in the Island.
Under the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, residents cannot cut down or alter any listed tree without first obtaining planning permission.
Deputy Young revealed that all applications to carry out work on protected trees in recent years had been approved – something he called ‘unacceptable’. The trees at Portelet are not listed under current planning laws.
Mr Tompkins added: ‘We know that greater tree protection is on the cards and there is work ongoing to develop a tree strategy, which will be brought before the States. This would make it a requirement for anyone planning to remove trees to get permission to do so first.
‘This would mean that incidents like the one at Portelet could not occur without reassurances something else will be planted in its place.’
