WHAT’S the difference between a hedgerow and a row about hedges?
The former may be a common sight for anyone driving around Jersey, but the latter has the potential, should it escalate, to end up with a case against a minister in the Royal Court.
Flanked by Jurats Ronge and Cornish, Jersey’s new Deputy Bailiff Mark Temple was called on to rule on an appeal resulting from a dispute between two neighbours in St Brelade’s Bay.
In a packed Court 2 – to be fair, it is one of the smaller chambers in the complex – attendees listened to arguments from two Advocates on opposite sides.
The court heard that after some occasional differences of opinion between property owners in Rue de la Valeuse over the past 20 years, the issue had “kicked off” when parts of trees adjacent to the boundary between the two plots fell during Storm Ciarán in November 2023.
Advocate Philip Sinel said his client, Robert Philp, had complained to the Planning Department as a result of the risks of injury and to his property from the “seriously overgrown” trees belonging to his neighbour, Erika Bass.
Planning documents showed that 24 trees made up the hedge in question, including Cupressus, Leylandii, Poplar, Pittosporum and Griselinia.
Advocate Sinel said his client had suffered “sufficient diminishment of his enjoyment” of his garden.
“Would you like to live in a house with a large garden when you were worried you couldn’t go into the garden?” Advocate Sinel asked. “No-one wants sit in their garden when the wind gets up and a large piece of wood is going to fall on them.”
The court heard that after the Planning Department’s ruling in October 2025 that the hedge was not having a sufficiently adverse effect to justify a remedial notice, Mr Philp had appealed to the Royal Court over the decision for which Environment Minister Steve Luce was responsible.
In January 2026, more branches were felled during Storm Goretti, Advocate Sinel added – he said that while this timber had landed on Mrs Bass’s land because the wind was blowing in the opposite direction to the 2023 storm, this demonstrated that action was required.
Representing the minister, who was not in court, Advocate James Rondel said the High Hedges Law was “crystal clear” in stating that hedges would only be liable to remedial action in cases where they acted as a barrier to light.
Were a minister to fail to act in a proportionate manner, Advocate Rondel ventured to suggest that they would be “hauled over the coals”, but in this case he said the response had been proportionate and that the Environment Minister would have been acting in an “ultra vires” fashion – meaning in excess of the powers laid out by the law – had he imposed a demand for remedial action.
“This was a case of regulation done well, with the complaint received and investigated, submissions considered, and the site visited, with minister reminding himself at all times of his powers and the need to be proportionate,” he added.
Mrs Bass addressed the court briefly, saying that she was sad that a “previously wonderful” relationship with her neighbour had soured when a letter of complaint was issued in September 2024, after which she said Mr Philp had said he would never speak to her again.
The trees made a positive contribution to the environment, she added, and had been regularly checked by qualified specialists to ensure they were maintained and did not represent a risk.
Mr Temple remarked that the situation was “a sad position for both neighbours to be in”.
Following a short adjournment lasting some 15 minutes, and with several observers predicting with confidence that judgement would be reserved to a later date, the panel returned with a decision.
“We have considered this matter and decided to dismiss the appeal [by Mr Philp] and will give our [written] reasons in due course,” Mr Temple said.
