A NEIGHBOURLY dispute over a hedge described as a “green lung” in St Brelade’s Bay went all the way to the Royal Court – which ruled that it could stay.
The hedge has for decades separated two detached properties with large gardens, Longridge to the west and Belmont House to the east.
The owners of Belmont House complained about the hedge in 2024 under the High Hedges Law, which allows the Infrastructure Minister to require action over hedges more than two metres tall.
Their complaint was supported by a report recommending that 24 trees and shrubs be removed, replaced or pollarded.
Advocate Philip Sinel said their concerns were “primarily on the grounds of safety”, although Belmont House also has a swimming pool and the hedge “formed some barrier to light as the sun went down to the west”.
The owner of Longridge, however, said her neighbours had never previously raised concerns.
She told them in 2024: “In all the years we have known one another, you have not once voiced any worries about my trees or the wall.”
The owners of Belmont House sent a lawyer’s letter to their neighbours in February 2025, while the Longridge owners commissioned their own report, which found no issues with the trees or wall.
The Belmont House owners said falling trees had previously damaged their swimming pool and roof.
But the Longridge owner said her family had lived at the property for 28 years, “and all the trees in question were already in situ when we moved there”.
She added: “I have two gardeners employed every Tuesday for eight hours; they tend to my garden and to the trees and have done so since we moved here.”
She also said tree surgeons regularly assessed the health of the trees.
In October 2025, the Infrastructure Department concluded that the impact of the hedge was not “unreasonable” and no remedial notice was issued.
It also noted that the hedge formed part of the “green backdrop” of St Brelade’s Bay and screened Longridge from hotels in the bay.
The owners of Belmont House appealed against that decision, arguing that it was wrong and that the Environment Minister had taken irrelevant matters into account while failing to consider others.
But the Royal Court dismissed their case.
The judgment noted that the Longridge owner “expressed regret that the matter had ended up in court proceedings and said that she maintained the garden well and regarded it as a green lung in the bay”.
The court found that the hedge and wall did not adversely affect the “reasonable enjoyment” of Belmont House’s garden and that concerns about safety did not fall within the scope of the High Hedges Law.
It therefore declined to issue a remedial notice requiring work to the hedge.
The case was heard by Deputy Bailiff Mark Temple, sitting with Jurats Ronge and Cornish.
