Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds, R (on the application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council
[2023] EWHC 901 (Admin)
Wellingborough Walks Action Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v North Northamptonshire Council
21 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1225 (Admin)
High Court
A developer cut down protected trees before getting all the necessary approvals. The court said they needed permission from the council before cutting down any trees, even if it was for a road with planning permission. The council has to approve a plan showing which trees can stay and which have to go before any more trees can be cut down.
Key Facts
- •Planning permission granted for Route 2 access road to Stanton Cross development.
- •Protected lime trees (Wellingborough Walks) lie along the proposed Route 2.
- •Contractors felled trees before obtaining necessary approvals, sparking legal action.
- •Key issue: Whether tree felling was 'necessary to implement a planning permission' under Regulation 14(a)(vii) of the 2012 Regulations.
- •Various conditions attached to the 2017 planning permission related to landscaping and tree protection.
- •Applications to discharge conditions were submitted after the felling but before the judgement.
- •The approved plans for Route 2 did not show the extent of tree loss required.
Legal Principles
Tree preservation orders are an integral part of the land use planning scheme, complementary to planning control.
Barney-Smith v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 583 (CA)
For tree felling to be exempt under Regulation 14(a)(vii), it must be 'necessary' to implement the planning permission; if the permission can be implemented without tree loss, the exception doesn't apply.
Barney-Smith v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 583 (CA)
Planning permissions must be interpreted objectively, considering the grant, conditions, and reasons for conditions.
R (Dennis) v Southwark LBC [2024] EWHC 57 (Admin)
Actions inconsistent with express planning permission requirements don't fall under Regulation 14(a)(vii).
This case
Outcomes
Grounds 1, 2, and 4 of the claim succeeded.
Necessary conditions under the 2017 planning permission (relating to tree retention plans) hadn't been met before the February 2023 tree felling; the statutory undertaker exception didn't apply.
Ground 3 and the Claimant's wider arguments about pre-conditions failed.
The environmental statement didn't define specific tree loss; the wider pre-conditions were not sufficiently related to tree removal to affect the applicability of Regulation 14(a)(vii).
The Defendant's initial approach to the legality of the works was incorrect, but its current position aligns with the court's findings.
The Defendant's position evolved to acknowledge the importance of pre-conditions related to tree protection.
The Interested Party's contention that no further approval was needed for tree felling was rejected.
The court found that approval under condition 34 (read with condition 23) was needed before trees could be felled.
Similar Cases
Dr Caroline Rye v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 358 (Admin)
Rory Walsh, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council
[2024] EWHC 2640 (Admin)
Andrew Brenner, R (on the application of) v Haringey London Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 2325 (Admin)
Wickford Development Company Limited & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[2024] EWHC 2034 (Admin)