Wellingborough Walks Action Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v North Northamptonshire Council
[2024] EWHC 1225 (Admin)
Andrew Brenner, R (on the application of) v Haringey London Borough Council
10 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2325 (Admin)
High Court
A tree caused problems for two houses. The council decided to cut it down, but one resident sued, saying the council should have waited for decisions from a mediation service (FOS) before cutting the tree. The judge said the council didn't have to wait, as the main reason for cutting the tree was a big claim from the neighbor's insurance company, and that cutting the tree would save the council money. The resident's claim failed.
Key Facts
- •A mature London Plane tree owned by Haringey Council caused subsidence at 61 and 63 Oakfield Road.
- •The Council decided to fell the tree on October 24, 2023.
- •Andrew Brenner, resident of 63 Oakfield Road, challenged the Council's decision.
- •Aviva and Allianz are the insurers for 63 and 61 Oakfield Road respectively.
- •Previous litigation involved similar claims and a settlement where the Council withdrew its decision to fell the tree.
- •The owners of 61 Oakfield Road issued proceedings against the Council for nuisance.
- •FOS complaints were made by the owners of both properties regarding their insurers' handling of the subsidence claims.
- •The Council's decision to fell the tree was based primarily on the claim from the insurers of number 61, which sought a substantial sum for damages.
- •The claimant argued that the Council unlawfully failed to consider the imminent FOS decisions which might have resulted in underpinning, rendering tree removal unnecessary.
Legal Principles
The reasons for a council's decision are those set out in the decision record and officer's report.
Regulation 7 of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 and R (Shasha) v Westminster CC [2017] PTSR 306 at [32]
The court will not read an officer’s report with undue rigour; the question is whether the report was materially misleading on a matter bearing upon the decision.
South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953 at [36]; CPRE Kent v Dover DC [2017] UKSC 79 at [37]; Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling [2018] PTSR 88 at [42]; R (Buxton) v Cambridge CC [2021] EWHC 2028 (Admin) at para [41]
A duty to reconsider a decision arises only when there's a change of circumstances so obviously material that no reasonable decision-maker could fail to reconsider, or where there's a statutory scheme subject to discretionary reversal.
R (Hardcastle) v Buckinghamshire Council [2022] EWHC 2905 at [100]; Stannard v CPS [2019] 1 WLR 3229; R (Dickinson) v HMRC [2019] 4 WLR 22
Outcomes
The claimant's application to amend the grounds was granted.
The defendant raised no objection.
Permission for the claim to proceed was granted.
Edis LJ's observations in the previous claim remained applicable.
The substantive claim for judicial review was dismissed.
The claimant failed to show the Council was obliged to defer its decision or take the FOS determinations into account. The Council's decision was lawful; it considered the relevant factors (potential cost savings, lack of commitment to underpinning from the owners of number 61) and did not misstate facts.
Similar Cases
Susan Hall, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Greenwich
[2023] EWHC 1588 (Admin)
Rory Walsh, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council
[2024] EWHC 2640 (Admin)
Dr Caroline Rye v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 358 (Admin)
Robert Zachery Cox, R (on the application of) v Forestry Commission
[2023] EWHC 3332 (Admin)