Key Facts
- •Three judicial reviews challenged the Secretary of State's (SSEFRA) decisions upholding restocking notices (RSNs) issued by the Forestry Commission (FC) under the Forestry Act 1967.
- •The cases involved Wickford Developments, Witham Nelson Investments, and Smar Holdings.
- •Each case concerned trees felled on claimant's land without a felling licence.
- •Claimants appealed to a Reference Committee (RC), which reported to the Minister, who made the challenged decisions.
- •The cases raised various grounds, including abuse of power, misdirection in law, disproportionate impact, and procedural unfairness.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of 'garden' under s.9(2)(b) of the Forestry Act 1967.
Rockall v DEFRA [2008] EWHC 2408 (Admin)
Proportionality in relation to RSNs.
None explicitly stated, discussed in relation to the facts of the case.
Relationship between Forestry Act 1967 and Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
R (Arnold White Ltd) v Forestry Commission [2023] PTSR 242
Duty to give reasons for decisions.
Dover DC v CPRE Kent [2018] 1 WLR 108
Abuse of power and reliance on parliamentary statements.
R (Spath Holme) v SSETR [2001] AC 349, Pepper v Hart
Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Outcomes
Ground One of Wickford Developments claim allowed.
Minister failed to address the abuse of process argument, creating a lacuna in the statutory scheme and causing prejudice to the claimant.
Grounds One and Two of Witham Nelson claim allowed.
Lack of rational basis to reject alternative land and improper delegation of consideration to the FC.
Grounds One, Two, and Three of Smar Holdings claim allowed.
Erroneous conclusion that allowing the appeal would undermine the planning regime, failure to consider public interest in housing development, and irrational approach to alternative land.