Wickford Development Company Limited & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

2 August 2024

[2024] EWHC 2034 (Admin)

High Court

Three companies challenged government decisions to make them replant trees after cutting them down without permission. The court ruled in favour of the companies because the government didn't properly consider all the facts, especially the impact on housing plans and the possibility of replanting trees elsewhere. The court said the government needs to better balance protecting trees with allowing development, and needs to explain its decisions more clearly.

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.

Wickford Development Company Limited & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Robert Zachery Cox, R (on the application of) v Forestry Commission

Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds, R (on the application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council

Wellingborough Walks Action Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v North Northamptonshire Council

Weston Homes Plc, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Rory Walsh, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council