High Court dismisses legal challenge over approach to loss of trees when granting planning permission for estate redevelopment

The London Borough of Lambeth has defeated a bid by a resident to prevent redevelopment of part of an estate because of the loss of four trees.

Resident Andrew Plant challenged in the Planning Court the council’s decision to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of its Cressingham Gardens Estate on the ground that Lambeth misinterpreted its policy in the mistaken belief that it allowed the removal of any tree for a development - provided that its value was replaced - and failed to understand that the policy still prohibited the removal of trees of significant value.

Cressingham Gardens was built in the 1970s with more than 300 homes and is recognised as of heritage interest, the court heard. The redevelopment design incorporated existing mature trees, but four would be felled.

The application in question was for the Trinity Rise/Ropers Walk site, which comprises flats totalling 59 habitable rooms, which Lambeth intends to replace with 70 habitable rooms in various blocks.

Lambeth said this would see the loss of the four trees “but officers are satisfied that there are material considerations that outweigh the departure from development plan policy”.

Mr Plant argued Lambeth was wrong to conclude it could remove any tree for a development and failed to understand that its policy still prohibited this if a tree was deemed to be significant value, as were these.

Lambeth said the policy contained numerous exceptions one of which allowed removal against the test of this being 'imperative', provided there was adequate replacement planting,

Timothy Corner KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said: "I think [Lambeth’s] interpretation…is essentially correct.” The judge said there was “a cascading series of requirements and exceptions”.

In Plant, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] EWHC 3079 (Admin) Judge Corner said: “On [Mr Plant’s] case the planning authority cannot strike a balance between the importance of the scheme and the value of the tree proposed for removal in deciding whether removal is ‘imperative'.

“I think this is an unrealistic approach. It depends on an artificial constraint on the considerations which the planning authority can take into account in deciding whether removal of a tree is ‘imperative’.”

He said there was no justification in the policy for an approach where the only relevant consideration “is whether the tree is 'in the way', in the sense of occupying the physical space required for the scheme to be built.

“I cannot see why in deciding whether removal is 'imperative' the decision-maker is unable to take account of wider considerations, including balancing the value of the tree against the importance of the scheme”, he concluded.

Mark Smulian