The appellant challenged refusal of leave to fell a tree protected by a tree preservation order. The tree was old and large, and its roots had begun to undermine the claimant’s buildings. The original consent to a reduction of the crown of the tree by 50% had not been accompanied by the proper certificate as to the tree’s amenity value, but one was served later. The claimant had since been advised that damage could only be avoided by it being felled. He sought compensation for the damage, and the authority replied that his claim was out of time.
Held: The Regulation required the authority’s decision to be certified. That required formal notification of the decision. The certification procedure could only take place at the time of the decision, and not by a certificate issued separately. The first respondent’s decision upholding the validity of the certificate was incorrectly based and ineffective.
Citations:
[2000] EWHC Admin 387
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Town and County Planning (Tree Preservation Order) Regulations 1969
Citing:
Cited – Henriques v Swale Borough Council CA 7-Oct-1996
The appellant challenged refusal of the Lands Tribunal to authorise him to fell a tree protected under a Tree Preservation Order. He complained that the decision had not been certified properly by the authority as was required.
Held: ‘ The . .
Cited – Brayhead (Ascot) Ltd v Berkshire County Council CA 1964
Planning permission had been granted subject to conditions, but no reasons had been given for the imposition of those conditions. The Order required the local planning authority to state its reasons in writing if it decided to grant planning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140202
