Plant, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough Of Lambeth

Factual and Procedural Background

On 25 January 2022, the respondent planning authority, Company A, granted planning permission for the redevelopment of part of an estate at The Site. The development involved felling four mature trees. Company A granted permission on the basis that the application, including the felling of the trees, was not contrary to the relevant local plan policy on trees (Policy Q10). The appellant challenged this decision on the ground that Company A misinterpreted Policy Q10, arguing that the proposed felling was contrary to the policy.

The first interested party was initially a resident on the Site who objected to the planning application. Following her death, her nephew was substituted as the first interested party, inheriting her home which would be demolished if the redevelopment proceeds. The second interested party is Company B, the developer named in the planning application, wholly owned by Company A.

The policy in question, Policy Q10, requires proposals to take account of existing trees and prohibits development that would result in the loss of trees of significant amenity, historic, or ecological value unless it is "imperative" to remove them and adequate replacement planting is secured, calculated by reference to cost/benefit tools such as i-tree or CAVAT.

The appellant initially challenged Company A's grant of permission in the High Court, which dismissed the challenge. The issue on appeal was whether the felling of trees is contrary to the policy even if replacement planting is secured and removal is "imperative". The Judge below accepted Company A's interpretation and dismissed the challenge. The appellant now appeals against that decision.

The application process included an initial grant of planning permission in March 2021, which was quashed following a judicial review on unrelated grounds. The application was reconsidered and granted again in January 2022, with the policy amended to include paragraph G allowing for replacement planting where removal is imperative. The appellant objected to the removal of mature trees, but the planning committee accepted the recommendation to approve the application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether paragraphs B and C(i) of Policy Q10 impose an absolute prohibition on the removal of trees of significant amenity, historic or ecological value.
2. Whether paragraph G of Policy Q10 provides a policy-compliant exception permitting removal of such trees if it is "imperative" to do so and adequate replacement planting is secured.
3. The proper interpretation of the word "imperative" in paragraph G within the context of the policy and planning law.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Paragraphs B and C(i) of Policy Q10 prohibit the removal of trees of significant value absolutely, without exception.
• Paragraph G does not provide an exception but only requires replacement planting if a breach occurs and removal was imperative.
• The planning authority is not permitted to balance the importance of the development scheme against the value of the trees when deciding if removal is "imperative".
• "Imperative" means the development cannot proceed without felling the trees.
• The policy must be interpreted clearly so that planning officers, committees, developers, and residents can apply it objectively.

Respondent's Arguments

• Policy Q10 contains a cascading series of requirements and exceptions, with paragraph G providing a narrow exception to paragraphs B and C(i).
• Paragraph G allows removal of trees where it is "imperative" and adequate replacement planting is secured, determined by established valuation tools.
• The word "imperative" implies a high threshold requiring an evaluative judgment based on all relevant planning considerations.
• The planning authority correctly applied the policy, balancing the importance of the development against the value of the trees.
• The appellant’s interpretation renders the word "imperative" meaningless and is overly restrictive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging that Policy Q10 is not drafted as clearly as it could be, with ambiguities regarding the relationship between paragraphs B, C(i), and G. The appellant’s interpretation would impose an absolute prohibition on removal of significant trees, with paragraph G only requiring replacement planting post-breach. This was considered counter-intuitive and inconsistent with the policy as a whole.

The court favored the respondent’s interpretation that paragraph G provides a limited exception permitting removal of significant trees where it is "imperative" to do so, subject to adequate replacement planting. This interpretation better aligns the paragraphs as defining when tree removal is permissible within the policy framework.

The word "imperative" was interpreted as requiring an evaluative planning judgment involving all relevant considerations, including the significance of the tree, whether the development can proceed without removal, the benefits of the development, and whether alternatives exist. This establishes a high threshold limiting the exception.

The court noted that the interpretation is consistent with the London Plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework, although the decision did not depend on this consistency.

Overall, the court found that the planning authority correctly interpreted and applied Policy Q10, lawfully balancing competing considerations and not misinterpreting the policy.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the planning authority’s interpretation of Policy Q10, confirming that removal of trees of significant value may be permitted where it is "imperative" and adequate replacement planting is secured. This decision affirms the lawful application of the policy in this case and clarifies the meaning of "imperative" as requiring a high threshold evaluative judgment. No new legal precedent was established beyond the proper interpretation of the specific policy in context. The direct effect is to maintain the planning permission granted for the redevelopment involving the felling of the four mature trees.