Alison R Perrin and William S Ramage v Northampton BC, Frederick Harry Shephard and Sandra Shephard
Alison R Perrin and William S Ramage v Northampton BC, Frederick Harry Shephard and Sandra Shephard
- 2006
[2006] EWHC 2331 (TCC), 26 September 2006. Considers the relevance of possible alternative engineering works in determining for the purposes of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s198(6)(b) whether the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of a tree was necessary to prevent or abate a nuisance. The roots of a large oak tree subject to a tree preservation order in S's garden had encroached on land belonging to P. P had sought permission from N to fell the tree which was refused, confirmed on appeal by SOS. P then sought a declaration entitling them to fell the tree anyway as it was necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance under s198(6)(b) of the Act. N contended that the exemption under s198(6)(b) was not triggered because other engineering works such as underpinning P's house or constructing a root barrier could be carried out instead and the tree could be preserved. "Held": preliminary issue determined in favour of P. The availability of alternative works did not arise for consideration in the proper operation of s198(6)(b). s198(6)(b) would be unworkable if alternative engineering schemes and the financial resources of the parties had to be taken into account.
PERRIN AND ANOTHER V NORTHAMPTON BC AND OTHERS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S198(6)(B)
EDGEBOROUGH BUILDING CO V WOKING UDC
SMITH V OLIVER
AYRES AND SUN TIMBER COMPANY LTD V LEEDS CITY COUNCIL
PABARI V SOS WORK AND PENSIONS
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] EWHC 2331 (TCC), 26 September 2006. Considers the relevance of possible alternative engineering works in determining for the purposes of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s198(6)(b) whether the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of a tree was necessary to prevent or abate a nuisance. The roots of a large oak tree subject to a tree preservation order in S's garden had encroached on land belonging to P. P had sought permission from N to fell the tree which was refused, confirmed on appeal by SOS. P then sought a declaration entitling them to fell the tree anyway as it was necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance under s198(6)(b) of the Act. N contended that the exemption under s198(6)(b) was not triggered because other engineering works such as underpinning P's house or constructing a root barrier could be carried out instead and the tree could be preserved. "Held": preliminary issue determined in favour of P. The availability of alternative works did not arise for consideration in the proper operation of s198(6)(b). s198(6)(b) would be unworkable if alternative engineering schemes and the financial resources of the parties had to be taken into account.
PERRIN AND ANOTHER V NORTHAMPTON BC AND OTHERS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S198(6)(B)
EDGEBOROUGH BUILDING CO V WOKING UDC
SMITH V OLIVER
AYRES AND SUN TIMBER COMPANY LTD V LEEDS CITY COUNCIL
PABARI V SOS WORK AND PENSIONS
England and Wales--1543-