Palm Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [electronic resource]
Palm Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [electronic resource]
- 2009
[2009] EWHC 220 (Admin), 13 February 2009. The High Court has ruled that the smallest sapling can be regarded as a tree. An applicant developer (P) applied to overturn a decision of the respondent secretary of state (S) that P should not be granted consent to undertake work in a woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S198. P bought a site previously used for industrial purposes on which woodland had become established. P applied for permission to develop it commercially. The local authority refused and then imposed a TPO to protect the trees on the site. P appealed to S claiming the removal of scrub, shrubs and saplings was not covered by the TPO because they were not trees, but S supported the council. Held: application refused. The TPO covered saplings as the law did not specify any limitation on size. TPOs applied to present and future trees as the purpose of the order was to protect woodland, which depended on future growth. S had not erred in her determination.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S198
FORESTRY ACT 1967 S9
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (TREES) REGULATIONS 1999
TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS (TPOs)
England and Wales--1543-
[2009] EWHC 220 (Admin), 13 February 2009. The High Court has ruled that the smallest sapling can be regarded as a tree. An applicant developer (P) applied to overturn a decision of the respondent secretary of state (S) that P should not be granted consent to undertake work in a woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S198. P bought a site previously used for industrial purposes on which woodland had become established. P applied for permission to develop it commercially. The local authority refused and then imposed a TPO to protect the trees on the site. P appealed to S claiming the removal of scrub, shrubs and saplings was not covered by the TPO because they were not trees, but S supported the council. Held: application refused. The TPO covered saplings as the law did not specify any limitation on size. TPOs applied to present and future trees as the purpose of the order was to protect woodland, which depended on future growth. S had not erred in her determination.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S198
FORESTRY ACT 1967 S9
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (TREES) REGULATIONS 1999
TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS (TPOs)
England and Wales--1543-