000			02193cab a2200253 4500
001			##L135440
008			061026n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u135440
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aAlison R Perrin and William S Ramage v Northampton BC, Frederick Harry Shephard and Sandra Shephard
260			_c2006
520			_a[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.
590			_aIKA311006
650	2	4	_aPERRIN AND ANOTHER V NORTHAMPTON BC AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S198(6)(B)
650	2	4	_aEDGEBOROUGH BUILDING CO V WOKING UDC
650	2	4	_aSMITH V OLIVER
650	2	4	_aAYRES AND SUN TIMBER COMPANY LTD V LEEDS CITY COUNCIL
650			_aPABARI V SOS WORK AND PENSIONS
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT CONTROL-PLANNING ENFORCEMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/2331.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c77894 _d77894