Hobbs v Horsham District Council

When confirming a tree preservation order, a local planning authority must consider the substance of objections and representations, but it need not address every insignificant or insubstantial point separately. It may rely on a fair summary in an officer’s report and on legal advice, provided the report engages with the material issues.

The authority may consider whether trees are threatened indirectly by development, including the risk of later pressure for heavy pruning or removal because of their proximity to buildings. The fact of a strong objection is not invariably irrelevant. Its significance depends on the content and context of the objection. A challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 therefore fails where the authority’s reasoning is rationally open to it and the statutory procedure has been followed.

The claimant, the freehold owner of land containing eight oak trees, applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash a tree preservation order made and confirmed by Horsham District Council.

The claimant challenged the confirmation on three grounds: failure to consider her objections; reliance on the strength of her objections as an irrelevant consideration; and reliance on an unsupported conclusion that the trees were under threat from development proposals. The dispute concerned whether the committee could rely on an officer’s report summarising the objections and whether its assessment of the development risk was lawful.

1. Statutory consideration of objections. Regulation 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 required the council to consider objections and representations before confirming the order. In the planning context, that obligation was satisfied if the committee grappled with the points of substance. It did not require members to address every point individually or to read the claimant’s full objection where the officer’s report fairly summarised the material issues.
2. The statutory context differed materially from Norvill v Chapman (1995) 133 ALR 226. The council could delegate planning functions under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the committee was entitled to rely on an officer’s report and competent legal advice. The report sufficiently addressed the procedural objections, including the Convention objection and the accuracy of the plan.
3. The omission of the alternative one-dwelling permission did not invalidate the decision. The claimant had not stated that she had abandoned the two-dwelling scheme or that the alternative scheme would have no impact on the trees. In the circumstances, the omission was immaterial.
4. The council was entitled to conclude that the trees were under threat from development. The relevant risk was not limited to physical damage during construction. The close proximity of the dwellings could generate later pressure for injudicious heavy pruning or removal. That conclusion was supported by the officer’s reasoning and was not irrational.
5. The strength and tenor of the claimant’s objections could be considered in context. The court did not establish a general rule that an objection increases the need for a tree preservation order. On these facts, the objections offered no reassurance that the trees would be retained and therefore reasonably reinforced the council’s concern. R v (on the application of Gilman) v Ruckland County Council [2005] JPL 970 was fact-specific and did not require a different result.
6. The challenge was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £8,146.25 including VAT.