Brewer & Ors, R (on the application of) v Three Rivers District Council

Under regulation 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999, a local planning authority must consider objections to a tree preservation order thoroughly, conscientiously and fairly. An officer’s report may summarise an objection, provided it identifies and addresses its points of substance. Whether trees constitute woodland is primarily a fact-and-degree question for the authority. A formal survey, report or minute is unnecessary where officers have inspected the site and possess sufficient information. Procedural confusion will invalidate the decision only where it causes material unfairness or prevents a substantive response.

The claimants sought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash a tree preservation order made by Three Rivers District Council. The order protected five individual oak trees and designated part of the site as woodland, replacing an earlier area order. The claimants accepted the principle of tree protection but argued that the woodland designation was inappropriate and that the council had failed fairly to consider their objections.

The challenge concerned the adequacy of the committee report, the absence of earlier objection letters and formal officer reports, and confusion over whether an additional report existed.

1. Claim dismissed. The council’s decision to confirm the tree preservation order was lawful, and the claimants were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £9,020.
2. Regulation 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 requires objections and representations to be considered thoroughly, conscientiously and fairly. What those standards require is fact-sensitive. The different statutory context meant that it was unnecessary to decide whether the duty was technically “enhanced”, as described in Stirk v Bridgnorth District Council [1997] 73 P & CR 439.
3. An officer’s report may lawfully summarise an objection. It need not reproduce the objection in full or address every point, provided that it fairly identifies and deals with the points of substance. The report adequately addressed the central issue: whether the southwestern part of the site should remain subject to an area order or receive a woodland order. This was consistent with Hobbs v Horsham District Council [2006] EWHC 165 (Admin).
4. Whether trees constitute woodland is primarily a question of fact and degree for the local planning authority. Having considered the officer’s assessment and photographs, the committee’s conclusion was not Wednesbury perverse.
5. The council was not required to reconsider objections made to the earlier order. The claimants had been given a fresh opportunity to object to the replacement order, and their objection raised substantially the same point as the earlier objections.
6. There was no requirement for a formal survey, written report or minute explaining the officers’ decision to make the order under delegated powers. Inspection of the site had provided sufficient information for officers reasonably to conclude that a woodland order was more appropriate. The court relied on R (on the application of James Robinson) v Secretary of State for the Environment and East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2002] EWHC Admin and its appeal decision [2002] EWCA Civ 1796.
7. The misleading reference to a report prepared by the landscape officer caused no unfairness. The claimants had received the only report in sufficient time, and identified no substantive matter which they had been unable to address.