Andrew Plant, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth & Ors

Policy Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan creates a cascading scheme. Significant trees should be retained and protected under paragraphs (B) and (C), but paragraph (G) provides an exceptional route for removal where it is imperative and adequate replacement planting is secured. Whether removal is imperative may involve balancing the value of the tree against the importance of the development. The greater the tree’s significance, the higher the hurdle. If both requirements in paragraph (G) are met, the proposal does not breach Q10. Planning policies must be interpreted objectively from their language and context. An officer’s report is assessed fairly and as a whole; intervention is justified only where material advice has materially misled the committee.

The claimant sought judicial review of Lambeth Council’s grant of planning permission for redevelopment involving the removal of four mature trees at Cressingham Gardens. An earlier permission had been quashed on other grounds, after which the Council reconsidered the application and granted permission again.

The challenge concerned whether revised Local Plan policy Q10 prohibited removal of trees of significant value, notwithstanding its provision for imperative removal and replacement planting. The claimant also argued that the Council had failed to address the implications of the earlier quashed decision.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council had lawfully interpreted and applied policy Q10.
2. Policies in a local plan must be interpreted objectively according to their language, read in context. The intention behind amendments, if not available to the public, is irrelevant. The reference in Q10(G) to London Plan policy G7 provided some additional support, but was not determinative.
3. Q10 contains a cascading series of requirements. Paragraph (A) requires particular account to be taken of existing trees. Paragraphs (B) and (C)(i) require significant trees, including veteran trees, to be retained and protected. Paragraphs (C)(ii) and (iii) may apply to all trees.
4. Paragraph (G) applies to all trees and creates an exceptional case for removal of significant trees where removal is imperative. In deciding whether removal is imperative, the decision-maker may consider wider matters, including the value of the tree and the importance of the proposed scheme. The hurdle rises with the tree’s significance. Adequate replacement planting must also be secured.
5. Where removal is imperative and adequate replacement planting is secured, paragraph (G) is satisfied and there is no breach of Q10. The policy therefore does not impose an absolute prohibition on removing significant trees.
6. The November 2021 officer’s report considered paragraphs (B), (C) and (G), the value of the trees, the justification for removal and replacement planting. Read as a whole, it did not materially mislead the committee. The conclusion that the proposal complied with Q10 was open to the Council.
7. A previously quashed decision may be a material consideration, and the decision-maker may need to address reasoning unaffected by the quashing. Here, the report identified the change in Q10 and explained why the proposal was no longer a departure from the development plan.

The judgment describes an earlier judicial review in the same litigation. Permission had been granted on two grounds, and the Council submitted to judgment on the non-designated heritage asset ground. The application was then reported back to the planning committee, leading to the decision challenged in this claim.