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

The central issue was the proper interpretation of Lambeth Local Plan policy Q10 (paragraphs B, C(i) and G) in relation to the felling of four mature trees as part of a proposed redevelopment. The court held that paragraphs B and C(i) establish the default requirement to retain trees of significant amenity, historic or ecological value, but paragraph G provides a limited in-policy exception permitting removal where it is "imperative" to do so and adequate replacement planting, calculated by recognised valuation tools such as i-tree or CAVAT, is secured. The word "imperative" was held to require an evaluative planning judgment taking into account relevant considerations (including the significance of the trees, whether the development can be implemented without removal, the benefits of the scheme, and possible alternatives), and thus paragraph G does not merely record consequences of breach but operates as a narrow exception within the policy.

Background and parties:

• The appellant, Mr Plant, challenged the decision of the London Borough of Lambeth to grant planning permission for redevelopment at part of the Cressingham Gardens Estate which, as proposed, would necessitate felling four mature trees.
• Interested parties included a resident whose house would be demolished (substituted first interested party) and HFL Build Limited, the developer and wholly owned company of Lambeth.

Procedural posture:

• The High Court (Timothy Corner KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) dismissed the claimant's judicial review challenge ([2022] EWHC 3079 (Admin)). The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The appellant asserted that Lambeth misinterpreted LLP policy Q10 and that removal of trees of significant amenity is prohibited by paragraphs B and C(i) such that the grant of permission was contrary to the development plan; he sought to quash the decision.

Issues framed by the court:

Whether paragraphs B and C(i) of Q10 are absolute prohibitions on removal of significant trees, and whether paragraph G is merely procedural (ordering replacement where breach has occurred) or instead creates an in-policy exception permitting removal where it is "imperative" and replacement planting is secured; and the proper meaning of "imperative".

Court's reasoning and disposition:

• The court applied ordinary principles of plan interpretation (Tesco v Dundee City Council) and acknowledged Q10's imperfect drafting. Reading Q10 as a whole, the court found it more coherent to treat paragraph G as a limited exception to paragraphs B and C(i) rather than as a post-breach remedial provision. "Imperative" was construed as imposing a high bar and involving evaluative planning judgment, considering factors such as tree significance, whether the development can be implemented without removal, scheme benefits, and alternatives. The court considered Lambeth's approach consistent with the London Plan and NPPF but noted consistency was not essential to the conclusion. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that LLP policy Q10 requires retention of trees of significant amenity as the default (paragraphs B and C(i)) but paragraph G creates a narrow in-policy exception permitting removal where it is "imperative" to do so and adequate replacement planting is secured; "imperative" involves an evaluative planning judgment considering all relevant planning matters and sets a high threshold.

Appeal from the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Planning Court (Timothy Corner KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), judgment [2022] EWHC 3079 (Admin), which dismissed the claimant's judicial review; this Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal ([2023] EWCA Civ 809).