Roden v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 2701 (Admin) (28 October 2016)

Roden v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 2701 (Admin) (28 October 2016)

The Inspector lawfully considered the impact of the development on both trees to be felled and those to be retained, was entitled to rely on the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, and imposed appropriate conditions to control tree works; none of the grounds of challenge are made out.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Alexandra Kyllikki Roden; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Franco Di Capite; Third Defendant: Patricia Ann Di Capite; Third Defendant: Fortitudo (Beaumont Road) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Preservation Orders, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Development Plan Policies
Planning Law Administrative Law Tree Preservation Orders Planning Permission Judicial Review Development Plan Policies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexandra Kyllikki Roden

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Franco Di Capite

Second Defendant

Patricia Ann Di Capite

Third Defendant

Fortitudo (Beaumont Road) Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to properly consider or assess the loss and quality of trees at the site
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector wrongly deferred consideration of the impact of the development on retained protected trees
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to have adequate regard to deficiencies in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully considered the impact of the development on both trees to be felled and those to be retained, was entitled to rely on the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, and imposed appropriate conditions to control tree works; none of the grounds of challenge are made out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed