Perrin & Anor v Northampton Borough Council & Ors

Perrin & Anor v Northampton Borough Council & Ors

The existence of alternative works (such as underpinning or root barriers) is relevant to determining whether works to a protected tree are 'necessary' for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance under section 198(6)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The statutory test requires that works to the tree are necessary, not merely sufficient, and this cannot be determined without considering whether other means could abate the nuisance. The judge's conclusion that alternative solutions are irrelevant was incorrect as a matter of statutory construction.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Perrin and another; Defendant/appellant: Northampton Borough Council; Defendants (not Parties to Appeal): Mr Frederick Shephard and Mrs Sandra Shephard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology & Construction Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Tree Preservation Orders, Nuisance, Statutory Interpretation, Remedies for Nuisance
Planning Law Property Law Environmental Law Tree Preservation Orders Nuisance Statutory Interpretation Remedies for Nuisance

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perrin and another

Claimants/respondents

Northampton Borough Council

Defendant/appellant

Mr Frederick Shephard and Mrs Sandra Shephard

Defendants (not Parties to Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology & Construction Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, under section 198(6)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the existence of alternative works (other than operations to the tree itself) is relevant to determining if works to a protected tree are 'necessary' for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance.

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of alternative works (such as underpinning or root barriers) is relevant to determining whether works to a protected tree are 'necessary' for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance under section 198(6)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The statutory test requires that works to the tree are necessary, not merely sufficient, and this cannot be determined without considering whether other means could abate the nuisance. The judge's conclusion that alternative solutions are irrelevant was incorrect as a matter of statutory construction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of 26 September 2006 set aside