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

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

Policy Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan does not impose an absolute prohibition on the removal of significant trees; paragraph G provides a limited exception permitting removal where it is 'imperative' and adequate replacement planting is secured, with 'imperative' requiring an evaluative judgment based on all relevant planning considerations. Lambeth's interpretation and application of the policy was lawful.

Parties
Appellant: Andrew Plant; 1st Respondent: London Borough of Lambeth; 1st Interested Party: Remedios Rosario; 2nd Interested Party: HFL Build Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Local Plan Policy, Development Control, Tree Preservation, Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Local Plan Policy Development Control Tree Preservation Judicial Review

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Plant

Appellant

London Borough of Lambeth

1st Respondent

Remedios Rosario

1st Interested Party

HFL Build Limited

2nd Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lambeth misinterpreted Policy Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan regarding the felling of significant trees for development
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs B and C(i) of Policy Q10 are absolute prohibitions or subject to exception under paragraph G

Ratio Decidendi

Policy Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan does not impose an absolute prohibition on the removal of significant trees; paragraph G provides a limited exception permitting removal where it is 'imperative' and adequate replacement planting is secured, with 'imperative' requiring an evaluative judgment based on all relevant planning considerations. Lambeth's interpretation and application of the policy was lawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.