Thompson v Pendle Borough Council [2011] EWHC 1751 (Admin) (04 May 2011)

Thompson v Pendle Borough Council [2011] EWHC 1751 (Admin) (04 May 2011)

The claimant lacked standing as he was neither a substantial objector nor had a relevant interest in the land; procedural defects identified did not cause substantial prejudice and did not justify quashing the TPO.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1751 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Brian Thompson; Defendant: Pendle Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Challenge) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Preservation Orders, Standing (locus Standi), Procedural Irregularity, Costs
Administrative Law Planning Law Tree Preservation Orders Standing (locus Standi) Procedural Irregularity Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Thompson

Claimant

Pendle Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Challenge) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has standing to challenge the Tree Preservation Order under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether procedural defects in the making and confirmation of the TPO justify quashing the order
  3. 3 Whether the Council acted lawfully and rationally in making the TPO

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant lacked standing as he was neither a substantial objector nor had a relevant interest in the land; procedural defects identified did not cause substantial prejudice and did not justify quashing the TPO.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs of the claim, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed