Consent to fell tree refused — Cost incurred on expert’s report — Purpose of report to investigate and monitor effect of tree on building — Whether cost of report “loss or damage” recoverable as compensation — Whether loss too remote — Claim allowed
The claimant is the joint owner with his wife of a house standing in 1.5 acres at Phillows Farm, Little Baddow, Essex. On July 14 1987 the compensating authority made a tree preservation order in respect of a mature lime tree which stands some 5 m from the house. Following receipt of the advice of an arboriculturist as to the effect of the tree on the foundations of the house, the claimant applied for permission to fell the tree. Following the compensating authority’s refusal of consent, the claimant commissioned a further arboriculturist’s report to monitor the movement of the house. Remedial works to the house were carried out and paid for by his insurers. The claimant sought compensation under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for his uninsured losses, principally the cost of the second arboriculturist’s report of £1,729.31. He contended that whether or not the tree did cause damage to his house, the cost of the report was a reasonable consequence of the refusal of consent to fell the tree.
Held The claim was allowed in full.
The extent or nature of the loss or damage is not limited to the depreciation in the value of the land. All loss or damage which flows from the refusal of consent is potentially compensatable provided it is quantifiable in money terms: see Bollons v Surrey County Council (1968) 20 P & CR 745. The issue is whether the steps taken by the claimant were the direct and natural consequence of the action of the compensating authority and the damage suffered flows reasonably and naturally from that act of refusing consent: see Liesbosch Dredger v Edison [1933] AC 449.
The claimant was faced with a known hazard on his land and acted reasonably and consistently to eliminate, alleviate or render it harmless by following expert and skilled advice. If the claimant was not allowed to fell the tree, he had realistically to investigate and discover how it would effect the house.
The claimant, Mr M J Fletcher, appeared in person; and William Butcher (solicitor for Chelmsford Borough Council) appeared for the compensating authority.
