Local residents opposed to a Crest Nicholson development that would uproot and move a “veteran” mulberry tree won a court victory today (21 May).
High Court judge Sir Duncan Ouseley ruled that planning permission for the project granted by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets should be quashed because the committee that made the decision hadn’t been properly briefed about the circumstances in which it is permissible to move ancient trees.
The tree, known locally as the Bethnal Green Mulberry Tree, is in the grounds of the former London Chest Hospital, an 1850 Grade II listed building in the Victoria Park Conservation Area. It is said to be at least 500 years old, and the oldest tree in the East End.
Crest Nicholson wants to develop the site into 291 dwellings, and plans to spend £250,000 moving the tree. Many residents are strongly opposed to the plan, saying that moving the tree will most likely kill it. An online petition to save the tree garnered 16,000 signatures.
Campaigners funded a lawsuit and made their case at a hearing earlier this month. They argued that, for various reasons, the planning committee that narrowly voted in favour of granting planning permission was wrongly advised.
In his ruling, Sir Duncan Ouseley agreed. The mistake, he said, was technical but significant.
According to national planning policy, “Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.”
The planning committee making the decision had to decide if the circumstances of the development amounted to “wholly exceptional reasons”. They were advised by experts that the tree would almost certainly not die if it was uprooted, but if it did, cuttings had been taken from the tree and it would be replanted.
They considered the exceptional circumstances and the compensation strategy at the same time. As a result, the committee members did not take into account the policy in the way that they should have done.
“They took into account something else, not very different but sufficiently different to create a legal error,” the judge said.
“A policy was misinterpreted; a material consideration was ignored. I do not consider that I can hold that it was highly likely that the outcome would have been the same if that error had not been made. It might very well have been, but the issue was of importance to members, and to the public; the vote was a narrow one,” he said.
Geoffrey Juden v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
Planning Court (Sir Duncan Ouseley) 21 May 2021
