Oak tree preservation dispute ends in favour of council

Background of the Case

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) recently dismissed a claim for compensation by Chubb European Group SE against Enfield London Borough Council. The case revolved around the refusal to grant consent to fell a protected oak tree, which the claimant argued was causing subsidence damage to a property they insured.

Details of the Claim

The claimant sought compensation under regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012. The claim was for the costs of underpinning works to the rear extension and garage of a property in Enfield, following the council's refusal to allow the felling of an oak tree. The claimant's estimated cost for the underpinning was £143,480.75, while the council's assessment was £99,212.98.

Evidence and Expert Testimonies

Both parties presented expert evidence on arboriculture and engineering. The claimant's experts argued that the tree's roots were causing subsidence by extracting moisture from the clay soil, leading to structural damage. Conversely, the council's experts suggested that other factors, such as drainage issues, could be responsible for the damage.

Tribunal's Findings

The Tribunal, led by Mrs Diane Martin, found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the oak tree was a significant cause of the subsidence. The Tribunal noted the lack of severe desiccation in the soil and the absence of a clear pattern of seasonal movement that would indicate root-induced subsidence.

Legal Considerations

The case also involved interpreting the legal standards for causation in subsidence claims. The Tribunal considered whether the tree was an 'effective and substantial' cause of the damage or whether it was the 'natural and probable' cause, as required for a statutory claim for compensation.

Conclusion and Dismissal

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tree's roots were the cause of the subsidence. As a result, the claim for compensation was dismissed.

Implications for Future Cases

This decision highlights the complexities involved in subsidence claims related to tree preservation orders. It underscores the importance of comprehensive evidence and expert testimony in establishing causation.

Right of Appeal

The decision can be appealed to the Court of Appeal on points of law, provided permission is granted. Parties wishing to appeal must submit an application within one month of the decision.

Learn More

For more information on housing law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.

Copyright & permissions