Richard Gordon Burge & Anor v South Gloucestershire Council
Decision date: 27 July 2016
Neutral citation: [2016] UKUT 300 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned compensation under s.203 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and article 9 of a local tree preservation order after South Gloucestershire Council refused consent to fell an oak, and the claimants’ conservatory suffered further damage from the tree’s roots. The tribunal found the oak caused the damage, excluded the council’s late heave evidence, rejected the council’s defences (including lack of foreseeability and inadequate foundations of the conservatory) and awarded the claimants £25,000 plus costs to be assessed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where refusal to consent to fell a protected tree is shown to have caused further damage, claimants are prima facie entitled to compensation under s.203/article 9. A local authority seeking to defeat such a claim under article 9(4)(b) or (c) bears the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the loss was not reasonably foreseeable to the authority at the date of refusal or that the loss was reasonably foreseeable to and attributable to the claimant’s failure to take reasonable steps to avert it.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal commented that issues about whether conservatories fall within NHBC standards or building regulation expectations, and policy concerns that compensation would subsidise inadequate building near protected trees, were immaterial on the facts where there was no evidence the claimants knew of the foundation inadequacy and the TPO post‑dated the conservatory.