The key point we noted last month was that the existence of any 'actionable nuisance' will be sufficient to justify cutting, etc the tree. That is, of course, a potentially wide exception. At the same time, it should be noted that the work has to be 'necessary'. One would have thought that the word ‘necessary’ was clear enough – to most people it would be the same as saying that the work had to be 'unavoidable' or 'essential'. But, the judge took a different view and looked at the purpose for the legislation as a whole, taking the view that the fact that there were viable alternatives to cutting did not mean that that work was not 'necessary'.

There has been a considerable reaction to this decision, as the full import of the judge’s analysis has filtered through. In general, there is a concern that he has significantly undermined the protection given by TPOs. Indeed, as a note by DLA points out, many LAs will now have to rethink the way that they deal with TPO and requests for work to be done to protect the trees. Gone are the days when an LA would be able to simply use its trump card and say that a tree is protected. If this decision stands, then the rules on TPOs are not as strict as they were previously thought to be. Perrin v Northampton BC [2006] EWHC 2331. © Practical Lawyer