Are courts changing their approach in cases involving tree root damage? Sebastian Neville-Clarke reports
Two recent cases show that the courts are reassessing their approach to property damage caused by the action of tree roots encroaching from neighbouring land. In Perrin v Northampton Borough Council [2006] EWHC 2331 (TCC), [2006] All ER (D) 08 (Oct) the rogue tree was an oak in the second and third defendants’ garden. It was made the subject of a tree preservation order (TPO) by the first defendant local authority in 1975. The assumed facts were that in 2003 the action of the roots of the tree caused internal and external cracking to the claimants’ house. In 2004 the claimants sought permission from Northampton Borough Council to fell the tree.
Permission was refused. In 2005 the secretary of state dismissed the appeal, noting that the tree merited outstanding status, was of high amenity value and that there was an engineering alternative to the removal of the tree. It was common for local authorities to refuse permission to fell or lop trees protected by TPOs where other works to prevent
