R (Irwin) v Coventry City Council
The Planning Court (Mr Richard Kimblin KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) has refused an urgent application for judicial review and interim relief against Coventry City Council. In doing so, the Judge reiterated the high bar for any rationality challenge and the need to understand DEFRA guidance on tree felling consultations in its proper context.
The Claimant, a local resident, sought permission to challenge the Council’s decision to construct the final section of a 6km cycling route (the Binley Cycleway), which required the felling of street trees on Clifford Bridge Road in Coventry. Five grounds of challenge were advanced (alleging irrationality, inadequate consultation, legitimate expectation, failure to take into account relevant factors and failure to consider an Equality Impact Assessment) The Claimant also sought an interim injunction to prevent tree-felling pending the outcome of a substantive judicial review.
Time was a pressing factor – the trees could not be felled during the bird-nesting season and project funding would be jeopardised by delay. On 28 February, the High Court duty judge (Tipples J) ordered that the usual judicial review timetable should be abridged and an urgent hearing listed for 6 March 2025, with any evidence to be filed in advance.
James Goudie KC and John Bethell made written submissions and appeared for the Council. The Council said that none of the five proposed grounds of challenge were arguable and – in any event – that the test for an interim injunction in this context was not met.
The Judge agreed. Irrationality would be particularly difficult to establish in planning decision taken by expert decision-makers, familiar with the area and exercising a series of value judgments on a matter of local controversy, following a careful study (R (Newsmith Stainless Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC 74 (Admin) per Sullivan J). The adequacy of consultation – including the extent to which DEFRA Guidance was followed – also had to be seen in context: there had been repeated consultation on this section of the Cycleway scheme and the Council’s consideration of responses had been extensive, long-term and very thorough. On the remaining grounds: there had been no representation that tree-felling would be delayed until after a further road safety audit; the health and amenity of the relevant trees had been adequately considered; and the Equality Impact Assessment was familiar to and/or before the relevant decision-makers.
As the proposed grounds of challenge were not arguable, the Judge did not hear submissions on the injunction application – including, critically, the balance of convenience. However, on the papers, it would have been a difficult task to show that balance favoured the Claimant, rather than the wider public interest, even if there had been a strong prima facie case.
