Council ‘thwarted any chance of protest’ over tree felling, High Court told

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

A local council used a “calculated course of conduct” to “thwart any chance of protest” after more than 100 trees were felled, the High Court has heard.

Campaigner Alison White is asking for the green light to resume contempt of court proceedings against Plymouth City Council after it cut down 110 trees, as part of a £12 million regeneration scheme in the area.

Barristers for Ms White, founder of the campaign group Save the Trees of Armada Way (STRAW), claimed on Thursday that the council breached an injunction which halted the felling of trees after the operation began.

Ms White lost a legal challenge in March this year against the decision but argued the council did not give protesters sufficient time to challenge the fellings.

Lawyers for the council told the court in London the case was “not exceptional” or of “general public importance” as a council inquiry was due to take place into what had happened.

The court heard Richard Bingley, then-council leader, signed an executive decision to allow the felling of the trees, which was published online at 6pm on March 14, 2023.

Within minutes contractors, security guards and the police sealed off the site, the court was told.

In written submissions, Rachel Sullivan, representing Ms White, said STRAW was notified of the decision five minutes before it went public and this “thwarted any chance of protest” by the group.

She added that the action was a “calculated course of conduct”, and the short period between the document being signed off and work commencing was “an intention to prevent the claimant” from challenging the decision.

The court heard an injunction halting the works was signed off at 12.29am on March 15 and workers were made aware of its existence at 12.35am.

Ms Sullivan said the council was “aware of the possibility of an injunction” and had “taken steps to prepare for this”.

She added that there was “no real doubt” as to what work the injunction restricted, but contractors carried on until work officially stopped just after 1am.

As a result, just 19 trees remained on the piece of land, the court heard.

The barrister said: “The claimant considers that the present proceedings are the only vehicle through which the lawfulness or otherwise of the defendant’s conduct can be investigated by the courts.

“It is not in this context relevant that the defendant is holding its own investigations: questions of lawfulness are for the court, and only the court can determine them.”

Ranjit Bhose KC, representing the council, said in written submissions that Ms White had “not stated what is intended to be achieved save, as with the claim itself, to ‘have her day in court’”.

The barrister said Ms White did not instruct solicitors to secure an injunction until 9pm and that she had known of the council’s decision since 5.55pm that day.

He said that as a result of the fellings, Mr Bingley resigned from his post as council leader and that at the May local elections, the Conservative Party administration lost control to Labour.

Mr Bhose added that an inquiry into the fellings would commence after Ms White’s legal action finishes and that a proposal to plant 163 trees on the site had been submitted by the council.

The court heard Ms White began contempt of court proceedings in November 2023 but these were paused until the legal challenge concluded.

Ms White then applied to resume contempt proceedings in April this year but this was refused by a High Court judge in June.

Mr Bhose said: “This court has already concluded that, the proceedings being academic, no good reason existed for them to continue.

“Amongst the reasons pressed on the judge was the alleged conduct of the defendant. He did not accept that was sufficient justification.”

He added: “There is no public interest that requires the issues raised by the application should be resolved.”

Mr Justice Sheldon will give his ruling in writing at a later date.