R (on the application of Smar Holdings Limited) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0172

Parties

Appellant(s)

SMAR HOLDINGS LIMITED

Respondent(s)

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Issue

The Appellant illegally felled trees on land in respect of which planning permission is likely to be granted in future. The Forestry Commission issued a restocking notice requiring the Appellant to replant the illegally felled trees and maintain them for ten years. This will delay the proposed development. In considering an appeal against the restocking notice, should the Secretary of State have taken account of the public interest in development?

Facts

Smar Holdings Limited (‘the Appellant’) is a property developer. The Appellant owns land at Keynsham, near Bristol. The Appellant’s land currently forms part of Bristol’s green belt, but Bristol City Council has identified the land as suitable for development and proposes that it (and surrounding plots) be used to build a development of 500-750 homes. However, no planning permission has yet been granted. In February 2019, the Appellant felled 15 trees on its land. Save where planning permission has been granted, tree felling in England usually requires a license from the Foresty Commission. The Appellant did not hold such a license and its felling was therefore illegal. In March 2020, the Foresty Commission imposed a restocking notice, requiring the Appellant to plant replacement trees on the site and maintain them for at least ten years. This would prevent the Appellant from developing the site for ten years even if it obtained planning permission from Bristol City Council. The Appellant appealed the imposition of the restocking notice to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (the Respondent). The Secretary of State referred the matter to a committee, the reference committee. The Appellant argued that the restocking notice should amended such that if the Appellant obtained planning permission in respect of the land, it should be permitted to immediately remove the replanted trees and proceed with the development. As an alternative, the Appellant suggested that it be permitted to plant trees elsewhere. The Appellant suggested that since the Keynsham land would likely be developed and the replacement trees felled after ten years, planting trees elsewhere would better achieve the Forestry Commission’s objectives. The Committee rejected these arguments and recommended the restocking notice remain in-place. The Secretary of State accepted this recommendation. The Appellant applied to the High Court for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision, arguing the decision was irrational. The High Court accepted the Appellant’s argument. The High Court held that the Secretary of State’s decision was irrational because they did not take account of the public interest in development or the greater value of planting trees on land where they were not likely to be felled after ten years. The High Court was overruled by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory framework only permitted the Secretary of State to take account of forestry considerations and not the general public interest in development.