Compensation when consent for tree works is refused

TPO refusal compensation exists, it is narrower than most landowners hope, and it is subject to a threshold and a short claim period that catch people out. Where a local planning authority refuses consent for work to a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order, or grants it subject to conditions, section 203 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a person who suffers loss or damage in consequence to claim compensation from the authority. The detail sits in the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012, and the detail is where most claims fail.

Two things to understand before spending money on a claim. The loss has to be a loss caused by the refusal, not a loss caused by having a tree. And the Order itself may exclude compensation for certain categories of loss, in which case there is nothing to claim.

What loss is recoverable

The recoverable loss is loss or damage suffered in consequence of the refusal or of the conditions imposed. In practice claims fall into a few recognisable groups.

Physical damage caused by the retained tree is the largest category: subsidence damage to a building, damage to drains, damage to hard surfaces. The causal question is whether the damage would have been avoided had consent been granted, which is a question for expert evidence rather than assertion.

Loss of timber or crop value can be claimed where the tree had a commercial value that the refusal prevented realising. On a farm or a woodland holding this is the most common ground, and it needs a valuation.

Loss of development value is the hardest. Where refusal of consent for tree works prevents development, the courts have been cautious, and a claim founded on the difference between the site's value with and without the tree faces a high bar. Take advice before pursuing it.

What is not recoverable is inconvenience, leaf fall nuisance, loss of light in itself, or the cost of ordinary tree maintenance. Those are consequences of the tree, not of the refusal.

The threshold below which nothing is payable

The Regulations set a minimum below which no compensation is payable, so small claims are excluded entirely. The figure is set in the Regulations rather than indexed annually, so check the current text of the 2012 Regulations before advising anyone on whether their claim clears it.

The threshold applies per claim, and the practical effect is that a cracked garden path is not worth pursuing while a structural subsidence claim is. It also means the assessment of quantum has to be done properly before the claim is made, because a claim submitted below the threshold is dismissed without reaching the merits.

Costs are the other filter. A subsidence claim needs structural and arboricultural evidence, and the cost of assembling it is not itself recoverable as part of the claim.

Time limits for claiming

This is where most viable claims are lost. The Regulations set a period within which a claim must be served on the authority, running from the date of the decision refusing consent or granting it subject to conditions.

The period is short, and it is measured from the decision rather than from the date the loss became apparent. That is counter-intuitive for subsidence claims, where movement may be identified long after the refusal, and it is the reason a landowner who suspects a future problem should take advice at the time of the refusal rather than waiting to see what happens.

Serve the notice first and refine the evidence afterwards. A notice served in time with modest particulars is in a far better position than a fully evidenced claim served late.

Evidence needed to support a claim

Causation is the battleground. The authority will argue that the damage has another cause, and in subsidence cases there is usually a credible alternative: drainage failure, historic movement, seasonal clay shrinkage independent of the tree.

What a claim needs is a structural engineer's report identifying the mechanism and the movement, a soils investigation where clay shrinkage is in issue, level monitoring over a period showing the pattern of movement, and an arboricultural report linking the tree's water demand to the observed mechanism. A decay or condition assessment of the tree itself often forms part of that, and the tree survey documentation may already provide part of the baseline.

The strongest claims are those where the original application was well made. If the application for consent set out the engineering evidence and the authority refused anyway, the causal chain is documented. If the application simply asked to remove a tree because it was large, the claim starts from nothing. That is an argument for treating the consent application seriously rather than as a formality, and the interaction with trees and subsidence claims on neighbouring property is worth understanding before the application is made.

Where the Order excludes compensation

Model Order provisions allow an authority to exclude or limit compensation in defined circumstances, and many Orders do. Read the Order, not a summary of it.

Common exclusions concern loss of development value, and loss that could have been avoided had the applicant provided the information the authority asked for. The second is worth noting: an authority that requested engineering evidence and did not receive it can rely on that.

Where the decision notice itself states that no compensation is payable, that statement is not always right, but it does tell you the authority's position and it tells you to check the Order's terms carefully before spending money.

Disputes and how they are resolved

If the authority rejects the claim or offers a figure the claimant does not accept, the dispute is determined by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). That is a formal process with costs consequences, and for most residential claims the sensible sequence is a well-evidenced claim, a negotiation, and only then a reference.

Authorities settle more often than the reported cases suggest, because the alternative is a Tribunal hearing on a modest sum. A claim that is properly quantified, served in time and supported by competent expert evidence tends to be treated seriously.

Practical alternatives to a claim

Sometimes the better route is not compensation at all.

1. Reapply with better evidence, particularly engineering evidence that the first application lacked.
2. Apply for a proportionate reduction rather than removal, since consent for crown reduction or root pruning is granted far more readily than consent to fell.
3. Engineer around the tree: root barriers, underpinning, drainage repair, or a redesign of the affected element.
4. Ask the authority to review the Order itself, where the tree's amenity value has changed materially.
5. Where development is the driver, resolve the tree through the planning application, since the balance struck there differs from the balance under the Order.

Route five is the one most often overlooked. A tree constraining a scheme is a planning matter, and the Landscape Strategy and layout can sometimes deliver what a felling application could not.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Compensation claims under section 203 and the 2012 Regulations involve statutory time limits and thresholds, so check the current position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.