Spirits high at London court as Wellingborough Walks Action Group 'seeks justice' for historic lime trees

Legalities surrounding the planning permission for one of Wellingborough’s largest housing development and the eastern bypass Route 2 are under scrutiny at the High Court in London.

Members of Wellingborough Walks Action Group (WWAG) and about 30 supporters have travelled to the Royal Courts of Justice today (Tuesday, April 30) to discuss the trees felled in London Road.

For a David vs Goliath battle, WWAG raised more than £70,000 to pay for an expert lawyer to have their case heard in a judicial review in front of deputy High Court judge Dan Kolinsky.

Supporters rallied outside the High Court before the hearing, including Paul Powesland who had been arrested after he climbed one of the threated trees to prevent it from being felled.

He said: “I’m very proud that the trees are still standing. I’m really impressed by the local campaigners. My dream is that we will have a celebratory party under the trees.”

WWAG directors, Marion Turner-Hawes and Lucy Hennessey, admit they have put their lives ‘on hold’ to have their voices heard and to ‘save the trees’ and be consulted.

Mrs Hennessy said: “We are seeking justice for the trees and the people of Wellingborough.”

Inside court 76, William Upton KC, counsel for WWAG, set out his case to protect the historic trees, arguing that the ‘pre-commencement conditions’ – part of the planning permissions granted in 2008 and then in 2017 – should have been completed before work began to fell the trees in Wellingborough Walks.

All trees on the Walks had each been legally protected by an individual Tree Preservation Order (TPO) – made inn 2016 after the removal of some of the trees to make room for a new entrance to Wellingborough School.

Describing the Walks as a ‘very fine avenue of trees’, Mr Upton questioning the planning process work said: “It’s a level of work you would expect to be completed. This should have been in place 14 months ago but it’s still not in place. Actions that had to be carried out before work started hadn’t been implemented properly The council (NNC) is saying there is a plan – in the event there is no such plan.”

Referring to the latest planning permission application, he added: “There is a threat to another 30 trees. We still don’t know what the final plans are. A breach of a TPO has criminal consequences.”

Mr Upton using documents submitted as evidence to the court between NNC officers were described as confusing.

He said: “You could say it’s opaque but you could also say it’s confused. There is a clear confusion.”

Barrister Gary A Grant, representing NNC, said the authority viewed the planning permission granted to Stanton Cross Developments for Route 2 as ‘operational development’. He said the work in London Road would lead to a ‘measure of inevitable tree loss’, and that the work was ‘permitted’.

Poring over multiple maps showing the lime avenue, shown in diagrams in the hefty 539-page trial bundle, the position of the trees at risk, including those protected by TPOs, were discussed.

But when asked directly by Judge Kolinsky whether the trees to be that had been felled should have been identified individually, Mr Grant said: “Yes, the answer is simply yes.”

Mr Grant argued that Stanton Cross Developments had the appropriate permission and pointed out the planting that would replace the ‘inevitable’ felling of trees standing in the way of Route 2 to provide a four-lane feeder section next to the Embankment from London Road. Describing the felling of the trees as ‘loss of landscape resource’, he submitted that all pre-commencement conditions did not need to be ‘discharged’ to enable building work to begin.

He asked to court to accept that a ‘practical approach’ was needed to resolve the position.

When asked about the ‘relief’ Mr Grant admitted that the decision to fell the trees did not comply with TPO regulation (14).

Judge Kolinsky said that WWAG and the people they represent need him to clarify abd set out as clearly as he could everything that had happened so far.

Saira Kabir Sheikh KC for ‘Interested Party’ Stanton Cross Developments LLP set out her submission that it was a ‘question of fact’ works to fell the trees were ‘necessary’ and they were not tied, in law, to the building of the road.

She said: “The question is are the works ‘necessary’ to implement the permission to deliver the road? That’s a matter of fact. Works are necessary to implement the planning permission.”

“There is a separate procedure entirely for the breach of a TPO. It is a completely separate exercise.”

WWAG committee member Stephen Merison said: “The committee members have all worked incredibly hard but Marion has made so many personal sacrifices.

Marion said: “I’m just bloody awkward!”

The case continues tomorrow.