Governance review issues council with 18 recommendations over tree felling decision
Plymouth City Council's controversial decision to fell more than a hundred trees bypassed standard scrutiny processes and led to significant additional costs, including £480,000 in legal fees, an independent report by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace) has found.
The report made a series of recommendations, which included a call to review the council's constitution, review its approach to scrutiny and cabinet, and enhance the role of statutory officers by ensuring they meet regularly.
Solace’s review panel was made up of Jeanette McGarry, who has experience of monitoring officer roles at a number of councils, former chief executive David Williams, and former strategic director, Sue Foster OBE.
In March 2022, Plymouth chopped down 110 trees in a night-time operation that was aimed at clearing the avenue ahead of a re-landscaping, drainage and transport development scheme.
The decision was made by the then council leader under urgency powers on the afternoon of 14 March, leaving no opportunity for scrutiny, public debate or challenge at that time, according to the report.
The report noted that officers said time scales towards decision-making had got increasingly difficult to adhere to as "important regulatory requirements" were still outstanding, and the council ran out of time to comply with the deadlines to take the report through the 'normal procedures'.
Felling began just two hours after the leader's delegated decision was published.
However, the works were halted when a late-night injunction sought by the campaign group Save the Trees of Armada Way (STRAW) was served on the council.
Further legal action followed over the next 18 months, including a series of judicial review challenges, which were later dismissed.
Solace's report, which was commissioned by the council, noted that the decision led to significant media attention, litigation and reputational damage for the council, which took "considerable money and time to address".
Two years on, the site is still under construction, and the projected budget has more than doubled from £12.7m to circa £30m, the report added.
Additional costs that have been incurred include an extra £484,000 in legal costs, £60,000 in ecology checks, and £167,000 in staff time.
The council has also had to pay £1m in extra contractor costs, £1.3m in inflationary costs due to delays, and spent £130,000 on the ensuing learning review, according to the report.
Analysing the circumstances leading to the decision, the panel noted that a decision report produced for the scheme was not considered in detail by counsel "even though the monitoring officer had identified a high risk of legal challenge" and had sought counsel's advice prior to the report being finalised.
Advice from Estelle Dehon KC, which was requested a week before the decision, suggested that it would be very likely that STRAW would challenge any decision and that the draft executive report to support the executive decision had not been checked in detail or with a view on analysing any legal or other risks arising from the report.
The panel stated that the decision report "relied on informal pre-application advice to justify that the scheme complied with statutory requirements".
"This was flawed, particularly in respect of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2017, and consequently the use of permitted development rights (Article 3 (10)(a) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015)", the report said.
It added: "The result was that the works undertaken on the night of 14 March were without the benefit of all permissions necessary."
In the aftermath of the decision, the council implemented changes to the management of the capital programme and the 'Golden Triangle' now has scheduled governance meetings, Solace's report noted.
Elsewhere, the panel criticised the council's decision to fell the trees under urgency procedures, thereby avoiding call-in.
The panel said that while it was satisfied that councillors and officers viewed the matter as "urgent", this did not mean that using the urgency procedure was the most appropriate course of action.
It said: "Best practice would have been for more rigorous project management, with greater oversight of steps along the critical path that would need to be completed, thus avoiding the need for an Urgent Decision.
"This in turn, would be likely to lead to greater transparency and trust. But having reached this unfortunate position, there were still other options."
The report also criticised the council's 'strong leader' approach to decision-making.
On this point, the report said: "The Panel found that officer interviewees suggested that 'the Leader wants this to happen and so we had better make it happen'.
"Whilst politicians should be prioritising and giving direction, conflating this with the Strong Leader model in this way is unusual in the Panel's experience."
It later added: "The Panel recognises that the political interface, especially in robust and contested city politics, can be challenging territory for senior officers.
"However, the 'mythology' surrounding the 'strong leader' does not help this.
"It is here that a strong 'Golden Triangle' and a broadly engaged [corporate management team] is most helpful in supporting the Chief Executive reinforce the principles of good governance, instill the council's values, and maintain objectivity."
It said it is "important to see that this is one of the areas" that is being addressed and recommended the council ensure the political and officer leadership work together to maintain a common understanding and collective grip over the application of good governance across the council.
It also recommended the council ensures "that Officers take responsibility for the advice that they give, and Councillors take responsibility for the decisions that they make".
The full list of recommendations made by the panel is as follows:
1. Review the Constitution, including Urgency provisions
2. Review the council’s approach to Scrutiny and Cabinet
3. Enhance the role of the Statutory Officers1 by ensuring they meet regularly and take shared responsibility to address key governance issues
4. Extend the rolling Forward Plan for council decision making
5. Review the approach to the Pre-Election period
6. Refresh Good Governance training
7. Create a compelling and collaborative narrative for the city’s vision
8. Elevate the importance of engagement and consultation and build in capacity for engagement and consultation professionals with earlier involvement of in-house communications experts
9. Enhance risk awareness involving works to public places and ensure the risk assessment methodology, timing and approach is the most appropriate for the location and community
10. Ensure greater rigour of decision-making reports so they are accurate, fair, accessible, based on sound evidence
11. Enhance the recording of advice and decisions
12. Ensure that internal advisory and decision-making Boards have Terms of Reference
13. Embrace and resource a corporate approach to Project Management, including oversight
14. Heighten expertise and awareness of Environmental regulation and practice
15. With other local authorities, press the case with Government for more realistic funding models
16. Review the corporate provision of wellbeing and healing support
17. Ensure that the political and officer leadership work together to maintain a common understanding and collective grip over the application of good governance across the council
18. Ensure that Officers take responsibility for the advice that they give, and Members take responsibility for the decisions that they make
Chief Executive Tracey Lee said: “We are grateful for the insights the review has provided — even where they are difficult to hear. It’s clear that in some key areas, we came up short of where we needed to be. And for that, we are sorry.”
She added: “The issues highlighted in this report are not reflective of the vast majority of what we do. But they do show us where we need to improve.
“We are committed to being a learning organisation — one that reflects honestly, adapts, and grows from experience. That’s not just important for us as a Council — it’s vital for the people we serve. When we learn, we improve. And when we improve, we deliver better outcomes for our communities.”
Adam Carey
