Countess of Chester Hospital's neighbour sues NHS for chopping down trees

Annemarie Jones, of Bache Hall Estate, lodged a claim against the health trust that runs the site claiming its maternity unit now overlooks her property.

This has led to a “loss of enjoyment of her home and garden”, she said.

But at Chester County Court on Tuesday (April 16) her case was thrown out by District Judge Ian Sanderson who said it had no basis in law.

He cited a recent case in London that saw owners of glass-fronted apartments lose their action against the Tate Modern, which had installed a rooftop viewing platform that overlooked them.

He did, however, sympathise with Mrs Jones, saying the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust “may be guilty of bad neighbourliness” for failing to consult her about the trees.

“I can readily see and understand why the claimant is aggrieved by the actions of her neighbour,” he added.

Contractors were called in to fell several conifers and silver birches on the trust’s land in May last year in preparation for the construction of a new extended neonatal unit.

Mrs Jones subsequently lodged an objection with Cheshire West and Chester Council claiming the £2.6 million baby unit would block light to her garden, having a “catastrophic impact”.

Plans showed the new building – linked to the main maternity unit – would be just 2.4 metres from the boundary of her property, which until last year was lined with trees on the hospital side.

The location of the planned new neonatal unit at the Countess.

At the time she said the extension would turn her garden into an “overshadowed, dank space” where she and her dogs “would not be able to enjoy the heat of the sun”.

The proposal was initially rejected last year by the council's planning committee but was later approved after the trust resubmitted an amended application.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Mrs Jones stressed her current legal action related solely to the trees, not to the as-yet-unbuilt baby unit.

“With regards to the neonatal unit, that’s something for the future,” she told the court. “That’s something that we will pursue at a later date. This is just about the trees.”

She said she had been living in her home for almost 25 years and the houses on her street had been there before the maternity unit was built.

The hospital trust had made no attempt to consult her before they took the decision to chop down the trees.

Now three windows – two of which are mirrored – face directly into her garden making her worried about who might be staring out of them.

“The fact that they just came along and took them [the trees] down; it will take us years to grow anything that is going to mitigate,” she said.

“Our privacy has been invaded. We don’t feel comfortable using the garden. We were completely screened off [before].”

An artist's impression of the new baby unit, which has now secured planning permission.

However, barrister Jac Armstrong, representing the hospital trust, argued that any of the possible legal reasons for her claim would fail and applied to have it struck out.

There would be no infringement under the Human Rights Act, no argument for ‘nuisance’ or right to a view, and no breach of privacy.

The case of Fearn v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery involved potentially 600,000 people a year being able to look into properties from a roof terrace and it still failed, he said.

District Judge Sanderson ruled that there were “no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim”, and struck it out, meaning the case will not go to trial.

“I can readily understand why the claimant is aggrieved but it does not found a cause of action,” he said.

Mr Armstrong applied for Mrs Jones to pay the hospital trust’s legal costs of £4,852, to which she said: “That would be adding insult to injury.”

The judge made no order for costs.