Sponsored by
Costly Irton tree saga ‘will not be repeated’
A POST-MORTEM into the saga of the Irton Tree has been held, as councillors vowed that the costly episode should never be repeated.
Approximately £300,000 was spent on a six-year legal battle and a subsequent two-week-long protest, which saw five people climb into the tree’s branches before it was finally felled in October.
Speaking at a meeting of North Yorkshire County Council’s transport, economy and environment overview and scrutiny committee yesterday, Barrie Mason, assistant director for highways, admitted that the episode had been embarrassing and expensive for the local authority and presented an action plan to prevent a similar fiasco in future.
He said: “In some aspects this was a very specific and peculiar case, but it has been possible to identify themes so we can reduce the risk of something like this happening again.”
The meeting heard that elected county council highways portfolio holder Cllr Gareth Dadd and other senior council officers were first made aware of the significance of the Irton Tree case by reading a newspaper report on the day the Evening News revealed that costs had spiralled to £250,000 (picture above right).
In future, Mr Mason said, a new protocol for tree removal, already in place in Scarborough, will be rolled out across the county and senior managers would be made aware of potentially costly cases sooner. He also vowed that the local authority would strengthen its approach to tree preservation orders and that a new internet-based claims management system would be put in place.
He admitted that the county council should have opposed a tree preservation order, which Scarborough Council placed on the tree in December 2007 and confirmed in early 2009.
The order meant the saga rumbled on with homeowners Gerald and Norah Hazelwood taking their case to court, where a judge ordered that the tree be felled as it was causing a nuisance and damage to their property.
Of the estimated £300,000 bill, £120,000 was paid by the county council in public funds with the remainder being covered by the local authority’s insurers.
A total of £20,000 of the county council’s costs were incurred as a direct result of the protesters who lived in the tree to grant it an unorthodox stay of execution. The council obtained a High Court injunction to remove them.
Cllr Dadd took the opportunity to condemn the actions of the protesters, whom he described as “tree warriors” and accused them of wasting money that could have been spent in important areas. He said: “After the judge brought down his hammer I was extremely disappointed that we did have protests. It cost the taxpayers of North Yorkshire £20,000 for a protest against a judicial decision.”
Members of the public and the Irton community who had supported the protests watched over the proceedings at County Hall in Northallerton.
Mr Hazelwood also attended the meeting in person. Speaking immediately afterwards, he told the Evening News: “I am very happy that the county council have got to this position. Hopefully they can prevent a repeat. What the county council have done is commendable. I’m looking forward to moving on and putting this issue behind me.”
Cllr Mike Cockerill, who also represents the Filey ward on Scarborough Council, condemned the county council’s decision to take Scarborough Council to court in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to recoup some legal fees.
He said: “The public perception was whether the borough or county council won, it’s Joe Bloggs paying. It was a ridiculous situation.”
Mr Mason replied: “It is regrettable that the situation occurred with two public bodies in court. Earlier intervention at a very high level in future could prevent it happening again.”
He added that the county council’s costs in that case had been covered in full by their insurers.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Scarborough
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 15 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 16 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 14 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
accountdetails
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:05 PM"curtain-twitcher" have over time proved their value, sadly though in the main they cause more damage than good with their guesses based on their own mental state.
sonshesaid
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 10:57 AMJoan... Our saviour! How your skills could have been utilised over the last 6 years?! The costs you could have saved... With your clear insight into Structural Engineering not just in terms of the foundations of the 200 year old wall but also the management of the sewerage you could have solved the whole thing single-handed. You further amaze me still with your impartial, considered remarks having reviewed the evidence clearly missed by two councils, two judges and dozens of legal representatives. Or you could be an ignorant curtain-twitcher who has formed an opinion without any factual basis but one which you will defend to the hilt regardless of any counter argument.
neversaydie
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 10:19 AMIf I were you Joan Greenwood, I would stop showing the ignorance of this case that you clearly admit to. Don't rely on newspaper reports for your information because anyone with any 'common sense' that you like to think you possess, would know they are not to be wholly relied on. To make the crass remarks regarding drain management and moving entrances to properties shows you have no idea of the facts of this case or even of what the owners of the property may have suggested over the past six long years. Heavensentmum is correct in what she says. I believe there is no way that you, or the other protesters, would accept damage to your own properties which was caused by a tree owned by someone else.
heavensentmum
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 05:59 AMJoan Greenwood would you pay to have your drains moved if your neighbor’s tree was causing damage to your property? Would you risk a criminal record by cutting down a tree? Scarborough Borough Council’s own experts said the Tree was causing damage but they ignored their reports Beech Trees don’t react well to having their roots disturbed. so which Irton residents in this whole expensive saga pulled in favors which lead to the escalation of costs which have to be met by us the council tax payer?
joan greenwood
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:46 AMReading the various articles regarding the costs both to the county council and SBC council I would like to know why either of them incurred any other cost than court cost .Both county and SBC EMPLOY teams of solicitors which are paid for regardless of the insignificance of a tree issue. The other thing regarding this tree, is if the drains at the Old Rose Garden property were been affected by the beech tree it would have been a simple and not very costly to put a small new section of drain in. Regarding the entrance to the house ,we have lived in the neighbourhood for many years, long before the present owners moved in. There has been very little change over the years to entrance driveway. The other thing is if that was such a major issue they had plenty of scope to and room, to relocate their entrance in the wall and leave the tree as it was .The cost to make a new entrance would have been minisual compared with what has taken place .Common sense never prevails when it left to the powers that be with the councils !!!!
joan greenwood
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:35 AMwell it had some reaction which is great I still do not know why everything is classed as unsuitable Ok maybe I have not followed the saga indetail it certainly appears unfair .
FullTilt
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:54 PMQuite frankly its about time something was done about this. Some of the comments, as ever, are hugely misinformed and obviously do not know the finer details of this individual case. Its probably best to understand what it has cost each party before commenting that it has cost them NIL. False. Lets hope that the Council will actually do what they promise and this doesnt happen again in the future. I'm yet to believe any promises they make will actually be kept though.
sonshesaid
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:53 PMJoan, sorry I don't work for SEN myself but I have seen comments removed or abridged when they are irrelevant or potentially libellous. The fact that they published your comment '3' shows they don't discriminate on ignorance however! I can only assume you have not followed this case and therefore need to read a bit about the history before you make any more poorly informed comments. Just one little titbit for my own peace of mind, if the householder' is so 'well connected' why would it take him 6 years to get the tree removed?
sonshesaid
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:47 PMJoan, sorry I don't work for SEN myself but I have seen comments removed or abridged when they are irrelevant or potentially libellous. The fact that they published your comment '3' shows they don't discriminate on ignorance however! I can only assume you have not followed this case and therefore need to read a bit about the history before you make any more poorly informed comments. Just one little titbit for my own peace of mind, if the householder' is so 'well connected' why would it take him 6 years to get the tree removed?
babette
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:41 PMwhy hasnt anything been done about sbc and irton parish council for dragging this saga out and making a mockery of the law? there should have been some sackings from people misusing their positions for their own personal benefit. It really is something when your local council puts a tree before someones home #astonishing!
joan greenwood
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:07 PMwhy are all the comments posted as unsuitable on the wecsite please reply to this SEN
joan greenwood
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:06 PMMy question to the council and its elected members is why did they pay when it was a private indvidual who wanted it down??? It cost them NIL and still the wall is standing and the private owner got it all done for no money out of their pocket It is a disgrace The two boards and the highways are not representing the public but one individual with connections !!!
baznpat
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 03:43 PMThey could have saved a few bob if they had just shot down the tree hugging idiots that occupied it or at least charged the muppets rent.
Tim Thorne
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 01:06 PM"Of the estimated £300,000 bill, £120,000 was paid by the county council in public funds" [...] "Cllr Dadd took the opportunity to condemn the actions of the protesters [...] and accused them of wasting money that could have been spent in important areas." You've got to love the way he and his cohorts admit to being public sector wasters, then round on our local 'eco-warriors' for the same thing. I'd like to say such staggering hypocrisy amazes me, but sadly this is the kind of behaviour we now expect from the majority of our elected members and public officials. These people have obviously learnt nothing. These people could easily teach Emelda Marcos a thing or two about frittering money away.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.