Sponsored by
Councils go to war over Irton tree costs
The beech tree in Irton before it was felled. And below, the felling in progress
TWO councils went to war yesterday in a courtroom dispute over who should pay for a legal wrangle over a tree.
North Yorkshire County Council and Scarborough Borough Council accused each other of behaving unreasonably during the Irton Tree saga, which ended when the beech was controversially felled in October.
The Evening News understands that the county council incurred a bill which has spiralled to a figure in the region of £300,000, and the authority is attempting to recoup the bulk of the cash from Scarborough Council, which put a Tree Preservation Order on it in 2007.
The county council claim that Scarborough Council officers acted unreasonably when they chose to “sit on the fence and not come off” in July last year.
Scarborough Council officers did not state whether they believed a legal exemption applied which would have allowed the tree to be cut down, despite the preservation order, as it was causing a nuisance to a neighbouring property.
Robin Green, representing North Yorkshire County Council, said: “There was a refusal to say yes or no. That is a surprising view to take as they were the body that imposed the Tree Preservation Order.
“If the tree was causing a nuisance and there was nothing else that could be done, the exemption applied - it’s a simple as that. No matter how valuable the tree of unpopular its felling, the exemption applied.”
The county council claim that as a result of the Scarborough Council’s indecision, they incurred substantial legal costs as the saga rolled on.
Mr Green accepted that Scarborough Council had not been under a legal duty to respond to the question over the exemption, but argued that the local authority had not acted reasonably and should pay costs as a result.
He added: “They took a bizarre approach. For thoroughly bad reasons Scarborough Council refused to cooperate.”
The county council did not require permission from Scarborough Council to cut the tree down, but it was alleged that the county council wanted the go-ahead to protect itself against legal action.
Eventually, Judge Roger Ibbotson, who also presided over the hearing at Scarborough County Court yesterday, ordered that the tree be felled.
John Hunter, who represented Scarborough Council, said that its officers had been right not to state whether they believed the exemption applied, given the fact that its democratically elected members had refused an application to cut down the tree months earlier.
He said: “The officers were being asked to endorse the felling of the tree. They were being asked a different question. But it would have been the same result by the back door.
“It is clear the officers would have been subject to the greatest criticism from the public and the members if they purported to give the view they were asked for. They would have been undermining the committee’s decision.
“It would have been improper to make a behind-closed-doors decision on a matter of manifest public interest.”
The county council are not claiming for costs incurred due to the actions of five protesters who climbed the tree and prevented its destruction for two weeks.
Judge Ibbotson will give his judgement in the new year.
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 18 C
Wind Speed: 16 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 16 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 12 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
nocensorship
Tuesday, December 27, 2011 at 04:00 AM#8 That's quite true, not one word was uttered from the mouth of any local official or parish councillor, what a shameful bunch we have leading us and further wasting our hard earned cash.
Oli Mount
Monday, December 26, 2011 at 07:14 PMThey do say that 'people in glass houses shouldn't go around throwing bricks'. So to see two people in glass houses throwing bricks at each other simply beggers believe!
baznpat
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 04:24 PMThey could have got back a bit of the money if they had charged rent to the MUPPETS who inhabited the tree without paying rent.
Patricia David
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 10:20 AM#7Geoff49. Some weeks ago I set up a Facebook site for just this purpose. So that people can get together on that site and form their own pressure and action groups to do something about their particular areas of protest against the Council. It is called "Getting the real story out of Scarborough Town Hall". It is not my personal site, it is there for all who feel strongly about something and want to change things. I post messages on it occasionally when information comes my way. I am disappointed that people are not using it but still moaning on SEN message boards about doing something.
Crossgates View
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 10:10 AMWhat annoys me is that whilst the saga went on, the local councillors, NYCC, SBC and the Parish council, have all kept pretty quiet when they should have been at the front being outspoken on their views every day that the story ran. Cowards!
geoff49
Friday, December 23, 2011 at 07:28 AMA classic example of beaurocracy - it used to be called democracy. We have one bunch of idiots using our money to attack another bunch of muppets who use our money to defend themselves. Regardless of the legal outcome (and, frankly, who cares?) the result will be that we council tax payers will have paid for the lot. How much longer are we going to sit back and allow such imbeciles (elected and employed) to ru(i)n our county, our town and our lives? Although the mafia will be a hard nut to crack, the solution is in our hands.
123inthearea
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 11:50 PMWorth every Penny......
asdfgh
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 07:18 PM#4 They ignored their own experts and slapped it on, Just split the cost because either way it is us who pay.
vergrumpyoldman
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 07:14 PMCan anyone from SBC explain why they put a preservation order on a tree that was causing damage. Perhaps the councilors that voted for the order should be surcharged.
FairDealForFiley
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 05:30 PMOnce again SBC wasting vast amounts of public money - far in excess of £300000 as this latest fiasco has not yet been costed. The whole sorry bunch - officers and elected members should be held to account and made to pay any monies out of their inflated salaries and expense accounts.
Bluebird One
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 05:20 PM£300,000 these people should be sacked they are wrong to use public money in this case as if it does'nt matter. I for one would like to see a breakdown of where monies huge sums were spent, it's a disgrace. HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME, SBC and NYCC.
Tim Thorne
Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 04:58 PMWell lets hope they both have nuclear weapons and exterminate each other's leadership. Wasting yet more tax payer's money arguing over which pot of tax payer's money should pay for their ineptitude over running up £300k bill for a tree is the height of stupidity. None of the people involved can see how ridiculous this is. I can't say I expected more from any involved. We should have both sets of people in stocks in the town centre for the entertainment of the general public. Maybe then these people will realise their stupidity and spend tax payer's money in a more responsible manner.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.