Councils at loggerheads over £250k costs racked up in tree dispute

A dispute has broken out between a highways authority and a planning authority over apportioning the six-figure costs of a legal battle relating to the fate of a 100-year-old beech tree.

North Yorkshire County Council, in its role as the local highways authority, finally felled the tree on Main Street in Irton this week, having first sought to do so four years ago.

The owners of 23 Main Street, Mr and Mrs Hazelwood, had complained that the tree was causing a nuisance by damaging the wall and other parts of their property and by impeding access to their property. North Yorkshire, after obtaining advice, accepted this position.

However, protests prompted Scarborough Borough Council, the planning authority, to put a tree preservation order on the beech in 2007. It subsequently refused to give consent for the tree to be felled.

Mr and Mrs Hazelwood and North Yorkshire therefore sought a declaration from the courts that the tree was causing a nuisance and could be felled under s. 198(6)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In August a judge at Scarborough County Court gave North Yorkshire permission to remove the tree.

A group of protesters then climbed the beech, forcing the county council to obtain an injunction. The last protester came down earlier this week.

North Yorkshire is understood to consider that the costs of the legal battle were significantly increased as a result of the TPO.

A spokeswoman for North Yorkshire said it was currently assessing the costs that had been incurred. “We believe the total costs of both parties involved in the court action may be in the region of £250,000, of which the council would incur costs of £100,000, the remainder being covered by insurance," she said. "However we can only estimate the costs of the other party at this stage."

The spokeswoman added: “The county council has legal and statutory obligations over which it has no discretion. During the two-week delay caused by the protesters objecting to the felling of the tree, the council has had to engage solicitors and attend court on a number of occasions to get the necessary powers to comply with the court order and is still assessing the financial implications of this delay.”

A spokeswoman for Scarborough said the council would not be commenting until the outcome of the hearing, which is expected to take place in December.