A landowner who damaged the roots of two protected trees so badly they had to be felled has been fined £4,000.
Geoffrey Everdon severed the roots of the two sycamores in Hollingdean Road when he was trying to level the land so more could be sublet.
As a result, Brighton and Hove City Council had to order the owner of the land on which the trees stood to cut them down before they fell onto the road.
Today, Everdon was convicted in his absence of causing the loss of the trees in what is believed to be the first such prosection in the city in decades.
Council prosecutor Helen Wilson told Brighton Magistrates Court the trees, which had been protected by a tree preservation order since 1976, had been calculated to be worth more than £10,000 each to the community.
She said council arboriculturalist Paul Davey was sent to inspect the trees in June last year after he was informed by a ward councillor that excavation works had been taking place behind 107 Hollingdean Road.
She said: “He attended the premises without notification and was approached by Mr Everdon who was the freeholder and allowed him on the site to view the trees.
“He said he had arranged the work to increase the level area available to him with a view to subletting it.
“The work had broken numerous roots including structural roots.”
She said Everdon had been told to commission a professional safety assessment and submit it to the council by 14 June. When that wasn’t received, Mr Davey hand delivered a letter with eight questions, again requiring a response which did not arrive.
She said: “The root severance of both trees was so severe that they had become a danger to property and the public highway. A dangerous tree notice was served by the highways enforcement team.”
On 17 June, the freeholder of the land the trees stood on, Centenery Estates, was instructed under the Highways Act to remove the trees and both were felled to ground level.
Under the Helliwell calculation, which estimates the civic worth of trees, the trees were valued at £10,875 each.
Everdon was summonsed to court for a hearing in January, another in March, and finally for yesterday’s hearing, none of which he turned up for.
Chair of the bench Martin Tomlinson convicted him in his absence, and fined him £2,500 with a surcharge of £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £500, bringing the total bill to £4,000.
He probably considers £4k a small price to pay. Am surprised the Council do not see this as an opportunity to fine such environmental vandals a great deal more since BHCC keep pleading poverty and closing our Libraries.
BHCC don’t set the fine the court does
Agree and the fine should be much more, like£100k. Also deny any permission to sub-let until it is paid or the money owing secured against the property! Vandalism of the highest order. If someone had protested and disrupted the traffic, they would be serving time with the other ecologists.
More like deny permission to sub-let until two replacement trees have grown to full size.
With the fines so low the developers just add it in to the overall costs of the projects.
We all know the amounts charged via the courts need to be increased to stop this blatant vandalism keep happening, but there doesn’t seem to be any severe action by the law makers changing any time soon.
Sadly many more trees will be destroyed across the country.
Two sycamore trees! There are countless thousands of similar trees in Brighton and throughout the country. They are far from rare and are often cut down in swathes on banks beside railway lines where they are a nuisnce. Why on earth they were ‘protected’ in the first place is anyone’s guess.
Personally, i think both the council and the court have been over zealous in this instance. People get fined a pittance for far more serious crimes.
So you really think he’d have not cut down more interesting, or rarer kinds of tree?
Pity the court didn’t/couldn’t fine him more.
Who knows. Speculation is not helpful.
They had Tree Protection Orders on them so illegal to do anything to them without permission.
Check the register for the exact reasons why they were protected.
Just because there are others in the city doesn’t mean these two mature trees shouldn’t be protected.
Line one: Stating the obvious.
Line two: You check it for me Chris.
Line three: You are entitled to your opinion. Mine differs.
He should have had his lease removed from him. Nothing more leachy than subletting. He’s easy to spot, always up and down there on a mobility scooter.
Remember seeing the bags of firewood for sale there when they were down
Plant more trees and also a.big penalties.