The site comprised a strip of woodland enclosing the corner of a cemetery beyond the appellant's house and garden. A large number of the tallest trees were dead or dying. The reporter noted that many appeared to have had holes drilled in their trunks near ground level and that their destruction was consistent with the addition of chemicals. On others bark appeared to have been cut.
The reporter was satisfied that the trees had been destroyed without consent. He found that the appellant had not fulfilled his duty to plant another 37 trees in the same location. While others had been planted, these were in the vicinity of his house and garden. He held that the appeal failed on this ground.
The reporter found that protection of the trees was fully justified in view of their contribution to amenity and that the tree preservation order and enforcement notice were justified. He extended the compliance period to six months due to the amount of work needed, but did not accept that replanting would be contrary to good forestry practice or that the site was unsuitable for replanting.
DCS No: 100039173; Reporter: David Russell; Inquiry.