Axe looms over tree at heart of £250,000 legal battle

Now a 100-year-old beech tree at the centre of the row is set to be chopped down after a legal wrangle described by one councillor as “inexplicable”.

For years the historic tree has towered over the picturesque village of Irton on the outskirts of Scarborough.

But the tree in Main Street has been at the root of a long-running battle between campaigning residents and the owners of a nearby property.

The owners have been battling to get the tree chopped down on safety grounds, amid fears over damage to drains and a wall.

Campaigners, however, who launched a petition to save it, maintain that the loss of the tree will have a devastating effect on the village’s environment.

It is a view shared by Scarborough Council, which refused to back plans to fell the tree and said its loss would “result in serious harm to the character of the village”.

The authority had protected the beech with a Tree Preservation Order. However, it was not enough to save it.

Last week a county court judge ordered the tree to be felled after branding it a public nuisance.

The argument went to court following an attempt by North Yorkshire County Council to have the tree felled when Scarborough Council refused to back down.

The saga has resulted in the county council being hit with a £250,000 legal bill, which outraged a borough councillor when the figure was revealed at a meeting of the county council’s Yorkshire Coast and Moors Committee last week.

The battle is set to rumble on, the county council now fighting to recoup some of the costs of the legal battle from the borough council.

Scarborough councillor Colin Challen, who sits on the coast and moors committee, said: “On top of the quarter of million spent by the county council on legal fees, we will face another bill for the borough council’s costs. This all should have been resolved much earlier.

“The county council has insurance but the taxpayers will have to pick up the premium.

“The reason I’m upset they have spent so much is they just seem to have rather casually fallen in line with the owners of the nearby property in Main Street. According to the Zoopla website, they bought the property in March that year and by May the county council was looking to have the tree removed. Why did the people buy the property if they wanted it removed? You would think they would have it surveyed.

“I would have liked the county council to have asked this question rather than falling into step with the new property owner and ending up costing the council taxpayer all this money.”

Coun Challen said the cost had spiralled over the years because of the ongoing dispute between the two councils.

He said: “The county council has applied to the court to force Scarborough Council to pay towards the cost of legal fees because the borough council is responsible for enforcing the Tree Preservation Order. I don’t see why the borough council, which is merely exerting its responsibilities, should have to pick up the cost.

“The borough council wouldn’t be able to fully make a decision on Tree Preservation Orders if it felt every time it did so another body was going to challenge it and would have to share the cost.”

Next week, Scarborough planners are set to be formally presented with plans to fell the tree and an officer’s report has suggested the committee agrees to uphold the judge’s decision.

The vice chairman of Irton Parish Council, David Parker, said villagers were heartbroken over the decision to fell the tree.

“After six years the tree is going to come down and nobody wants this to happen,” he said. “The battle has gone on for six years but at the end of the day the judge has made a decision.

“As far as the cost is concerned, obviously it’s a large amount but what do you call a large amount when something which is part of the natural environment is involved? Once this beautiful tree is gone, it’s gone forever from the conservation area.

“We have received notification the tree will be cut down between September 19 and 21 and Main Street will be cordoned off. So the village will be disrupted by this act of environmental vandalism.”

A spokesman for North Yorkshire County Council said: “The county council has legal and statutory obligations over which it has no discretion. As the highways authority it must act according to the law, which is what it has done in this instance.”