MADNESS

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
 

PINE CONE PROBLEM
A pine cone planted by an enthusiastic Derby gardener half a century ago has grown into a problem which is costing his heirs thousands of pounds. Victor Smith planted the cone in his much-loved garden next to his house in Penny Long Lane. When he died in his 80s, in October 2003, the tree had become a handsome example of the species Pinus Wallichiana. And in February 2004, Derby City Council decided that the tree contributed so much to the local environment that it should be made the subject of a tree preservation order. According to the council, the pine tree was said to "contribute materially to the amenities of the locality, playing an important part in providing a sense of scale and maturity and giving a greening effect to the immediate vicinity".

The preservation move led to court action, as it threatened plans by Mr Smith's heirs to build a new house in the grounds of the old house. Mr Smith's cousin and the executor of his estate, 54-year-old local chartered accountant Nigel Aspdin, went to the High Court in London, in a bid to overturn the tree preservation order. But Mr Justice Richards ruled the order had been properly made and rejected the challenge. The judge ordered Mr Aspdin to pay more than £3,000 in legal costs, observing that he had pursued his challenge "to the bitter end". Mr Aspdin said later that the purchase price would now be £25,000 lower than it would have been, had the tree preservation order been overturned.

Mr Justice Richards said he was "wholly unpersuaded" by Mr Aspdin's arguments that the original tree preservation order had not been properly signed by witnesses, at the same time that the city council's seal was attached to it. He agreed with Mr Aspdin that there had been a "procedural irregularity" in that council committee members, who considered the tree preservation order in July 2004, had not been shown an aerial colour photograph he had taken of the tree, which he argued showed it had no particular public merit and was not worth saving.

The committee had instead been shown poor quality black and white photocopies. But the judge said he was satisfied that no "substantial prejudice" had been caused to Mr Aspdin's case. The judge said he was "disinclined" to overturn the council's decision on the basis of the initial procedural irregularity. Mr Aspdin told the judge, "I really don't think I will be appealing. "Frankly, the strain would be too great to appeal and I'm not going to".

We all recognise the need for environmental protection and the desirability of preserving trees and other wildlife habitat. But sometimes it does seem that a sense of perspective can be lost when determining what is reasonable. Nigel Aspdin, of Derby, went to the High Court in London in a bid to overturn a preservation order on a Pinus Wallichiana garden tree. The order was imposed by the city council 13 months ago. Mr Aspdin was one of the heirs who inherited the property in question on the death of previous owner Victor Smith in 2003. The Pinus is, apparently, an unusual tree and, for this reason, the court was unwilling to overturn the order.

It stands in the path of a proposed new house in the grounds and, as a result, an estimated £25,000 has been knocked off the value of the site. Are a council and a court justified in imposing such a £25,000 penalty on a householder over one pine tree? If the property and tree had been on the proposed route for the inner ring road missing link, would our council have had any qualms about slapping on a compulsory purchase order? It's all right to knock down homes, historic bus stations or the Baseball Ground in the name of development, but not one tree. (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph)

RESURFACING FIASCO
After more than 40 years of waiting, residents of a city road were delighted when the pavement outside their homes was resurfaced. But just six weeks later the tarmac was dug up due to a council blunder. Derby City Council spent £2,500 on resurfacing the pavement following repeated pleas from fed-up residents. The work was completed just before Christmas, even though gas company Transco told the council in November it would be carrying out work to replace gas pipes in the area. A list of the exact streets was handed to the council so it could arrange its work around the utility company's.

And as planned, on Monday, January 24, 2005, a Transco contractor moved into Charlestown Drive and dug through the tarmac to start work on replacing the pipes. Now Derby City Council has admitted it should have co-ordinated its work with Transco and not resurfaced the pavements before the new pipes were laid. Nigel Brian, on-street operations manager for the council, said, "This is very embarrassing. There is a popular perception that as soon as a road or pavement is resurfaced it is dug up, but this isn't normally the case. It's very rare. Transco did provide us with a programme of its work for the whole area and we have been talking about this work for a while."

The cost of resurfacing Charlestown Drive was about £2,500, but after a meeting with Transco Mr Brian said that he will arrange for the council to fill the holes after the pipework is completed. The new pipes should be laid in Charlestown Drive in two weeks. He said this would cost "a minimal amount" and the patches would blend with the pavement in time. A spokeswoman for Transco said, "We're working in the area and the council were aware of the work we were doing from November. They just went ahead and resurfaced the pavement before our work."

THEY NEVER LEARN
Derby City Council resurfaced damaged pavements in Harrogate Crescent, Breadsall Hill Top, for the first time in 40 years at a cost of nearly £4,000. But, six months after the new pavements were laid, Transco ripped them up to replace the gas mains. One resident was particularly angry because the dropped kerb outside his drive, which cost him £500 to install, was also dug up by the workers. He said, "Why couldn't the council have resurfaced the pavements after Transco's works were completed? They should have got their heads together." Council spokeswoman Carol Mee, said, "The work in Harrogate Crescent is part of a huge job by Transco across the city and we've been working with them to try and ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen." But it does, time and again.