$300 fine for felling protected tree

Press, 22 September 1984, Page 4

$300 fine for felling protected tree

A woodman who cut down a protected tree in Armagh Street in March this year and then sold its timber to a furniture maker was fined $3OO in the District Court yesterday. Bruce Hislop, of Esperance Street, admitted a charge that by cutting down the protected European beech he had breached the Town and Country Planning Act.

Hislop was represented by Mr K. N. Hampton. Mr J. R. Milligan appeared for the Christchurch City Council

Mr Milligan said that the tree had been put on the council’s protection list in

1979 because of its scenic value. A plastic disc was nailed to the tree indicating that it was under a protection order. The council had made it clear to the developer of the property at 1 Armagh Street that the tree was protected. Hislop was employed by the developer to remove a number of trees on the site.

Inquiries were made of the site architect in March

this year as to whether the tree should be cut down, said Mr Milligan. This inquiry was passed on to a principal of the firm of architects, who gave instructions, that the tree was not to be felled.

“Apparently by the time the instructions got back, the tree had been substantially removed,” said Mr Milligan. “It apears that the timber from it was sold by the defendant to a furniture maker.”

Mr Hampton said that he believed it to be the first time such a charge had been laid, and as such it had attracted considerable publicity. “Perhaps this is the most publicity that a tree has received since George Washington’s cherry tree,” he said.

Hislop, he said, did not know that the City Council had notified publicly its District Scheme, in which details of protected trees were included. He was at the end of a chain of command and was a subcontractor employed to fell trees. Mr Hampton said that the

defendant regarded himself as a “simple woodman” and that the day the tree was cut down the chain of command on the property had inexplicably broken down. The protection disc was not on the tree, which to Hislop had appeared unsound. It was rotten in the middle and was unbalanced because of its two trunks.

Mr Hampton said that when the tree was felled the trunk split and up to 50 gallons of water spilled out. He produced to Judge Fogarty photographs showing the condition of the tree after it was cut down.

The Judge said that it was a major regret that no matter what the Court did the tree could not be reinstated. He said that the defendant had been given an onsite quote for removing the tree and honestly believed that the tree had a defect in it

In convicting Hislop, the Judge said that the defendant did not know the tree was protected and had received incorrect instructions on the site.