Appeal ruling orders firm to replant trees
Plant hire business has to ‘remedy’site
The Scottish Government has backed the local authority’s decision to order a company to replace a “significant” number of trees it is said to have felled in an area opposite Grange near Errol without proper permission.
Perth and Kinross Council served an enforcement notice on plant hire business Morris Leslie in August requiring it to rip out hardstanding laid at the site and plant new poplars to “remedy” the unauthorised development.
Council officials also demanded the company remove a quantity of soil said to have been deposited within remaining woodland at the site whilst ensuring no damage was done to any more trees during its removal.
Chartered surveyors DM Hall asked the government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division ( DPEA) to consider cancelling the enforcement notice on behalf of Morris Leslie claiming the steps PKC had asked the company to take to resolve the situation were “excessive”.
However a reporter working for the DPEA has since sided with PKC and dismissed the appeal after concluding planting new poplars across the site was the “minimum” the company ought to do under the circumstances.
Reporter Philip Barton said in a decision notice published this week: “It is clear from the evidence I have seen that a significant number of trees were felled between 2011 and 2018.
“Replacing the felled poplars with trees of the same species is, in my view, the minimum intervention required to remedy the harm to amenity caused by the unauthorised development.
“Consequently, the requirement set out in [the council’s enforcement notice] cannot reasonably be considered to exceed what is necessary to remedy such injury.”
Mr Barton also dismissed DM Hall’s argument Morris Leslie had not been given enough time to comply with the enforcement notice. PKC originally ordered the company to have fully replanted the area within 120 days of the notice coming into effect on September 8.
Mr Barton said in his decision notice: “No substantive reasons have been advanced to justify extending the period of compliance.
“The council asserts that the appellant has the resources, technical knowledge and ready access to the plant and machinery required to comply with the requirements set out in the notice. The appellant does not refute this assertion.
“There will be about 28 days from the date of determination of this appeal before the planting season for trees commences.
“Given the appellant’s apparent resources, this represents an adequate time period within which to comply with ... the notice and to order the replacement trees.
“This would leave 92 days remaining within which to comply [ and] it is unlikely that bad weather would prevent tree planting for this entire period.
“I am satisfied, therefore, that 120 days allows sufficient time for the appellant to comply with all of the steps contained within the notice.”