Neighbours go to court over ‘£56k’ tree felling
ABITTER row between next door neighbours over a tree – which one claims is worth £56,000 – ended up in court.
Retired doctor Niall Martin was accused of ‘chopping down’ the 40ft tall holly to allow more sunlight onto his flower beds.
But neighbour David Sandom said it was ‘obvious to anyone with two eyes’ that the tree was on his side of the garden and that he had refused ‘point blank’ for it to be removed.
He stated he was ‘angry’ when he noticed that workmen had taken it down without his permission at the adjoining properties, which sit in a Solihull conservation area.
Mr Sandom also argued he had been caused a potential loss of £56,084 by the felling.
Subsequent attempts to resolve the messy dispute on St Bernard’s Road, in Olton, fell on deaf ears – and the row bizarrely ended up at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court after Mr Sandom took out a private criminal prosecution.
Mr Martin, who welcomes people into his garden for charity every year as part of the road’s ‘in Bloom’ event, stated he was ‘shocked’ to received a court summons over the axed tree. He denied charges of criminal damage over the axing of the tree and theft of the wood.
He was acquitted because magistrates could not determine who owned the holly.
The court heard the neighbours, who had previously enjoyed a ‘civil’ relationship, had a conversation over their garden fence about trees.
Mr Sandom confirmed he gave his blessing for a beech tree to be cut down as it was leaning into his neighbour’s garden, but not the holly.
He said: “I refused permission point blank. It doesn’t lean over his garden at all.
“He said he didn’t need permission to cut it down and seemed to infer it was some sort of pest.”
Then six months later, in February 2021, he noticed tree surgeons in the garden.
Mr Sandom said: “If I had new neighbours I would have been watching the trees like a hawk, but it was Niall. We always got on.
“It was very civil. He came to my father’s funeral. I never dreamed he would do that. I looked down and the holly tree had gone. I was stunned. I was angry. They said Niall instructed us to do it. I couldn’t describe how angry I was.”
Asked why he felt the tree was in his garden he added: “It was obvious to anyone who has got two eyes that was my property. Very obvious.”
Mr Martin, aged 72, had a different view. He told the court: “My understanding was that the tree was on my side, on my property, because it appeared so to the naked eye. I didn’t have too much doubt about it at all.”
He had spoken with Mr Sandom out of ‘courtesy’ and was ‘very surprised’ his neighbour believed the holly was on his own garden.
He said: “I believed it was on my side of the boundary. I took the opportunity of using the tree surgeons to reduce the height of the tree
It was obvious to anyone who has got two eyes that was my property. Very obvious. David Sandom
whilst they were there. It was an afterthought really.”
He added: “To my shock and amazement I got a summons to come to court over it. I said ‘hello’ to David as I passed him but he didn’t reply. It’s important to emphasise I had no criminal intention in my behaviour. It was the last thing I was thinking of.”
A chartered surveyor for Mr Sandom argued the tree was more on his side of the garden but accepted it was not ‘wholly’ on it.
Confirming the not guilty verdicts against Mr Martin, the Chair of the Bench said: “The point of ownership of the tree is disputed. We didn’t believe the prosecution have shown beyond reasonable doubt the ownership of that tree therefore you can’t be found guilty of either of these offences.”
Catherine Ravenscroft, defending, confirmed they would be making an application for costs.