TREE HACKER’S PAYBACK
Businessman must pay council £21k he put on home’s value by butchering oak
A WEALTHY businessman who butchered a protected tree because it blocked sunlight from his balcony has been ordered to pay the taxpayer more than £21,000 – the amount the act added to his house value.
A court heard that in 2016 Samuel Wilson installed a Juliet balcony in the master bedroom of his £1million home in affluent Canford Cliffs in Poole, Dorset.
However, once it was built, he realised the 42ft oak in his back garden blocked the sun.
The oak was subject to a tree preservation order and Wilson, 40, should have sought permission from the local authority to cut it back.
Instead, he ignored the tree’s protected status and ‘ virtually destroyed’ it by chopping off its 12ft-long branches. A neighbour reported him to Poole council and an inquiry was launched.
Wilson, who runs a student housing business, pleaded guilty to a charge of causing wilful damage to a protected tree at a previous hearing and appeared at Bournemouth Crown Court for sentencing. He was fined £1,200 for the offence and must also pay £15,000 costs.
But Poole council also used the Proceeds of Crime Act to recoup the amount of money Wilson will have made from his crime. It is thought to be the first time the legislation has been used in this way.
Two council surveyors estimated the added value to his house was between £21,750 and £30,000.
Graham Thorne, one of the surveyors, said the tree had been ‘vir- tually destroyed’ by Wilson. Judge Jonathan Fuller QC told Wilson the court would adopt the lower valuation of £21,750.
He is the first person to be dealt with under the Proceeds of Crime Act for a case involving damaging a tree to improve light.
In 2012 Poole businessman Neil Davey was forced to pay back the £75,000 his house value increased by after he felled a pine tree to improve the sea view from his hot tub.
Andy Dearing, of Poole council, said: ‘What was the reason and motivation for climbing a 40ft oak tree to remove large limbs from it?
‘The only logical conclusion was it was to create south-west sunlight to the back garden and on to his Juliet balcony… the maximum fine would have been £2,500. But the Proceeds of Crime Act took the matter to another level, because it looked at the benefit of that criminal activity and we said it was to gain an increase of between £21,000 to £30,000.’
During the hearing, Nicholas Cotter, representing Wilson, disputed that the businessman’s illegal act had added value to his home – arguing that ‘you cannot put a monetary value on light’.
However, this was rejected by the judge, who said experts could place a financial value on sunlight despite it not being ‘an exact science’.
Defending Wilson, Mr Cotter said: ‘He is a man of good character and is a hard-working family man.’
‘He virtually destroyed it’