A BARNSLEY property developer is having to pick up the £25,000 bill for legal action taken against him by the council over damage to protected trees.
The case against Wayne Hadfield was heard by a High Court judge over three days last month following allegations made a year ago that trees subject to a tree preservation order were being damaged in Worsbrough Wood by Mr Hadfield.
The businessman, who owns the wood, told the Chronicle he had been unfairly penalised by the council, which, he says, failed to prove he had cut down any trees and was instead found guilty on a ‘technicality’ of driving over the roots of protected trees with machinery and damaging them.
Mr Hadfield told the Chronicle: “The council has gone over the top with me, engaging solicitors from London-based Bevan Brittan - not their own solicitors as would normally happen to any other individual - they grossed up costs of over £25,000 for the simple matter of serving a stop notice on me.
“Because the council couldn’t prove me cutting down or lopping any TPO tree they said I must have drove over roots and therefore damaged trees in some way with evidence given by their so-called expert witness.
“Because of this I got found guilty on that small technicality and ordered to pay the massive costs incurred by them hiring out of town solicitors and not using their own.”
Barnsley Council spokesman said it uses TPOs to protect trees and it is a written order which makes it an offence to cut down, top, lop, uproot, wilfully damage, or destroy a tree protected by the order without permission.
“We take this seriously and if people deliberately damage or destroy a protected tree, or arrange for this to happen, they could be liable to fines via the Magistrates’ Court or Crown Court,” he said.
“Based on the evidence presented by our officers and the police, an interim injunction was granted on Mr Hadfield to protect the trees from any further damage. As the interim injunction application was without notice to Mr Hadfield, a final hearing had to take place to consider all the evidence and decide whether the injunction should be made permanent.
“The matter was heard by a High Court Judge on February 14, 15 and 16. Evidence was given in person by our chief executive, arboriculture officer and an independent tree expert.
“A written statement by a police officer who had witnessed the activities on site was also read out to the court. Mr Hadfield gave evidence denying he had damaged any trees.
“The judge found on the evidence that protected trees had been damaged by Mr Hadfield both before and after the interim injunction. He said that the decision to go for the injunction in the first place was not only proportionate and reasonable but ‘plainly right’.
“He granted a permanent injunction to protect the trees covered by the TPO, including but not limited to five identified specimens, with all further specific trees within the woodland to be identified for protection within three weeks.
“Mr Hadfield has been ordered to pay our costs of the litigation, to be assessed if not agreed within 21 days with £5k to be paid on account. The litigation bill is being prepared by a costs lawyer and will amount to tens of thousands of pounds.”
The council spokesman said it appointed an outside firm of solicitors, rather than using the in-house team, as at the time of the interim injunction, Mr Hadfield was awaiting trial at crown court for charges relating to intimidation, harassment and blackmail of council staff.
He added: “To safeguard our staff and to minimise any direct dealings with Mr Hadfield we instructed Messrs Bevan Brittan, solicitors, to conduct the injunction proceedings on our behalf.”
Mr Hadfield is now preparing to take counter action.
He said: “What the council also do not know yet, is that many fields they own and lease out, the accesses are alongside TPO trees which by law have to be over eight metres away otherwise the heavy machinery ploughing and cultivating this land would drive over the roots to the entrances, every day damaging the roots, which by their (the council’s) own experts’ evidence, most likely would result in killing the tree.
“Many of these fields have no other access and also cannot be accessed without being within eight metres of a TPO tree.
“These fields now, with the verdict given by the judge, will be deemed inaccessible and therefore un-leasable to the farmers that lease them, to which I now aim to enforce, losing the council fortunes in rent.”
