Tree order compensation
Tree order compensation
- 1988
- Times 11/3/88, p35 Daily Telegraph 11/3/88, p4(2) .
In Bell v Canterbury City Council , CD 10 March 1988, it was held that a landowner who had been refused permission on the ground of amenity to fell trees on woodlands subject to a tree preservation order was entitled to be compensated for the diminution in the value of the land resulting from the refusal and not merely for the commercial value of the timber which he could not realise. (See WB2409-19)
In Bell v Canterbury City Council , CD 10 March 1988, it was held that a landowner who had been refused permission on the ground of amenity to fell trees on woodlands subject to a tree preservation order was entitled to be compensated for the diminution in the value of the land resulting from the refusal and not merely for the commercial value of the timber which he could not realise. (See WB2409-19)