Tree order compensation
Language: English Series: Times ; 11/3/88, p35 | Daily Telegraph ; 11/3/88, p4(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: 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)| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2411-11 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 59254-1001 |
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)