000			01070cab a2200277 4500
001			ABS55070
008			090401t1996 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u13960
041			_aeng
245			_aBuckle v Holderness BC
260			_c1996
350			_a0
490			_aRating & Valuation Reporter _v[1996] 36 RVR 86-91(6)
520			_aLT 9 January 1995. The applicant had been refused permission to fell a tree which was apparently affecting the foundations of his nearby property. As a result he claimed compensation in respect of remedial works, including underpinning. The sum payable was decided by the tribunal on the basis that even if the tree had been felled some remedial work would need to be undertaken.
650			_aBUCKLE V HOLDERNESS BC
650			_aCOMPENSATION
650			_aCONSENT TO FELL
650			_aREFUSAL
650			_aSTRUCTURAL DAMAGE
650			_aTREE PRESERVATION ORDER
650			_aTREE ROOTS
650			_aUNDERPINNING
690			_aPROPERTY LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c9027 _d9027