A prickly Solihull neighbour dispute has ended up in court.
Dr Niall Martin, 72, of St Bernard's Road, Olton, was cleared of theft and criminal damage following a trial at Birmingham Magistrates' Court last week.
The prosecution was brought privately by David Sandom, a neighbour of Dr Martin, who accused the retired general practitioner of destroying and stealing a holly tree growing between their adjacent gardens.
According to Mr Sandom, the destruction and loss of the well established holly has resulted in a potential loss of £56,048.
Green-fingered Dr Martin, who hosts an annual "In Bloom" event in his garden, was shocked to receive a summons on charges of theft and criminal damage in relation to the tree.
Magistrates heard that the neighbours, who had enjoyed a cordial relationship for more than 20 years, had an over-the-fence discussion about the removal of trees.
It was agreed that Dr Martin could remove a beech tree, which was overhanging his garden. Dr Martin set about obtaining the necessary permissions to fell the tree.
Giving evidence, Mr Sandom denied that the agreement extended to the removal of the holly tree.
He said: "I refused permission point blank. It leans this way it doesn't lean over his garden at all. I said I'm not going to give permission to cut down a mature tree.
"He said he didn't need permission to cut it down and seemed to infer it was some sort of pest. It didn't make any sort of sense to me. I didn't buy that. I know you have to have permission no matter what tree it is."
Six months later, in February 2021, Mr Sandom noticed tree surgeons in the garden.
He continued: "If I had new neighbours I would have been watching the trees like a hawk, but it was Niall. We always got on.
"It was very civil. He came to my father's funeral. I never dreamed he would do that.
"I looked down and the holly tree had gone. I was stunned. Actually stunned. I saw the tree surgeons there. I was angry. They said Niall instructed us to do it.
"I couldn't describe how angry I was. They asked if I wanted to talk to Niall. I said, 'What's the point, it's gone'. I went back in the house. The time for conversation was before not after."
Asked why he thought the tree belonged to him, Mr Sandom replied: "It was obvious to anyone who has got two eyes that was my property. Very obvious."
Dr Martin took a different view on the ownership of the tree.
He said: "My understanding was that the tree was on my side, on my property, because it appeared so to the naked eye. It appeared so when I looked down the boundary.
"I made a fairly undoubted decision it was on my side. I didn't have too much doubt about it at all."
He said he had spoken to Mr Sandom as a matter of courtesy. He had asked Mr Sandom what evidence he had that the tree belonged to him, but Mr Sandom gave no response. According to Dr Martin, he decided to leave the conversation there as he didn't want it to become "acrimonious".
Dr Martin applied to Solihull Council to remove the trees in the garden, but conceded that he had forgotten to mention the holly tree as he thought it was part of the hedge.
"I originally wanted to reduce the height of the tree to permit more light into the garden. David said what was said.
"I believed it was on my side of the boundary. I took the opportunity of using the tree surgeons to reduce the height of the tree whilst they were there. It was an afterthought really."
Mr Martin claimed he knocked Mr Sandom's door to speak to him later that day but 'he saw it was me and didn't answer'.
He added: "When legal proceedings started I sent several letters to him in an effort to resolve the situation.
"Then to my shock and amazement I got a summons to come to court over it. I said hello to David as I passed him but he didn't reply. We had made distinct efforts to resolve this without it coming to court.
"It's important to emphasise I had no criminal intention in my behaviour. It was the last thing I was thinking of."
A chartered surveyor giving evidence for the prosecution said that the tree was more on Mr Sandom's side of the garden, but accepted it was not wholly in it.
A counterpart giving evidence for the defence said that the tree had been on the boundary.
Ben Bennett, an arboriculturalist, told the court that while the tree had been reduced it was "responding well and showing good vigour" adding it certainly had not been destroyed. He also concluded that the wood taken away had "no commercial value whatsoever".
Having considered the circumstances, Magistrates were of the view that they were unable to determine ownership of the tree and therefore neither the theft or criminal damage could be proved.
Addressing the court, the Presiding Justice said: "The point of ownership of the tree is disputed. We didn't believe the prosecution have shown beyond reasonable doubt the ownership of that tree therefore you can't be found guilty of either of these offences."
Having been found not guilty, the charges against Dr Martin were dismissed.
What a sorry state of affairs that it ever got this far. What a tragic end to more than 20 years of neighbourly relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment