Fined $237,000 for hiring someone to remove a century-old tree—fair punishment or too harsh?
- Replies 31
A century-old tree vanished from a Newport backyard, leaving neighbours and council officials shocked.
The homeowner claimed she had no other option, but authorities saw it as a blatant disregard for the law.
Now, the consequences have reached a staggering sum that few could have anticipated.
Claire Rands, who lived in Newport, South Wales, was ordered to pay £114,776.73 ($237,000) after cutting down a 100-year-old lime tree protected by a local council tree preservation order.
Reports revealed Mrs Rands had lodged six unsuccessful applications to have the tree removed before taking matters into her own hands.
The felled tree was discovered by an ecologist from Newport Council while inspecting the reserve behind the Rands’ property.
The ecologist reported the missing tree to the council, prompting an investigation which confirmed that one of the protected trees had been cut down.
At Newport Magistrates Court, the council alleged Mrs Rands had engaged a third party to remove the tree after being advised it could increase her property’s value by £50,000 ($103,000).
Timothy Straker KC, representing the council, said, ‘Mrs Rands did not take an axe to the tree but engaged someone to do it for her.
‘A large lime tree was taken away, to use the vernacular, lock, stock and barrel. It was a breach of the current legislation and is a criminal offence.’
Rhys Rosser, acting for Mrs Rands, told the court she was of ‘previous good character with no convictions against her’ and had been living off her husband’s income after stopping work for her company following its takeover.
Judge Celicia Hughes said in her verdict: ‘She has shown arrogance in blatantly ignoring the tree preservation order.
‘She knew fully well of the order—this offence was committed deliberately.’
A Newport council spokesperson explained the felled tree had been fly-tipped on the nature reserve behind the Rands’ property.
‘The ecologist noticed the discrepancy which led to a site visit to inspect the trees and investigation into what happened,’ the spokesperson said.
The total fine included a £16,000 ($33,000) penalty and £100,000 ($207,000) in court costs.
Rules around property can catch you off guard in the smallest ways—just like cutting down a tree, tiny oversights can carry hefty consequences.
Even something as simple as leaving a window slightly open could cost you thousands if it breaches local regulations.
If you want to see another example of how everyday actions can lead to unexpected fines, this story highlights the risks.
Read more: Left the windows down a smidge? That tiny gap could mean a $3,096 fine
Losing such a treasured piece of natural heritage can leave a lasting impact—what would you have done if faced with the same dilemma?
The homeowner claimed she had no other option, but authorities saw it as a blatant disregard for the law.
Now, the consequences have reached a staggering sum that few could have anticipated.
Claire Rands, who lived in Newport, South Wales, was ordered to pay £114,776.73 ($237,000) after cutting down a 100-year-old lime tree protected by a local council tree preservation order.
Reports revealed Mrs Rands had lodged six unsuccessful applications to have the tree removed before taking matters into her own hands.
The felled tree was discovered by an ecologist from Newport Council while inspecting the reserve behind the Rands’ property.
Homeowner fined for cutting century-old protected lime tree. Image source: Pexels/Johannes Plenio | Disclaimer: This is a stock image used for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual person, item, or event described.
The ecologist reported the missing tree to the council, prompting an investigation which confirmed that one of the protected trees had been cut down.
At Newport Magistrates Court, the council alleged Mrs Rands had engaged a third party to remove the tree after being advised it could increase her property’s value by £50,000 ($103,000).
Timothy Straker KC, representing the council, said, ‘Mrs Rands did not take an axe to the tree but engaged someone to do it for her.
‘A large lime tree was taken away, to use the vernacular, lock, stock and barrel. It was a breach of the current legislation and is a criminal offence.’
Rhys Rosser, acting for Mrs Rands, told the court she was of ‘previous good character with no convictions against her’ and had been living off her husband’s income after stopping work for her company following its takeover.
Judge Celicia Hughes said in her verdict: ‘She has shown arrogance in blatantly ignoring the tree preservation order.
‘She knew fully well of the order—this offence was committed deliberately.’
A Newport council spokesperson explained the felled tree had been fly-tipped on the nature reserve behind the Rands’ property.
‘The ecologist noticed the discrepancy which led to a site visit to inspect the trees and investigation into what happened,’ the spokesperson said.
The total fine included a £16,000 ($33,000) penalty and £100,000 ($207,000) in court costs.
Rules around property can catch you off guard in the smallest ways—just like cutting down a tree, tiny oversights can carry hefty consequences.
Even something as simple as leaving a window slightly open could cost you thousands if it breaches local regulations.
If you want to see another example of how everyday actions can lead to unexpected fines, this story highlights the risks.
Read more: Left the windows down a smidge? That tiny gap could mean a $3,096 fine
Losing such a treasured piece of natural heritage can leave a lasting impact—what would you have done if faced with the same dilemma?
.png){kind=icon}
