Mother, 40, illegally chopped down protected giant tree on her driveway because it was a ‘nuisance’ that blocked drains and bashed against her home – but is spared fine after insisting she did it for the benefit of her street

A mother who illegally cut down a protected tree on her driveway because it was a ‘nuisance’ to her whole street has been spared a fine.

Kelly Palmer, 40, smiled as she left court after admitting she paid a tree surgeon to chop down the giant ash because it blocked drains and regularly bashed against her home in Shirley, West Midlands.

Solihull Council prosecuted the project manager and her husband Anthony Palmer, who was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing, following an anonymous complaint.

Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard the ash had been protected by a Tree Preservation Order in the 1990s before the couple’s home was built, and the authority had refused their previous application to remove it in 2017.

But last September the council was tipped off that it had been taken down without their consent. 

Mrs Palmer pleaded guilty to contravening a provision of the regulations and she was handed a conditional discharge on Friday, June 21. The same offence was withdrawn against Mr Palmer after he denied it. 

Mrs Palmer admitted she paid a tree surgeon to take down the imposing ash (pictured) because it blocked drains and regularly bashed against her home in Shirley and woke up her daughter

Andrew Burton, prosecuting, said: ‘Permission had been sought from the council for removal in 2017 by Mr Palmer. It was refused because the amenity value of the tree was high. It was mature and in good health and felling it would have been a significant loss to the street scene and visual amenity.

‘There was no sufficient reason to justify it. There would have been a right of appeal but it wasn’t exercised.’

He continued: ‘In September 2023 the council received an anonymous report the tree had been cut down. A letter with a caution was sent to both Mr and Mrs Palmer with a series of questions.

‘Mrs Palmer responded. She was fully cooperative with the council. She explained she had been approached at home by a tree surgeon who said he was working in the area and remarked how big and close the tree was to their home with overhanging branches on the footpath.

‘He told her ash dieback had caused most of the trees to be removed and was extremely surprised it was still present. Due to the issues they were having he recommended removal. She had no contact details. She agreed a price and a date and paid cash.’

A photograph of the tree towering over the street from August 2022 remains on Google Street View.

Neil Davis, defending, explained that the TPO was granted in 1995, nearly a decade before the couple’s home was built in 2004.

He said: ‘The difficulties and problems the tree has caused the family are numerous. When it was fully grown the ash tree was 4.5metres (14.8ft) from the front door. It blocked drains, there’s evidence of that.

‘It caused a nuisance to neighbours and there are letters from both the tenant and the occupant of (the properties next door to the Palmers). It caused disruption and you can tell the branches are in fact when the wind blows striking their house.

‘Their daughter had the front bedroom. On recent occasions because of the high winds she couldn’t sleep and has been scared by the tree knocking on the window. They had to move her from the bedroom.’

Mrs Palmer (pictured leaving court) pleaded guilty to contravening a provision of the regulations and she was handed a conditional discharge on Friday, June 21

Mr Davis added that there was actually evidence of ash die back to the tree – as was supposedly claimed by the tree surgeon – and that other trees that were the subject of the same TPO had been removed by the council. 

He pointed out that Mrs Palmer had pleaded guilty, cooperated with the authority, had no previous convictions and that the court summons alone had been a worrying experience for the couple. ‘They have suffered enough,’ the solicitor said.

Chair of the Bench Alex Yip told Mrs Palmer she could ‘put yourself out of your misery’ because she would be spared a fine. 

He stated she ‘knowingly took this action’ but the full circumstances of the case meant the court could impose a 12-month conditional discharge. 

Mrs Palmer was however ordered to pay £250 in costs and a £26 victim surcharge.