LGA is asking SA councils to help fund Unley’s Supreme Court appeal
The LGA is asking all councils to consider lending money to Unley in the hope it can prove two Hyde Park trees were pruned illegally.
City
Don't miss out on the headlines from City. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Red gum pruning of neighbours’ tree not done illegally, court Court clears property owner and arborist
- Subscriber competition: Win Adelaide Oval VIP memberships
All South Australian councils will be asked to foot the bill of a long-running legal stoush over two regulated river red gums that Unley Council maintains were pruned illegally.
The Local Government Association SA has asked its members to consider funding Unley’s Supreme Court appeal to overturn a decision that cleared a tree lopping company and property owner of excessively pruning a neighbour’s tree, in Hyde Park, without their knowledge.
The total cost of the appeal would be about $50,000, documents show.
Unley chief executive Peter Tsokas wrote a letter to all other councils saying if the decision was left unchallenged it could set a precedent for other similar cases.
Mr Tsokas also said expert arboriculture advice tendered by the council as part of the prosecution was ignored.
“The determination of the court in this matter has placed a significant burden on Local Government,” Mr Tsokas said.
“The matter is of significance to all councils … and (I) encourage you to make a contribution, given the broader implications of the current judgment for the local government sector as a whole.”
In October 2015 the tree owners, who live on Commercial Rd, went away for the weekend and returned to find their trees had been trimmed.
In November 2016, Unley Council launched legal action against residents Tim Crichton, Zbigniew Bendyk, Tempest Trees and its director Dylan Tempest for alleged tree-damaging activity.
The court heard they did not seek council approval, which is required for pruning of more than 30 per cent of a regulated tree crown.
The council has already spent $230,000 on legal fees associated with the case.
The previous judgment, handed down by the Environment, Resources and Development Court in December, resulted in costs being awarded against the council, which are anticipated to be in the order of $250,000.