|
Trees - replacement cost? |
|
|
A residential property had a boundary with tall trees. The trees were up to 150ft high and were important because they provided a screen against an electricity pylon, as well as a barrier against wind and the noise of a nearby railway line.
Unfortunately, the trees had to be replaced because of damage caused by a neighbour's livestock and the question then arose as to the damages that should be paid. The problem was that it would cost more than £400,000 to replace those trees with similar mature trees; on the other hand, it would cost £47,000 to plant young trees (but they would take many years to mature), whilst to plant mature but not fully developed trees would cost £190,000. The CA decided that any reasonable person in the householder's position who
was using their own money to rectify the situation would not incur such levels
of expenditure, but would replace the trees with young trees and wait for them
to grow. Accordingly, £47,000 was the correct damages figure. Note that
the court did not consider it appropriate to base damages on the diminution
in value of the property, since the claimants were not proposing to move. Moreover,
it did not think the compromise solution of £190,000 could be justified;
in the court's view one had to look at what any reasonable person would do when
spending their own money. The end result, therefore, was an award of £47,000,
although an additional £12,000 was paid as compensation (ie loss of amenity)
for the time it would take for the trees to mature. Bryant
v Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762, noted in Property Week 8 July 2005.
|
|
October 2005 |
