Imagine a scenario where a young mother, driving her car, is suddenly crushed by a falling tree during a storm. This isn’t a fictional tale—it’s a stark reality that recently unfolded in Derbyshire, UK. But here’s where it gets controversial: private landowners are now on the hook for £100,000 in emergency tree works they failed to address themselves. Could this tragedy have been prevented if landowners had taken proactive measures? Let’s dive into the details.
Over the past few months, Derbyshire County Council has been racing against time to tackle the growing threat of ash dieback, a devastating disease that turns once-sturdy trees into brittle hazards. From November through January, the council has been forced to step in and fell hazardous trees—including those on private land—that landowners neglected to maintain. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The council is also owed an additional £130,000 from landowners who agreed to have felling work done on their behalf but haven’t yet paid up.
The £100,000 bill in question stems from the emergency felling of 100 trees along the A6 between Cromford and Matlock Bath in late November. This urgent action was prompted by a terrifying incident during Storm Claudia, when a tree fell onto a car driven by 25-year-old Natalie Bowler, a paramedic and mother of three, leaving her injured. Shockingly, this was the third tree to fall on the same plot within days. To address the crisis, specialist machinery and contractors were deployed to clear trees from a steep bank alongside the A6, forcing the road to close for five days.
But the work isn’t over. The council is set to close the Via Gellia road (A5012) between Cromford and Newhaven from January 27 until the end of February to fell all ash trees within 20 meters of the route. This includes work on both private and council-owned land, with prior agreements in place for landowners to cover the costs. And this is the part most people miss: the council has statutory powers to reclaim costs from landowners who fail to act, even if it means taking legal action.
A council spokesperson explained, “When we identify trees at risk of falling onto roads or public footpaths, we first contact the landowner. If there’s no response, we issue a legal notice outlining their duty to remove the trees. If they still don’t act, we step in and seek reimbursement.” But how likely is it that landowners will pay? The council remains hopeful, noting that some have already agreed to cover costs for removing diseased trees. However, they acknowledge that legal action is a last resort.
The scale of the problem is staggering. The council plans to spend £2 million on felling ash dieback-affected trees in the next financial year, followed by £1.8 million the year after. With ash dieback expected to infect 50-90% of ash trees in the UK over the next 10 to 20 years, the urgency couldn’t be clearer. As Councillor Carol Wood aptly put it, “Ash dieback is a serious problem. It’s a relatively new disease that has spread rapidly and poses a significant risk to public safety.”
Here’s the controversial question: Should landowners bear the full cost of emergency tree works, or should the council share some responsibility for public safety? While landowners are legally obligated to maintain their trees, some argue that the council’s proactive inspections and interventions could prevent such crises. What do you think? Is this a fair division of responsibility, or is there room for a more collaborative approach? Let’s spark a discussion in the comments below!
