Homeowner hit with HUGE £116,000 fine for chopping down tree in back garden

A homeowner has been fined a whopping £116,000 for having a century-old lime tree cut down in her back garden.

Claire Rands, from Newport,Wales, claimed she was unaware of any wrongdoing when she hired a tree surgeon to work on the property she shared with her husband, Damon Rands, and their four children. According to Mrs Rands, the tree surgeon they employed felled the tree due to several severe grass firesthat had occurred on the common land behind the houses on the street in the early 2010s, leading her to believe the tree could be a potential risk.

The Rands family had featured in multiple news articles in 2012, the same year the tree was removed, discussing how it had caught fire during the summer months after alleged intentional grass fires spiralled out of control.

READ MORE: Whitley Bay incident: Funfair closed after person 'seriously injured' on ride

READ MORE: Teenage girl 'drugged and raped' in park in early morning as four men arrested

Several neighbours also reported issues with the grass fires, while the Rands family's planning applications to lift a tree preservation order - or TPO - on their land, which would have permitted them to remove the tree, were unsuccessful.

A TPO, which had been placed on the lime tree in the Rands' back garden due to its age and value, is a legal order safeguarding specific trees. This order forbids the felling, topping, lopping, uprooting or intentional damage or destruction of trees without explicit permission from the local planning authority - in this case, the council - even if it's on private property, reports Wales Online.

After the towering tree was removed and replaced with a new one, the Rands thought nothing more of it.

But over a decade later, they were stunned to receive a letter from Newport City Council stating they would be prosecuted for causing or permitting the destruction of a tree protected by a TPO.

Damon Rands was subsequently acquitted, while Claire Rands was found guilty following a trial at Newport Magistrates' Court.

The council explained that one of its ecologists had been strolling in the area when they noticed the tree had been cut down years after the fact. Appointed experts believed the property value of the half-million-pound home at the end of the desirable cul-de-sac had increased by at least £50,000 due to the removal of the lime tree.

On Friday, following a lengthy legal wrangle between the two parties over the wording of the law on TPOs which the council claimed had unnecessarily complicated matters, Claire Rands lost her appeal against conviction. She was later sentenced on the same day by Judge Celia Hughes.

During an appeal hearing at Newport Crown Court on Friday, Claire Rands' lawyer, Rhys Rosser, contended that his client couldn't be found guilty of "causing or permitting a tree to be removed" because this law applies only in England, not Wales.

In Wales, where the matter is devolved, Mr Rosser maintained that since Rands didn't physically cut down the tree herself, she could only face the lesser charge under subsection four of the TPO, which constitutes a "contravention" of the order.

He argued that because Claire Rands wasn't the one who actually felled the tree, she shouldn't be convicted of the more serious offence.

Judge Hughes agreed, stating before the sentencing: "It would be contrary to common sense that a householder could be prosecuted for a more minor offence when they are the person who directed the tree to be removed in the first place."

She indicated she would sentence the defendant on the grounds that she "caused or permitted" the destruction of the lime tree.

During the sentencing, Mr Rosser informed the court that estimates regarding how the removal of the lime tree might have increased the property's value were speculative, based on "potential rather than actual" figures. He also highlighted that Claire Rands believed she was acting correctly when she arranged for the tree's removal and noted her previously unblemished record, with no prior convictions or cautions.

Mr Rosser emphasised that the case concerned a single tree, did not involve a commercial entity, and the land remained undeveloped post-incident. He also mentioned the significant delay in sentencing, occurring 13 years after the event.

Claire Rands was hit with a hefty £100,000 bill for prosecution costs, in addition to a £16,000 fine..

It is understood that Newport Council's expenses in pursuing the case far exceeded this amount, including fees for two members of prosecuting counsel from Tree Law UK.

The court was told that Claire Rands, formerly a director of an IT consultancy firm with a multi-million pound turnover owned by her husband, had substantial financial means and could fully cover the prosecution costs and fine. She has been given 12 months to settle the fine.

The Rands family chose not to comment to the media after sentencing.

Following the hearing, Sarah Dodds from Tree Law UK remarked: "This case brings real clarity. Although the law in Wales is framed slightly differently to England, the court has now confirmed that causing or permitting the felling of a protected tree is an offence."

She added: "That provides certainty ahead of the new Planning (Wales) Bill in 2026/27 which will make this explicit. The fine of £16,000, close to the maximum available, together with £100,000 in costs, sends a clear signal that breaches will not be tolerated.

"Newport [council] is delighted with the outcome, not only because its tree preservation orders have been upheld, but because this judgment confirms individuals can be held responsible even if they instruct others to carry out the felling. Most importantly, it strengthens protection for trees and gives confidence that they will be safeguarded for future generations."