A historic farming business has been ordered to replace several protected trees it cut down at a Perthshire conservation zone.
Bosses at the centuries-old Meikleour Estate, near Blairgowrie, were slapped with a council enforcement order and threatened with remedial action after an operation to fell six broadleaf trees last summer.
The Meikleour Trust was told to replace three silver birches and three ashes at land off the A984, near the Meikleour Hotel.
The family-owned estate, which dates back to 1362, lodged an appeal with the Scottish Government, urging officials to quash the tree replacement notice.
In a letter to the planning appeals division, the trust’s Sam Nairne argued the trees which were felled were not protected by an official tree preservation order and were self-seeded, having in fact been cut down several years ago.
“They subsequently coppiced producing a mass of smaller trees,” he said.
“This was not only extremely messy, which is why I tidied it up, but I believe the trees were below the size threshold required before they achieve protected status.”
He said that larger trees at the site were untouched.
“I believe the character and appearance of the conservation area in which I live and work is enhanced and preserved by my actions,” he said.
“I am saddened and frustrated that in trying to help, I am being pursued by the council.”
Scottish ministers reporter Alasdair Edwards, who was tasked with investigating, has dismissed the trust’s appeal.
He has demanded the terms of the original enforcement order will now come into effect, meaning that Mr Nairne must replace the six trees within 45 days.
In his report, Mr Edwards confirmed the site was not covered by a preservation order, however the trees would have been protected as they were within a conservation area.
Trees with a diameter of less than 75mm would be exempt, he said, or 100mm if they were cut down to make way for other trees.
“At the time of my site inspection, the felled trees and stumps had been removed from the site, leaving only some unsettled areas where the trees had stood,” he said.
“However, photographs submitted by the council following the works clearly show that the felled trees and stumps are greater than 75mm and 100mm.
“On this evidence, and in the absence of any record from the appellant, I conclude that on the balance of probability the felled trees were not exempt from protection.”
He added: “Whether the felled trees were self-seeded does not exempt them from protection.
“In addition, I do not consider the felling of the trees has enhanced the character and appearance of the conservation area.”