CONSIDER the curious case that confronted one East Lancashire householder -- of a 43ft-high tree in her garden that developed a frightening tilt across her drive and towards her neighbours' homes.

She considered it dangerous and wanted it cut down.

But the leaning ash tree outside Patricia Counsell's home was the subject of a preservation order by Hyndburn Council. It said the tree must stay because it was an improvement to the area.

Yet, if there were different opinions over whether it was about to topple or not, one thing the council wanted Mrs Counsell to be clear about was that if it did fall, the order made her liable for any damage it caused.

Fair? It hardly seems so when such a responsibility was foisted on the householder as a result of the council's own policy. The council wanted the best of both worlds -- trees to enhance the area, but no liability for them once it had officially protected them. Natural justice would surely say that council should accept responsibility, for, after all, tree owners would be quite free to axe any they considered hazardous if there were no orders put on them.

Now, common sense has prevailed. The government has agreed the tree must stay, but overruled the council's bid to make Mrs Counsell liable for any damage it causes. The buck is passed back where it rightly belongs.