Suella Braverman’s constituency town in furious row over felling of ‘majestic’ 45-foot oak tree
A market town in Suella Braverman’s constituency is at the centre of a row over the felling of a “majestic” 45 foot oak tree.
Residents in Fareham, Hampshire, have been left “heartbroken” by the loss of the 110-year-old oak and have accused insurers of felling the tree as a “first-resort”.
The row began after homeowner Steve Thomas said there was “no alternative” to the tree coming down, other than his house falling due to the subsidence.
The oak was under a Tree Protection Order which meant Mr Thomas was required to obtain planning permission from Fareham council. This was granted in April last year, but the council has now criticised insurer RSA for not giving them five days’ notice of the tree felling – one of the conditions listed in their decision notice.
The felling was opposed by several local residents with Ms Braverman, the former home secretary, arguing “other avenues” such as restricting the roots, should have been explored first. RSA claims “all options are considered” when it comes to tree-related subsidence and that the loss of any tree was “regrettable”.
‘Significant distress’
Paul Johnston, the authority’s principal tree officer, pointed out the distress the tree’s felling had caused to residents.
He wrote: “Whilst there is a lawful decision granting consent for the removal of this oak tree, given the significant public interest and indeed distress amongst some residents, it would have been appropriate for notice to have been provided of the impending tree works. I’m raising the council’s concern that it was not notified as requested on the decision notice.”
The century-old tree was worth £160,000 and pruning or a root barrier were other options for dealing with the subsidence, according to Jeremy Barrell, a tree consultant.
An engineering report on Mr Thomas’ home found that the subsidence was “slight” and caused by shrinking of the clay soil underneath the home. The property was built in 1985 with foundations just 1.5 metres deep, which the arboricultural report found were “inadequate”, and the tree was in the corner of the garden on a strip of Crown land.
Mr Thomas has said there was no choice but to fell the tree, arguing: “I don’t see why there’s such a fuss, there was no alternative other than the house falling down.”
‘Death by a thousand cuts’
However local resident Laura Ancell, 36, called the issue a “national scandal” and said the same thing was happening to other protected trees across the country.
She formally objected to the planning application to cut down the tree, along with her mother Jayne Ancell and their neighbour Tim Bishop. Ms Ancell claimed the insurance company ignored the fact that there are other protected oak trees in close proximity and claimed it would only be a matter of time before they could be removed.
“I believe this is a national scandal that is quietly happening under our noses, a cut here, a cut there, it’s quite simply death by a thousand cuts,” she said.
“It’s a vicious circle and insurance companies want to maximise profits, which I understand, but at the same time they spout all of these environmental credentials yet they haven’t offered any other feasible option other than felling a majestic so called protect oak tree.”
‘Utter disgrace’
Mr Bishop, 67, a retired surveyor, added that the trees were important for biodiversity with “huge numbers of insects and birds”.
“I just think there aren’t that many oak trees left; it harbours huge numbers of insects and birds,” he said. “It is just the thought that we are knocking it down when it was not needed. We are concerned he will go for the other trees next.”
Ms Ancell, 60, said she was “outraged” by the loss of the “almighty” tree. She said: “We have really fought for that tree, it is heartbreaking, it is happening all over the South of England and it has to stop. We have not been able to save this tree but there are other trees that can be saved. It is an utter disgrace, I am just lost for words that this has happened, I am just in shock.”
It is understood informing the council when the tree would be felled is merely a notification not a legal obligation.
‘Regrettable’
A spokesperson for RSA said it would take the concerns up “directly with the council” and that when a home has suffered tree related subsidence damage, it must always be remedied to prevent further damage to the property and distress to the homeowner.
It said that “qualified experts” investigate and identify potential courses of action, “all options are considered” and the removal of the tree is a “last resort”.
“The loss of any tree is regrettable; but in some cases targeted tree removal can be the most effective solution in mitigating subsidence and protecting our customer’s home.”