Councillors are facing the fury of concerned homeowners after they were told the ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’ tree that they believe threatens their homes has to stay – because it was vital for ‘biodiversity’.
Neighbours of the 45ft oak claimed the huge tree which overhangs into their gardens was a ‘danger’ to them and could cause damage to their listed homes in the historic heart of Winchester, Hampshire.
Residents said that issuing a protection order on the tree is ‘ludicrous’, ‘bad news’, and ‘grossly irresponsible’ – as they urged the authority to assume responsibility for the insurance of their homes.
Despite their assertions, officials have approved the order after hearing of the ‘biodiversity value’ of the oak for the area, where homes sell for in excess of £1 million.
The tree – which grew six foot last year – is not a historic tree and is still relatively young, officials heard.
Objecting at the council meeting, which took place in Winchester’s Guildhall, neighbour Dr Sandra Steele referred to an independent report from a tree consultant who found the tree preservation order (TPO) is ‘completely unjustified’.
Dr Steele referred to comments from the expert, who stated there is ‘a definite foreseeability of long term damage to the adjacent properties from this tree’.
The resident said neighbours have a ‘serious problem’ obtaining insurance for their properties due to the tree and raised concerns over potential ‘unseen root damage’.
Dr Steele said: ‘The oak is a high water demand tree, the spreading roots in search of water cause structural damage to foundation, pipes, drains etcetera.
‘Our historic houses, which have been here for 100 plus years, are particularly vulnerable.
‘A healthy looking tree, may be good for the tree, but it’s bad news for our properties.
‘There’s evidence of soil drying out, several dead trees, cracks in garden walls etcetera but we can’t tell how far the roots have spread below the ground and their impact upon our homes. Crown reduction does not help.
‘The unseen problem of oak tree root damage is a great concern and in addition we face the problem of obtaining insurance.
‘For these very serious reasons, we strongly object to the TPO and request you to allow us to fell the tree without delay to protect our properties.’
Dr Steele added: ‘If you decide not to allow us to remove the tree, we would consider it an unreasonable decision.
‘Also, if you decide not to allow us to remove the tree, would Winchester Council assume responsibility for the insurance of at least ten properties?’
During the meeting, tree officer John Bartlett said the oak is ‘one of the last remaining significant trees’ in that area.
He told councillors: ‘It has a significant biodiversity value supporting many different species.
‘A mature oak tree can support up to 2,300 species, possibly more, when it reaches maturity.
‘And, it’s importance is only increased by the fact that it’s in this urban landscape.’
Councillors voted unanimously to protect the tree.
The oak sits in the corner of 40 year old Orla Williams’ garden on Canon Street.
The street – just yards from Kingsgate Street, which was once described as ‘one of the finest Georgian streets in England’ – was where Admiral Nelson’s mistress Lady Hamilton once lived.
The doctor said that after moving in, she was approached by several neighbours, who raised concerns about the tree.
She said they were concerned that the growing oak could cause damage to their properties and potentially harm human life, and so ‘they wanted to take it down’.
The mother of two said: ‘We applied to the council to have it removed and someone came to look at it.
‘[The tree officer] said that they want to put a tree protection order on it.
‘We appreciate that the tree is beautiful but it’s the wrong tree in the wrong place.
‘It is quite sad to remove something like that but it is only going to get bigger and potentially cause damage to lots of properties which is the main concern.
‘The council said they were concerned about removing it because it’s one of the only trees in the area.
‘All of the local residents seem to be of the opinion that unfortunately, it’s the wrong tree in the wrong place.’
She added: ‘It is quite sad to remove something like that but it is only going to get bigger and potentially cause damage to lots of properties which is the main concern.’
The oak also sheds an ‘awful lot of detritus’ in the autumn and winter and she is concerned about the droppings which fall down from wildlife like pigeons and squirrels.
According to a council report, the tree officer visited Ms Williams’ address after receiving notice from the couple that it was due to be felled.
After visiting, he found that that tree met the criteria for a provisional protection order, which was issued in February of this year.
Some nine residents objected to the order ahead of the meeting.
They all live in the centre of the cathedral city on roads which sit just yards away from Winchester College – the country’s oldest public school.
Mark Pocock branded the council’s preliminary decision to protect the tree as ‘ludicrous’.
‘If it were to fall and damage properties or persons, I would say the responsibility would be entirely with the council – not the owners of those properties,’he said.
‘I think putting a tree protection order on is grotesquely irresponsible of the council.’
Mr Pocock said the oak could be ‘a danger to property and life’.
Nick Goff, 80, moved into his property on the road adjacent to Canon Street just over a year ago.
The retired British Airways pilot said he is worried that if the tree continues to go, the roots underneath will damage a medieval wall in his garden, which was built in the Tudor era.
Mr Goff said: ‘The issue is that in 10 years time, that will be double the height and double the width.
‘It put on six feet last year it it’s going to put on another six feet this year.’
An independent report from a tree consultancy business found the oak is still young, and is in ‘good physiological condition’.
But, the consultant found that it is ‘a large sized tree in a very small area’ and so the tree protection order is ‘unjustified’.
It also said that ‘the possibility of longer term damage to the retaining walls and footings of the adjacent properties as entirely foreseeable’.
‘Some guy planted this as something to do 40 years ago,’ Mr Goff continued ‘Now, we have got Jack and the Beanstalk.
‘It’s not a historic tree – it’s a silly mistake.’
The council report issued ahead of the meeting stated that the tree officer believed the concerns raised over the tree were ‘speculative’.
It said that while it is ‘not historic’, the tree ‘contributes meaningfully to local biodiversity and visual amenity’.
Retired resident Graham Rule, 62, said the decision by the local authority was ‘irresponsible’.
He said: ‘We all love trees but that shouldn’t be there.
‘The people who want the protection order, they don’t live here – its totally irresponsible.’