A council have been left furious after an insurance company chopped down a ‘majestic’ 110-year-old oak tree to stop it from falling onto a house.
Fareham Borough Council, in Hampshire, claims they were not told about the felling with enough notice and say it was completely unnecessary.
Neighbours have also slammed RSA insurance for cutting down the ‘hugely important’ plant as the ‘first resort’ for dealing with subsidence without considering other options.
The homeowner, Steve Thomas, said there was ‘no alternative’ to the tree being removed other than his house being crushed.
But local resident Laura Ancell said the company should have ‘futureproofed’ the affected property rather than chopping down the 45 foot oak.
Local MP and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman also opposed the felling.
A spokesperson for RSA explained that ‘all options are considered’ when it comes to tree-related subsidence and that the loss of any tree was ‘regrettable’.
The felled oak was under a Tree Protection Order (TPO) which meant Mr Thomas had to apply to Fareham Borough Council in Hampshire for planning permission to chop it down.
Permission was granted in April last year but the council have now criticised RSA for not giving them five days notice of the tree felling, one of the conditions listed in their decision notice.
A council have been left furious after an insurance company chopped down a ‘majestic’ 110-year-old oak tree to stop it falling onto a house
Fareham Borough Council, in Hampshire, claim they were not told about the felling and say it was completely unnecessary. Pictured: The Oak next to the house before it was cut down
Neighbours have also slammed RSA insurance for cutting down the ‘hugely important’ plant as the ‘first resort’ for dealing with subsidence without considering other options
The day after the tree was felled this week the principal tree officer at the council, Paul Johnston, contacted the insurance company to say the council were ‘concerned’ that notice had not been given and to highlight the ‘distress’ to residents.
He said: ‘I would like to draw your attention to the general notes on the decision notice requesting the Council is informed at least five days prior to commencing the approved tree works.
‘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.’
Tree consultant Jeremy Barrell said the 110 year old tree was worth £160,000 and pruning or a root barrier were other options for dealing with the subsidence.
Ms Braverman said ‘other avenues’, such as restricting the roots, should have been explored before the entire tree was felled.
In December last year she said insurance firms in general were ‘taking advantage’ of councils’ liability.
Producer Laura, 36, has called the issue a ‘national scandal’ with the same thing happening to other protected trees across the country. She formally objected to the planning application to cut down the tree along with her mum Jayne Ancell and their neighbour Tim Bishop who is pictured above
A spokesperson for RSA explained that ‘all options are considered’ when it comes to tree-related subsidence and that the loss of any tree was ‘regrettable’. Here the tree can be seen behind the property
The day after the tree was felled this week the principal tree officer at the council, Paul Johnston, contacted the insurance company to say the council were ‘concerned’ that notice had not been given and to highlight the ‘distress’ to residents
In a statement, she said: ‘Insurance companies have pressured local authorities into felling perfectly healthy trees with Tree Preservation Orders at the first point of contact.
‘I recently met with the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to highlight this issue and urge them to change their guidance.
‘The ABI is working with Defra and Forestry England on a new protocol that should improve the current situation, to be introduced next year.
‘Going forward, I will continue to work… to improve the current situation where too many cherished trees are being needlessly felled.’
An engineering report on the Fareham 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 arboriocultural report found were ‘inadequate’, and the tree was in the corner of the garden on a strip of Crown land.
Mr Thomas declined to comment as he watched the tree being felled.
However, he said: ‘I don’t see why there’s such a fuss, there was no alternative other than the house falling down.’
Producer Laura, 36, has called the issue a ‘national scandal’ with the same thing happening to other protected trees across the country.
She formally objected to the planning application to cut down the tree along with her mum Jayne Ancell and their neighbour Tim Bishop.
Tree consultant Jeremy Barrell said the 110 year old tree was worth £160,000 and pruning or a root barrier were other options for dealing with the subsidence
She said: ‘The insurance company say felling is the last resort but our evidence shows felling was their first resort.
‘If insurance companies are serious about not wanting to fell TPO trees then they should be taking the value of the tree into account and balancing this against the cost of remedial work to the affected house.
‘The insurance company needed to have futureproofed the affected house by doing a structural solution rather than felling the so-called ‘protected’ oak tree.
‘All that’s happened now is we’ve lost a hugely important TPO oak tree and all the benefits that it brought to our community such as wildlife, biodiversity, shade, and carbon capture.
‘The insurance company has ignored the fact that there are other TPO oak trees in close proximity to the affected house and it will only be a matter of time before they want to remove those, too.
‘I believe this is a nation scandal that is quietly happening under our noses, a cut here, a cut there, it’s quite simply death by a thousand cuts.
‘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.
‘TPOs don’t seem to be worth the paper they are written on when it comes to insurance claims for subsidence.’
Retired surveyor Mr Bishop, 67, explained that the trees were important for biodiversity with ‘huge numbers of insects and birds’.
He said: ‘He is complaining he has got subsidence, I explained I have got subsidence in my house, it is not just trees that cause subsidence.
‘I just think there aren’t that many oak trees left, it harbours huge numbers of insects and birds.
‘It is just the thought 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 tree which she discovered when she came back from the shop.
‘I am just outraged that this felling has taken place when mediation was in the pipeline, these are almighty oak trees,’ Ms Ancell added.
‘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.
‘I just nipped to the shops first thing this morning when I came back I heard some noise and thought what the hell is that and saw all the branches being cut off.
‘Taking that tree out was not the solution to the problem, there used to be a whole row of Oaks.
‘The trees have been there for a hundred years, they have got huge value, I have admired these trees for the last 25 years of living here.’
A spokesperson for RSA said: ‘Where a home has suffered any tree related subsidence damage, it must always be remedied to prevent further damage to the property and distress to the homeowner.
‘As soon as we are notified of these particular claims, qualified experts are engaged to investigate, identify and advise on all potential courses of action.
‘All options are considered and explored and the removal of the tree is the option of 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.’
An RSA Insurance spokesperson have said they are speaking to the council after being criticised for not giving appropriate notice for the felling of an oak tree.
‘We are taking this up directly with the council.’
