An application has been submitted by one of the insurance companies for a neighbour of the small play park at Acacia Drive, to remove the two old Oak trees at the park, due to alleged impacts on the house. Both trees are legally protected by a Tree Preservation Order, and one is identified as a Veteran tree. Please see here for the application documents (ref 2023/0441/TPO) and comments, and to respond.

The case officer (a Somerset Council Tree Officer) will decide the application, and it will not come to Planning Board or Committee. I will be objecting and am forming my response, including to highlight the environmental and historic importance of the trees to the area (including that the veteran tree is ‘irreplaceable habitat’ under the National Planning Policy Framework), the need to assess the financial value of the trees using the CAVAT method, the potential ‘heave risk’ of removing the trees on nearby houses, the need to assess the likely alternative causes of damage to the house (the clay soil is a main suspect), and the importance of working out a way to protect both the trees and the houses such as through use of root barriers.

There are 32 public objections so far, and Frome Town Council also objected along the lines outlined above, following the discussion at their Planning Committee on 30th March. There is also an article on page 3 of this week’s Frome Times.

Update, 19 April 2023: my submitted objection is below:

I wish to strongly object to the proposed removal of the two old oak trees owned by Somerset Council at Acacia Drive play area, for the following reasons. Mendip District Council must not allow these trees to be felled, and must defend the Tree Preservation Order on these important trees because:

• The application does not consider the impact of the proposed felling of the two trees on the environment. Their age (over 100 years old?) and size gives the trees a considerable intrinsic environmental value, recognised and protected in the Tree Preservation Order, and as the Somerset Tree Strategy sets out, for a range of ecosystem services, such as carbon storage and local microclimate, ecological value (oaks are associated with hundreds of species), and their contribution to landscape character in the Stonebridge neighbourhood over a wide area. The trees’ location in a childrens local play area gives them an educational value, as they provide a setting for play in a natural environment, and means the trees are public property, owned by the Council on behalf of the local community. Several objections have been submitted by local residents, highlighting their value to the community. One tree is a Veteran oak, and the other a Notable oak, as identified on the Woodland Trust’s Ancient Tree Inventory. Veteran trees are defined as ‘irreplaceable habitat’ in the National Planning Policy Framework, which states in para 180 that ‘development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons [For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat] and a suitable compensation strategy exists’. No such exceptional reasons or compensation strategy exist here, so the felling of the veteran oak would be contrary to the NPPF.
• The value of the trees has not been considered or factored in to the insurance company’s financial calculations, only the apparent value of the alleged risk to the property. Amenity trees in urban areas can be valued by the Capital Asset Value of Amenity Trees (CAVAT) methodology (see https://www.ltoa.org.uk/resources/cavat). This should be used by a trained practitioner to derive a value for these trees to compare with the apparent financial value of the risk to the property, and to identify the financial compensation that could be required from the applicants for the proposed felling.
• The application does not appear to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that both trees some distance away are an influencing cause in the subsidence to the property, that their removal is the only way to stop the subsidence, or that felling the trees will not cause more problems for the surrounding houses. Tree roots under properties built in shrinkable clay soils can influence subsidence, but there appears very little evidence of the extent of Oak tree roots around and under this property (one oak root was found in one borehole?), and the effect they are having, as opposed to the effect of the clay soils alone. The Engineers and Arboriculture Reports should be peer reviewed and scrutinised to assess whether they provide sufficient evidence of influencing cause, and whether they have sufficiently assessed the heave risk of tree felling to all properties surrounding the Oak trees.
• The application to fell the trees must be withdrawn. I have every sympathy with the home owners who must be suffering stress due to the subsidence. A compromise acceptable to the Council as tree owners and local residents needs to be found which protects the trees from the properties built around them, and protects the properties from tree roots. The Arboricultural Report refers briefly to the potential for root barriers to be installed to protect the property from tree roots, but this should be investigated fully. Some tree pruning may also need to be considered. But felling the two old TPO oak trees on public land should be as unacceptable to the Council as it is to the local community.

Please keep me informed on your progress with determining this application, and any further information which is submitted. I also propose to discuss the application with the residents and owners of the property affected, and would like to set up a meeting with officers to discuss the way forward, if at all possible – please let me know your thoughts on that.

   Leave a comment