Controversial plan approved to chop down 'damaging' tree in Fareham which is causing subsidence

An insurance company asked that an oak tree be chopped down after cracking was found on the inside of a house in Hillcroft. The firm’s survey found the tree was drying out the area by removing water and that had caused subsidence.

Objectors argued Mr Thomas’s plan to cut down the tree should not be the ‘starting point for insurance companies’ managing subsidence in a house in Segensworth where it was agreed by the committee, inadequate 1.5-metre foundations were dug in 1985. The oak tree is 5.5 meters away from the house at 3 Hillcroft, also known as ‘The Oaks’, and on land owned by the Office of National Statistics ONS which is opposite.

The tree officer said that while it could be the tree that is causing the damage, it could well be another oak tree further away. He said the root systems of oaks can impact a 20-metre area around them, but to fix the subsidence problem the insurance company wanted the first taken down.

Five people spoke on behalf of saving the oak tree including Councillor Chrissie Bainbridge (Lib Dems, Portchester East) and Fareham’s mayor Councillor Fred Birkett (Con, Fareham North West). He asked for the decision to be delayed to learn more and explore other options, saying 2,500 saplings would be needed to replace the one tree. He said: “In our (Fareham Borough Council’s) 50th year, we need to stand up and say no to unnecessary tree felling and force insurance companies to look at alternative solutions. We need to be pioneers.” He said there was a groundswell of support from residents and many MPs including Fareham’s Suella Braverman.

Mr Bishop, a neighbour and supporter of keeping the Oak tree, said in 1999 there were 30 trees with a protection order in the area and now just 12 are left. He said: “It’s ironic that the Conservative party’s logo is an oak tree.”

Planning chair Councillor Nick Walker (Con, Portchester West) said no one wants to take responsibility. His concern was that if the decision was delayed and the house damaged further, the council might have to pay out tens of thousands of pounds to repair damages.

Objector Laura Ancell said that oak trees having their protection orders removed to be cut down is: “Death by a 1,000 cuts for urban trees.” She said the remaining trees on the site, along the road, had a collective value of £438,000. She also said the tree couldn’t be felled because of nesting birds and bats so it made sense to defer by a month.

Writing to tree officer Paul Johnston, Fareham’s MP Suella Braverman asked the decision on the tree felling be deferred so that alternative solutions could be explored. Cllr Walker said the committee must be consistent in its decision-making because the next item on the agenda was for taking down two oak trees.

The planning committee granted permission for the protection order to be removed so the oak tree could be cut down and replaced by another tree within a month of its felling. A Himalayan Birch tree of at least 16cm girth should be planted within the first available planting season (October to March), according to council documents.

The borough council’s tree team must also be told five days before the tree is cut down and no animals, including birds or bats roosting, can be disturbed.