Latest news with #MarkPocock
Scottish Sun
3 days ago
- General
- Scottish Sun
Huge ‘Jack & the Beanstalk' tree towers over our homes – it's grotesque & irresponsible… but council won't chop it down
The oak has been placed under a protection order TREE-FI-FO-FUM Huge 'Jack & the Beanstalk' tree towers over our homes – it's grotesque & irresponsible… but council won't chop it down A GIANT "Jack and the beanstalk" tree is ruining locals' lives - but the council won't chop it down. Residents in Winchester, Hants, slammed the "grotesquely irresponsible" and "ludicrous" 45 foot high oak. 9 A huge "Jack and the beanstalk" tree is ruining locals' lives - but the council won't chop it down Credit: Solent 9 Locals called the council "grotesquely irresponsible" Credit: Solent 9 The oak is under a protection order Credit: Solent They say the tree was planted around 50 years ago by a previous homeowner on Canon Street who just "wanted something to do". But now it has branched into an "out of proportion" eyesore which overshadows the gardens of nearby properties - where the average house price is more than £600,000. However, the council have refused to cut it down and placed it under a protection order. The authorities said residents from a neighbouring street "appreciated" the tree. The decision has sparked outrage among locals who are actually dealing with the daily repercussions of such an overwhelming tree. Orla Williams, 40, moved into her terraced Grade II Listed home with her partner around two years ago. The doctor said after moving in, several residents went to her about the oak. She explained: "They were concerned that it is getting very large and that it could cause damage to their properties and potentially harm to people if it gets any larger, so they wanted it to be taken down. "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." The mum-of-two also told how an "awful lot of detritus" falls from the tree in autumn and winter. She added: "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. 9 Orla Williams stood in her back garden with the tree Credit: Solent 9 Residents fear the tree poses safety risks Credit: Solent 9 Mark Pocock slammed the council's decision to protect the tree as "ludicrous" Credit: Solent "All of the local residents seem to be of the opinion that unfortunately, it's the wrong tree in the wrong place." According to a council report, the tree officer visited Orla after receiving notice from the couple that it was due to be felled. But he found the tree met the criteria for a provisional protection order, which was issued in February of this year. A Winchester County Council meeting will take place next week to decide whether the tree status will change or not. There are nine residents in total who have objected to the order. Mark Pocock, a retired resident living on Canon Street, slammed the council's decision to protect the tree as "ludicrous". He said: 'As trees grow older they become more brittle. "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. "I think putting a tree protection order on is grotesquely irresponsible of the council. 'It could be a danger to property and life." Nick Goff, 80, said he fears if the tree continues to grow, the roots underneath will damage a medieval wall in his garden, which was built in the Tudor era. The retired British Airways pilot 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." He commissioned an independent report from a tree consultancy business. The report stated while the tree, which is still a "teenager" is in "good physiological condition". But the officer also found it is "a large sized tree in a very small area" and so the tree protection order is "unjustified". The report also stated "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." However, the council report issued ahead of next week's meeting claimed these concerns were "speculative" and the tree "contributes meaningfully to local biodiversity and visual amenity". It added: "It is also the last significant tree in an area of land between Canon Street and St Swithun's Street, enhancing the character of the conservation area." Retired resident Graham Rule, 62, blasted the decision as "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." Winchester County Council was contacted for comment. 9 Nick Goff said "it's not a historic tree – it's a silly mistake" Credit: Solent 9 A decision will be made over the protection order at a meeting next week Credit: Solent
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
‘Jack and the Beanstalk' tree is a danger, say disgruntled neighbours
Neighbours are locked in a row with Winchester council over a 'Jack and the Beanstalk' oak tree that they say is dangerous. Residents on one of the Hampshire city's most prestigious roads have called the decision to issue a preservation order on the 45ft tree as 'grotesquely irresponsible' and 'ludicrous'. They claim the oak, which was planted around 50 years ago and grew by 6ft last year, is 'out of proportion' to the surrounding properties and dominates the small garden in which it sits. When the current homeowners applied to have the tree felled, the council put a preliminary protection order on it, saying it was 'appreciated' by residents on a neighbouring street and was nice to look at. Orla Williams, 40, moved into the area, where the average house price is more than £600,000, with her partner two years ago. The mother of two said: '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.' A council meeting will take place next week to confirm whether or not the protection order will remain in place. Mark Pocock, another resident, called the decision to protect the tree 'ludicrous'. He said: '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. 'I think putting a tree protection order on it is grotesquely irresponsible. It could be a danger to property and life.' Nick Goff, who moved into his property on an adjacent road just over a year ago, said: 'The issue is that in 10 years time, that will be double the height and double the width. It put on 6ft last year, and it's going to put on another 6ft this year. 'Some guy planted this as something to do 40 years ago. Now, we have got 'Jack and the Beanstalk'. It's not a historic tree – it's a silly mistake.' Winchester council's report issued ahead of next week's meeting stated that while 'not historic', the tree 'contributes meaningfully to local biodiversity and visual amenity'. The council has been contacted for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
‘Jack and the Beanstalk' tree is a danger, say disgruntled neighbours
Neighbours are locked in a row with Winchester council over a 'Jack and the Beanstalk' oak tree that they say is dangerous. Residents on one of the Hampshire city 's most prestigious roads have called the decision to issue a preservation order on the 45ft tree as 'grotesquely irresponsible' and 'ludicrous'. They claim the oak, which was planted around 50 years ago and grew by 6ft last year, is 'out of proportion' to the surrounding properties and dominates the small garden in which it sits. When the current homeowners applied to have the tree felled, the council put a preliminary protection order on it, saying it was 'appreciated' by residents on a neighbouring street and was nice to look at. Orla Williams, 40, moved into the area, where the average house price is more than £600,000, with her partner two years ago. The mother of two said: '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.' A council meeting will take place next week to confirm whether or not the protection order will remain in place. Mark Pocock, another resident, called the decision to protect the tree 'ludicrous'. He said: '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. 'I think putting a tree protection order on it is grotesquely irresponsible. It could be a danger to property and life.' Nick Goff, who moved into his property on an adjacent road just over a year ago, said: 'The issue is that in 10 years time, that will be double the height and double the width. It put on 6ft last year, and it's going to put on another 6ft this year. 'Some guy planted this as something to do 40 years ago. Now, we have got 'Jack and the Beanstalk'. It's not a historic tree – it's a silly mistake.' Winchester council's report issued ahead of next week's meeting stated that while 'not historic', the tree 'contributes meaningfully to local biodiversity and visual amenity'. The council has been contacted for comment.
