Latest news with #WinchesterCountyCouncil
Scottish Sun
4 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
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- General
- Daily Mail
Homeowners at war with council over 45ft high 'Jack and the Beanstalk' oak tree as bosses refuse demands to cut it down despite fears it's a 'danger to life'
Homeowners living on a historic road are in a row with the council over a 'Jack and the Beanstalk' oak tree they say is a danger to them. Residents living in the terraced properties in Winchester are surrounded by the 45 foot high tree and have branded the decision to issue a preservation order as 'grotesquely irresponsible'. They claim the oak - which is still relatively young and grew six feet last year - was planted around 50 years ago by a previous resident who thought it was a 'good idea at the time'. But it has continued to rapidly grow to the point that it is now 'out of proportion' to the surrounding properties and totally dominates the small garden it sits in. The current homeowners Orla Williams, 40, and her partner moved into the terraced Grade II Listed home on Canon Street two years ago and applied to have the tree felled. However, the Winchester County Council put a preliminary protection order on it and cited that it was 'appreciated' by the residents on a neighbouring street. The decision has been slammed by neighbours - who live on one of Winchester's 'most prestigious roads' - who said that they are not the ones who will be forced to deal with the repercussions if it were to topple over. The street, where the average house price is more than £600,000, is just yards from Kingsgate Street, and 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. The mother-of-two said: '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 homeowner said that an 'awful lot of detritus' falls from the oak in the autumn and winter, and she is concerned about the droppings which fall down from wildlife like pigeons and squirrels. 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. '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 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. A Winchester County Council meeting will take place next week to confirm whether or not the order will remain in place. In total nine residents objected to the order. 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 and Rishi Sunak's alma mater. Mark Pocock, a retired resident living on Canon Street, branded the council's decision to protect the tree as 'ludicrous'. 'As trees grow older they become more brittle,' 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 is grotesquely irresponsible of the council. 'It 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.' The homeowner commissioned an independent report from a tree consultancy business who found the oak is still a 'teenager'. The report found that while the tree is in 'good physiological condition', 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 next week's 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'. The report also stated that it is 'clearly visible' from residents living on a neighbouring private road, where it is 'appreciated'. 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, 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.' Mr Rule said the tree was planted in the early 70s by a former resident. He added: 'Like a lot of things, it seemed like a good idea at the time. 'I'm a huge fan of trees but at the end of the day that tree shouldn't be there.' The conclusion of the tree officer's report stated that if the provisional TPO is not confirmed at the council meeting, it will be 'left vulnerable to being removed'. The report added: 'The removal of this tree will have a detrimental impact on the biodiversity and also character of the conservation area.'
