Tadley homeowner hits back at council justification for oak tree felling plans

Earlier this week, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council opened a consultation with the Tadley Community, to get their thoughts on plans to get rid of an old Oak Tree on New Road which it said was causing subsistence damage to nearby homes.

It led to a petition being launched to save the tree, which now has over 600 signatures.

Michael Nisbet, 58, told the Gazette that the subsistence issues to his home resulting from the tree’s roots actually began about three years ago - and that the option of felling the tree as a solution has long since been scrapped, following council refusal to accept liability at the time.

He said: “This goes back about three years. We reported some problems with some cracks to our insurance company. The company said we had a viable insurance claim. They then got in the environmental service teams who did surveys. And when they sampled, they could see that it was coming from some trees across the path.

“In the summer, the insurance company told me they had four times as many claims because the trees go in search of water. What made it worse was the council had removed a sycamore tree that sat halfway between the oak tree and our house - it almost acted as a barrier.

“[The insurers] looked at all options, and approached the council. The council were considering putting in a root barrier (a three metre trench, 11 metres wide). At that stage the minor cracks were recovering in the winter.

“Everything was progressing, but all of a sudden the insurance company told me that the council did a complete U-turn and denied all liability.”

Mr Nisbet, who bought the property with his wife in 1989, said the insurers “got nowhere” and, due to having to act on a claim within three years, decided to look at other options. They settled on an “underpinning” process - the name given to work which lays concrete under the building to strengthen its foundations.

Mr Nisbet continued: “So then I see this letter which says the ‘homeowner has asked’, and there was negativity on Facebook. I fail to understand why they would issue this letter now. It is a u-turn back, because now they are in fact admitting liability. Nothing makes sense, it came totally out of the blue.

“Even when the insurers asked they said they do not want to get rid of it. I asked these questions and it became very awkward and I was told what I had to do was to send in a complaint.”

Mr Nisbet said his neighbour, who faces the same issues, started the process with their insurance company around a year ago, but that he “can’t believe” that that company would have asked for the removal either, given the extent of the damage.

“We could remove the tree now and it would make no difference. In fact, it might actually make it worse. If you take a tree away you get a certain amount of swell. You could move the old oak tree and all the work that needs to be done to my house would still need done,” he said.

“It is a stupid waste to go to people and stir people up like that. It does not have a clear rationale.

“In the first year there was a minor crack and it just closed back up again. But the following summer it was really dry and you could see it moving. One year it was a pencil line, now I can put my fingers in about two inches. The house is falling apart at those points. It won’t come back by just removing the tree.”

When asked about the strength of feeling among local people about saving the tree, Mr Nisbet said “Quite right too. We agree on keeping the tree.”

He added: “We believe it is a wonderful tree, it’s got heritage. It should be an absolute last resort to remove a tree like that.

“Most of the comments are quite reasonable but when someone takes a photo of your house and says ‘this is the property’ you have to set the record straight.”

Mr Nisbet said he and his wife are partly angry at the council for the wording of their letter, but mostly just want the issue to be over.

“I do not understand why they have suddenly decided to accept liability. They had already told us they were not going to do it. It puts me and my wife in a bad light. I appreciate the insurers may have asked two years ago because it is an option they are obliged to consider, but that was rescinded,” he said.

“It doesn't make sense. It was confusing and unnecessary. If they had asked us, or did some sort of investigation … I just do not get it. They could have done nothing, and nothing would have happened.

“Trying to get our house sorted is bad enough, then there's this on top of it.”

Looking forward, Mr Nisbet says he would like some answers from the council as to why they have decided now to accept responsibility for the tree.

He said: “It is definitely the oak that has caused it, but I am not blaming the oak! It is a fact of life. The roots have gone looking for the water and the sycamore the council has removed has not been there to act as a barrier.

“To remove it now serves no purpose. We are as confused as anyone. We have never asked for this to be removed. We are like everybody else in wanting it saved.”

The Gazette asked the council for further details on its motivation for raising the issue, and any investigation undertaken to determine whether it is the most appropriate action.

Tom Payne, head of environmental services, said: “Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council oversees the management of 80,000 trees on borough council land and our primary objective is to protect, maintain and enable the trees on our land to flourish. We must also consider additional factors including any detrimental impacts on others while carrying out our role.

“This oak tree in New Road is a mature tree and we fully appreciate its significance which is why we have been keen to hear all views relating to how we resolve the issue of the impact on neighbouring properties. We would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to respond so far. When the consultation period finishes we will provide a response to the queries and questions received from residents.”