Protected Trees Felled Despite Campaigner Opposition

A local authority has confirmed its “reluctant” approval for the removal of seven trees under protection, which have been identified as the cause of structural damage in two residences. Fareham Borough Council consented to lift the tree preservation orders (TPOs) previously placed on six oak trees and a single lime tree situated between Heath Lawns and Southmead Road. The council stated that declining the requests from insurance companies could render it vulnerable to future property damage claims exceeding £225,000. Suella Braverman, the former Home Secretary and Member of Parliament for Fareham and Waterlooville, who had been approached by demonstrators regarding this matter, indicated that insurance providers were coercing councils into permitting tree removal as an initial course of action. The council reported that significant internal and external cracks emerged in both properties during the summer of 2022. It attributed the cause to the ground drying out, likely as a result of tree roots. Council officials concluded, stating: “The need to prevent ongoing damage… and to avoid a substantial compensation claim against the council outweighs the amenity benefit of these trees.” Conversely, Dean Scopes, a campaigner, described the century-old trees as “irreplaceable natural assets”. He asserted that insurance firms were “bullying” local authorities into rescinding TPOs. Jeremy Barrell, Mr Scopes’ tree consultant, stated in a report concerning the situation that Direct Line, one of the insurance providers, was “forcing the felling of extremely valuable trees to avoid expense and boost its own profit margins”. Ms Braverman commented that insurance companies generally were “taking advantage” of the liability faced by councils. In a public statement, she declared: “Insurance companies have pressured local authorities into felling perfectly healthy trees with Tree Preservation Orders at the first point of contact.” She continued: “I recently met with the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to highlight this issue and urge them to change their guidance. The ABI is working with Defra and Forestry England on a new protocol that should improve the current situation, to be introduced next year.” She further added: “Going forward, I will continue to work… to improve the current situation where too many cherished trees are being needlessly felled.” Direct Line affirmed that it consistently takes into account the amenity value of trees and explores alternatives to felling, including pruning. Nevertheless, in correspondence sent to Mr Scopes, the company appended: “The cost differential between tree removal and an engineered stabilisation solution cannot be disregarded.” It also stated: “Resolving all or most tree-related subsidence claims by undertaking a scheme of engineered stabilisation works will result in unaffordable increases in premiums for our customers.” Previously, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) had indicated that tree felling was not its standard approach for safeguarding residences. The ABI further commented: “It is a balance between preserving greenery, while ensuring that homeowners can get competitively priced home insurance, not least because without it their mortgage could be at risk.”