Huge ‘Jack & the Beanstalk' tree towers over our homes – it's grotesque & irresponsible… but council won't chop it down
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
7 hours ago
- BBC News
Repair plan for Faringdon's 1930s Folly Tower
A plan to repair and preserve a Grade II listed tower which was built in the 1930s as a birthday present has been Tower in Faringdon, Oxfordshire, is thought to have been a gift from Lord Berners, who owned nearby Faringdon House, to his companion and fellow eccentric, Robert Heber-Percy, who later inherited the 30m (98ft) tower, which is now owned by the Faringdon Folly Trust, was opened to the public in the 1980s and was given Grade II listed status in is one of about 30 folly towers across the UK which were built for aesthetic pleasure rather than for practicality. The tower is opened to paying visitors for two weekends a month from April to October and can be privately hired for up to 30 trust said it wants to complete the work "to make the building fabric safe and weathertight and to ensure the long-term survival of this special building".An application submitted to Vale of White Horse District Council is being if approved, would include the replacement of the tower's steel and concrete floor to one made out of timber, the installation of a new 7m (23ft) flagpole and the improvement of existing windows. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
Daily Mirror
4 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Brits warned they could be fined £2,500 for flying flags including Union Jack
The government has eased restrictions on flying flags, including not only the Union Jack but also the national flags of England and Wales - but falling foul of the rules could result in a fine The Union Jack has been in the limelight this week following an incident in which a 12-year-old girl was put in isolation for wearing the flag to school. However, as the government promotes increased flag displays across the country, households should be mindful of certain rules that, if breached, could lead to a hefty £2,500 fine. The Government has relaxed restrictions on flying flags, including not only the Union Jack but also the national flags of England, Wales, Ireland and indeed any other country. Even county flags, such as Yorkshire's, are being encouraged to fly more frequently as part of the Government's initiative. 'We stayed overnight at this castle's medieval-themed hotel and the kids loved it' It's worth noting that the Union Jack is often referred to as 'the Union Flag' - both terms are acceptable despite the Jack's maritime origins, but they must still be displayed in line with the law to avoid fines. The guidelines for rooftop flag displays are fairly flexible. The government allows certain flags to be flown from rooftops of any size, provided they meet specific criteria. It stipulates all flags must be kept in a safe condition, reports Yorkshire Live. Furthermore, it must have the permission of the owner of the site on which they are displayed (this includes the Highway Authority if the sign is to be placed on highway land). It must not obscure, or hinder the interpretation of official road, rail, waterway or aircraft signs, or otherwise make hazardous the use of these types of transport. It should be removed carefully where so required by the planning authority. Where flags can be flown without needing permission Any national flag, civil ensign or civil air ensign from any country. The flag of the Commonwealth, the United Nations or any other international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member. A flag representing any island, county, district, borough, burgh, parish, city, town or village within the United Kingdom. The flag of the Black Country, East Anglia, Wessex, any part of Lincolnshire, any Riding of Yorkshire or any historic county within the United Kingdom. The flag of Saint David (Wales). The flag of Saint Patrick (Ireland). The flag of any administrative area within any country outside the United Kingdom. Any flag belonging to His Majesty's forces. The Armed Forces Day flag. The government further clarifies: "There are no restrictions on the size of flag." However, if you plan to fly the flag from a pole extending from any part of a building other than the roof, the rules become more stringent. The Town and Country Planning Regulations 2007 stipulate maximum sizes for flags flown on your house if they're on a pole, not on the roof. The government adds: "The flag may not exceed 2 square metres in size. No restrictions on the size of characters. Consent is required if the flagpole is in a controlled area." Permission is needed if you reside in a designated controlled zone, such as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Failing to comply with these rules could result in individuals being reported and potentially hit with fines of up to £2,500 for ignoring local council orders to remove an oversized flag. The law states: "A person displaying an advertisement in contravention of these Regulations shall be liable, on summary conviction of an offence under section 224(3) of the Act, to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale and, in the case of a continuing offence, one tenth of level 4 on the standard scale [£2,500] for each day during which the offence continues after conviction."
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Telegraph
‘My neighbour's garden office is blocking my right of way. What can I do?'
Do you have a legal question to put to Gary? Email askalawyer@ or use the form at the bottom of the page. Dear Gary, We bought a Grade II-listed end of terrace cottage earlier this year, and one of the conveyance documents dated from 1947 relates to the addition of a large parcel of land (just under half an acre) which is used as the rear garden. The 1947 conveyance includes the addition of 'barrow rights' for our neighbours allowing them access across this land, as they lost access from their rear gardens to the road (now used for bins and cycles). The document also includes rights for the owners of our house to use a path from the left-hand side of the garden to the public highway. Over the past 70-odd years, the path has not only become overgrown, but the owners of the property to the north of the right of way have built an outbuilding (now used as a home office) that obstructs and crosses it. The 1947 conveyance describes the strip of land as being 10ft wide, yet today there is perhaps only a foot recognisable at either end. The 1947 conveyance includes a map of the rights of way and this description: 'Together with the benefit of a right for the Purchaser and others, the owners and occupiers for the time being of the premises hereinbefore described, with or without horses, carts, carriages, and other conveyances and animals, to go return pass or repass over and along the strip of land 10 feet wide lying between the points marked A and B on the said plan and thereon coloured brown.' Is there any recourse available to reinstate this right of way? Many thanks in advance, – Lewis Dear Lewis, The ace card you have up your sleeve is the very clear wording in the 1947 conveyance quoted in your question. In legal terms, this is an 'express right of way', which means it is a right defined in a legal document and granted for the benefit of the land conveyed at that time, the land you say you use as your garden. The legal right set out in the 1947 conveyance is the means and evidence for you to enforce the right of way it describes as its new owner. However, before you assert that right, I would do some preparation. First, ensure the right of way is referred to both in the Land Register entry for your cottage and the entry for the property or land which includes the path you are claiming a right over. The Land Register is a document issued by the Land Registry which summarises the relevant legal matters relating to a particular parcel of land. The fact you have a copy of the 1947 conveyance setting out an express right of way means that if the right has been missed off the Land Register for your cottage, or missed off the Register for the path, you can apply to the Land Registry for it to be noted on both titles. I am labouring this point because having the right of way noted on the Land Register as a matter of fact is the optimal starting point if you seek to clear the overgrown strip of land which you say comprises the right of way, and exercise the right. A clear impediment to your right of way is the garden office, which you say has been built across part of it. Whoever owns that building may argue that the fact it is there, and has been for some time, equates to the previous owners of your cottage having abandoned the right of way you are now seeking to enforce. You use the word 'reinstate', but I would avoid that phrase as it infers the right has been lost, when your legal argument is that it has been there all along, albeit exercised infrequently. There is some weight to an argument that a right of way that is blocked has been abandoned. Further, the legal 'doctrine of laches' states a person with a legal right has a duty to assert that right or risk losing it. However, in law, it is hard to prove an express right of way has been abandoned. Your rebuttal to such an argument would be that, although the path of the right in question has become overgrown and has narrowed, it is still there and is an identifiable route not completely blocked by the garden office. In terms of what to do next, I would get your legal paperwork in order as outlined above, and then either approach the owner of the strip of land and say you wish to exercise the right of way. Or just cut back the overgrown path and start using it. It is not clear from your question if the owner of the path is the same as the owner of the garden office. But if they are the same person, your leverage is that the building is infringing your right of way, so you will only accept the building if they allow your right of way. One final comment is that as you are new to the locality, making some assessment of how important this issue is to you compared with not upsetting your neighbours would be no bad thing. It's one thing having legal rights and asserting them. It's quite another to assert rights with no real-world benefit at the expense of forging close connections with those who you live among. Ask a Lawyer should not be taken as formal legal advice, but rather as a starting point for readers to undertake their own further research.
