Latest news with #tree
The Sun
a day ago
- General
- The Sun
Our village is at war over 60ft oak tree – I live in darkness & fear it'll crush my home… but I can't chop it down
VILLAGERS at war with a nightmare 60ft tree have lost their latest battle to get it chopped down. Plans to fell the protected oak, which sits just metres from thatched cottages in Kings Newton, South Derbyshire, have been axed. 3 Residents living next to the "frightening" behemoth in Sleepy Lane have fumed that it could crush their homes. They claim it also causes major sewage issues, problems with the road surface and blocks huge amounts of natural light. It was planted 34 years ago after a 109-year-old tree in the same spot was deemed to be in a dangerous condition and felled. DerbyshireLive reported that the sleepy village is divided by the new oak, which sits next to a public footpath leading into the picturesque countryside. Paul Hackney, whose house is dwarfed by the 30-foot-wide tree, saw his proposal to have it cut down rejected earlier this week. Almost 80 rejection letters were submitted at a South Derbyshire District Council meeting. Opposition was led by Melbourne Parish Council. The "nuisance" tree is expected to reach 300 years old, much to the horror of some locals. Mr Hackney told how the shrub had proved to be a hazard to vehicles after it was recently hit by an Ocado delivery van. He said: "Ultimately it is a tree that has outgrown its position. "It would be better for the residents to resolve the issue and be involved in the future planning of a new tree (if required) without the understandable stress and worry of the current situation." But John Jackson, chair of the residents association, argued that the oak was healthy and did not pose a risk. We're trapped in tiny village after travellers BULLDOZED field for caravan camp Councillors understood the frustrations of locals living in its shadow, but defended keeping the "healthy" tree. Cllr Andrew Kirke said: 'I do have some sympathy for the neighbours. "We have many very large trees but we can't just chop them down in case there is a strong wind. 'We have lots of periods of strong wind while it has been there and trees have fallen down but it has stayed up through all of that. "There is no reason to chop down such a healthy specimen.' Cllr Jayne Davies added: 'It is such a glorious tree. "It has a tree preservation order for a reason and the applicant can come back for a crown or lift or another suitable solution.' It comes as a similar 'Jack and the beanstalk' tree continues to frustrate homeowners in Winchester, Hampshire. 3 Locals in Canon Street slammed the "grotesquely irresponsible" and "ludicrous" 45 foot high oak. 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. South Derbyshire District Council has been approached for comment.
CTV News
21-06-2025
- CTV News
Tree destroyed by unknown individual in St. Thomas
A tree was damaged to the point of destruction on Friday morning in St. Thomas. The tree, located at the corner of Talbot and White Street, was intentionally pulled over by its branches by an unknown person. The destruction caused the tree to be removed. The replacement value is $1,300 for taxpayers. Police are asking the public for information related to the incident.
The Sun
06-06-2025
- General
- The Sun
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 9 9 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 9 9 "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 9 9
Daily Mail
16-05-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Warring neighbours spend ten years feuding over a tree that blocks the sun out of one's garden... So, who do YOU think is in the right?
A pair of neighbours are embroiled in a ten year feud because a tree in one's garden is blocking the sun out of the others. With sunnier days fast approaching, most UK citizens are looking forward to enjoying some much-appreciated vitamin D. However, for one unlucky Briton, the prospect of sunbathing in their garden is looking slim due to their neighbour's tree preventing sunlight from entering their garden at certain points of the day. An anonymous UK-based TikTok user has created a profile on the platform under @shadyneighbourtree to reveal the dilemma, which has been ongoing for the past ten years. 'My neighbour's tree doing its best to keep my garden a secret,' the user wrote, adding, 'We need some sun!' Initially, the video attracted countless comments telling viewers to ask the neighbour to trim the tree. However, they explained that their attempts to request the change have gone unsuccessfully. 'Yes, I have asked my neighbour to trim the tree (not chop it down). [I] just want to soak up some sun like they do in their shadeless garden,' they wrote. Another viewer pointed out that the shade moves throughout the day, but the frustrated TikTok user explained, 'This is very true... but its shade when I get home from work and [I] want to enjoy the sun'. The dilemma divided viewers in the comment section, with many conflicted over the best course of action. One wrote, 'Roots may go under the fence, move some dirt, drill hole, pour in stuff trees don't like, fill for a friend, just saying.' Another with a similar perspective joked, 'I'd be paying someone with no name cash in hand'. A third added, 'Garden trees should be kept at a certain height even just for safety. What if it fell in a storm caused damage or injury? It's inconsiderate, blocking all the light and the leaves that would fall in autumn would be a nightmare to keep tidy.' However, others thought differently. One said, 'This is on you. Fed up with people thinking they have a say in other people's property and want to cut everything down. That tree has been for there years and deserves to be. Don't like it, move. Simple.' A second agreed, adding, 'Do not cut that tree down. The sun moves throughout the day.' 'I love the shade rather that the sun blaring at me. It's an old tree, end of discussion,' said another. It comes after a UK 'mumfluencer' boasting more than 27,000 followers on TikTok posted a video in which she complained that her neighbour's fence was 'the wrong way round' and argued that 'technically we should have the good side of the fence'. By 'the good side of the fence', the influencer, Samantha (@samanthaproudmama), means the smooth side - as opposed to the side with the extra posts that support the structure. Viewed more than 900,000 times, the minute-long clip entitled 'Are we about to fall out with our neighbours?' saw Samantha tour her garden and point out the troublesome fence before asking viewers to share their opinions on whether she should ask next-door to 'turn the fence round'. Explaining first that the fence she shares with the neighbours in question is too small, denying her family privacy, she added that they had already agreed to 'put some trellis up' to extend it. She then got to the heart of the matter, telling viewers: 'Now you will notice that the fence is actually the wrong way around - technically we should have the good side of the fence. 'They're about to put the trellis up but do we say anything? Should we be asking them to turn the fence around so that we get the nice side?' In the caption, she even claimed that there are 'rules' in her area which state: 'If you own the fence you have to give the neighbour the "good" side of the fence!' Yet Samantha's clip, which amassed almost 4,000 comments, appeared to backfire, with some TikTokers asking 'who is the nightmare neighbour?' and others assuming the influencer's fuss over the fence was 'a joke'. Viewers took to the comment section to share their thoughts on the matter - and there was a lack of consensus One person wrote: 'Glad I'm not your neighbour. Jeeeez'. Another commented: 'Here's me wondering who is the nightmare neighbour.' A third TikTok user asked: 'This has to be a joke?' A fourth was equally critical, calling Samantha 'petty'. They wrote: 'I'm with you on the height of the fence for privacy but you lost me when it came to which side you get. Another person mocked: 'Ask them to turn the fence? If my neighbour asked me to do that, there would only be one response; a massive LOL and door closed!' Someone else added: 'Personally I think it's cheeky to expect neighbours to give you the nice side of their fence'. But not everyone was critical - some TikTok users were simply bemused while others volunteered potential solutions to the problem. One person was baffled by Samantha's predicament and wrote: 'Who knew there was a good and bad side of a fence'. While another TikToker commented: 'Life is too short to stress about fences'. In a bid to be helpful, someone else suggested: 'Just put your own fence in front of it - literally back to back'. Yet supportive responses like this one were few and far between, with the majority of commenters failing to see the matter from Samantha's point of view.
Times
12-05-2025
- General
- Times
Can our neighbours pollard a tree on our boundary?
Q. A tree on the boundary with our neighbours' property screens us from an unsightly industrial building. The neighbours want to pollard it. Who owns the tree, and can we object? A. The general principle is that a tree (or other plant) is the property of the person who owns the soil surrounding the base of its original trunk or stem. This applies even if the trunk itself eventually grows on to other land and even if its roots or branches extend over the boundary. Neighbours have the right to cut back roots or lop branches growing under or over their land, but they cannot generally interfere with the trunk of the tree itself unless they own it. However, it has long been established that
