Tree of strife (From Salisbury Journal)

Tree of strife

10:00am Thursday 2nd February 2012 in New Forest News By Miranda Robertson

Tracey Scrivener with the large tree in her garden, in Penny's Lane, Fordingbridge, that is causing a problem. DC0862P3

A Fordingbridge couple say they are baffled by a council’s insistence on them replacing a huge tree they say is a blight on their property.

Tracey and John Scrivener have had numerous letters of support from neighbours in their battle to fell an enormous conifer that towers over their bungalow at the corner of Pennys Lane and Whitsbury Road.

Planners were also handed a |71-signature petition in favour of felling the tree and not replacing |it.

The Scriveners applied in 2008 to build a garage, but say they cannot build unless the tree is felled and its roots removed.

New Forest District Council granted them permission for the garage, but attached a condition saying the conifer would have to be replaced with an elm with a trunk measuring 16-18cm in diameter. But the couple say there is no need for another tree as the area has many trees and the removal of the conifer would not harm the amenity of the area, as the council insists.

Fordingbridge Town Council says there is “no amenity value to the street scene from the tree.”

Yet the district’s planning department refused the couple’s bid to have the condition of their planning permission removed, saying not replacing the tree “would have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the area.”

There is no tree preservation order on the conifer and it is considered in too poor a condition to be preserved.

The Scriveners also say they have been refused home insurance by some companies based on the size of the tree and its proximity to their home, and have offered to plant a tree of a more acceptable size, such as a fruit tree, but this was rejected.

Frustrated, the couple have now launched an appeal to the planning inspectorate, saying the district council is being “unjust” in putting their officers’ opinions above their neighbours’ comments and their own concerns.

They say the council’s tree officer had told them the replacement tree must grow to at least 25ft, which they say would overshadow their bungalow and potentially cause problems with sewers and other services.

Mrs Scrivener said: “It was quite a surprise when we were refused -we did have a lot of support from neighbours. There have been many trees felled in the area, even ones with preservation orders on, so we are not sure why planners are so keen on our tree.”