Officers recommend lifting tree preservation order to duck £130k compensation claim

Officers at Fareham Borough Council have "regrettably" recommended councillors to lift a set of tree preservation orders to avoid hefty compensation claims, just months after the council's leader called legislative reforms on the matter

The local authority's planning committee is set to consider removing preservation orders for five oak trees and one lime tree that have caused damage to a nearby house on 11 September.

Planning officers recommended quashing the orders, warning that the council would be subject to significant compensation claims from the homeowner's insurer should the applications be refused.

In a report, officers said: "There are precedents in law for subsidence cases involving protected trees, where local authorities have resisted the removal of a tree implicated in a subsidence event where site investigations demonstrate that, on the balance of probabilities, the tree is a material cause.

"There have been significant claims for damages on the basis the local authority was made aware of the damage and failed to take the necessary action to abate the nuisance or grant consent under the TPO."

The report noted that officers are satisfied that evidence sowed the trees have caused subsidence damage to the home.

"Having carefully reviewed all the submitted information Officers conclude that regrettably consent should be granted to remove the lime and oak trees to prevent ongoing damage to property and avoid potential financial claims against the Council," it said.

According to the BBC, insurers threatened a claim of up to £130,000.

The news comes two months on from the leader of Fareham Borough Council, Cllr Simon Martin, calling for fundamental reform to tree preservation order legislation in order to curb substantial compensation claims.

Writing in a letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government, Angela Rayner, Cllr Martin proposed legislation changes, including a reform that would limit compensation claims to situations where it has been demonstrated that there is no viable alternative to felling a tree, and the local authority still refuses consent.

Adam Carey