It is with great regret that we have been compelled to agree to the removal of the oak tree in the KGV car park, along with two other trees. We are saddened that we have had to do this and wish to be clear that we have conducted lengthy negotiations aimed at preserving these trees for more than four years with the insurer and their agents.
The issue with subsidence in a number of homes in Clifton Terrace had seen the buildings’ insurer undertake an investigation into the cause of the issue and its original report concluded that the cause was the oak tree in the car park.
The issue had raised concerns of residents so as a council we sought clarity from the insurer and its experts who conducted the investigation on their behalf.
Those discussions were held with those at the very top of the insurer’s management and as a result they agreed that they would revisit their finding and undertake a secondary investigation to confirm their original findings. We also provided a copy of a separate independent report which was provided to the council which concluded other reasons for the subsidence. That report was received by the insurer prior to their second investigation.
That investigation resulted in the insurer reaffirming that they wanted the trees removed and made it clear that any delay in their removal would prompt them to “seek redress” and leave the council facing a financial liability at a level which would have been way beyond the council’s current reserves.
Faced with the second report, and the clear expression that failure to act would leave the council in a liability position which would simply be untenable and with deep regret the decision was made to remove the trees.
Rightly it has been pointed out that the oak tree in particular is home to a wide range of biodiversity, but the council takes the natural environment very seriously and is currently pursuing a biodiversity and Local Nature Plan which has become the blueprint for other local authorities across the country. Those plans will more than offset the loss of the tree and will continue to deliver biodiversity gains across the town.
The timber from the tree will not be wasted and will be reused. Further details on this and measures taken to replace the biodiversity loss of the tree will follow. The council accepts that the loss of the oak will lead to the loss of the character of the area and recognises that any mitigation will be slim recompense, but the council is not in a position to accept such a huge financial liability.
To engage with the insurers’ we were required to get permission from the homeowner and agree that the insurer’s report, its financial implications and its conclusions remain strictly confidential. The issue was the subject of lengthy, and often passionate debate in the council chambers but the restrictions we were required to agree to prohibited that debate being held in the open part of our committee and full council meetings.
There was and has never been any intention to keep the debate out of the public domain but the requirements of the insurer under which they would engage with the council were such that it has to remain in Part B of our proceedings.
With messages on social media stating that there would be attempts to thwart the removal of the trees we had no choice but to decide that we would not publicise the date of the removal both for public safety, and the safety of the members of staff of the company which was employed to remove the tree.
This whole episode has been deeply disturbing for the council, its staff and for a number of residents who have felt very strongly about the future of the oak. We were first contacted and asked to remove the oak tree by insurance agents in 2020, but this issue has been a factor in the lives of affected residents for far longer and we hope that these residents will now be able to move on from this issue and that they are afforded privacy.
