Planners in Gosport have spent more than an hour deciding whether or not to fell a protected oak tree in Hurst Green after £9,000 worth of damage was caused to a house.

Applicant Helen Klarner of Property Risk Inspection Ltd sought to cut down an oak tree on land to the front of 16 Hurst Green, Gosport. 

A report from Sedgwick’s Mitigation Centre said if the oak tree is not removed, then the cost of underpinning the damage, and redecoration could be as much as £85,000.

READ MORE: Whiteley mum’s anger as no space in school for children

The oak tree identified as T2, one of nine protected oak trees, was singled out for the chop because it was the nearest tree next to a porch that showed evidence of cracking – but councillors weren’t sure it was at fault.

Gosport Borough Council’s regulatory board went against the recommendation of the council officers to fell the tree which has caused damage the insurance company puts at £9,000 to the home.

In deciding not to chop down the tree, voted for unanimously by the panel members, chair Councillor Steve Hammond (Lib Dem, Bridgemary) said: “It is a substantial tree, 70 to 100 years old that forms part of the street scene. I am not happy for one tree to go to protect one porch. What if the tree is taken down and the porch carries on moving?”

In a verbal presentation that lasted nearly 15 minutes, Councillor Stephen Philpott (Con, Peel Common) outlined the contradictions in the two reports submitted by the council’s tree officer, including that drain damage and repairs were likely causes of damage to the home. There was only one resident’s porch to have any damage.

He said: “In conclusion, the board has to be satisfied why the arboricultural officer changed his mind.” 

The tree is an asset on land owned by the residents of Hurst Green valued at about £104,000, said Cllr Philpott.

Councillor Kirsten Bradley (Lib Dem, Lee East) said once the tree is taken down and if it is found not to be the tree in question, it cannot be put back. 

The root identification report said nine roots were identified including Rosaceae with three oak tree roots and questioned the impact of the removal of the Pyracantha adjacent to the building. There was no DNA evidence presented that it was oak T2, confirmed the council officer.

The panel agreed there was “insufficient evidence” for the tree to be felled as it could be a number of other factors including heave of the surrounding land, drainage repairs that have not settled or other trees and the clay soil that doesn’t drain well. 

Cllr Hammond said: “Even for a tree we will do the right thing. Gosport has the worst tree canopy coverage in Hampshire at only eight per cent.”