By Jason Lewis, Local Democracy Reporter

A Townhill Park resident has been blocked from felling a tree outside their Southampton home after their request for permission to cut it down sparked the council to make a preservation order.

The homeowners at the property in Meggeson Avenue wanted to remove or half the height of the silver birch, which is in their front garden.

City council officers visited the Townhill Park site and assessed the tree, determining that it should be protected.

Despite opposition from the property owner and surrounding residents, the tree preservation order was confirmed through a majority vote by the planning and rights of way panel.

Tree officer Gary Claydon-Bone told the meeting on Tuesday, September 23, that the silver birch still had time to grow and was probably within the first third of its life.

Mr Claydon-Bone said: “It is the officer’s view that this contributes to the local area as the only large tree within those front gardens.”

Resident Nicola Purse said the tree had become a source of “significant concern” for herself, her husband and others in the community.

She said there were issues with falling branches and she worried about it falling onto her house or one of her neighbours’ properties.

A petition supporting Ms Purse’s request to carry out the work was signed by eight people from six properties.

 The silver birch tree in Meggeson Avenue which has been made subject of a preservation order.Photo: SCC

Ms Purse said: “While we appreciate the environmental value of trees, we believe in a balanced approach.

“If removal is approved, we are open to replanting more suitable species in consultation with the council or a qualified tree surgeon.”

The panel heard the resident could have chopped the tree down without asking the council for permission as no preservation order existed at the time.

Mr Claydon-Bone said trees in ex-council homes, such as this, generally had a “pseudo protection” in their deeds which state that residents need to get the permission of the local authority.

However, the local authority’s system did not have the property recorded as ex-council and it was not confirmed if the “pseudo protection” existed in this case.

Panel member Cllr Harwood, who voted against confirming the preservation order, said: “I’m unhappy with this.

“You seem to have acted heavy handed to a resident who is trying to do the right thing and is suffering some amenity loss here from the size of the tree in front of their house.

“The tree could be reduced in height and rather than slap a tree order on it and say ‘you are not to do this’, I think you should suggest that they are allowed to reduce this by a certain amount.”

Cllr Christian Cox said the preservation order would protect the tree from being felled but the resident could still apply for permission from the local authority to reduce its size.

He said: “I’m sure the council will be fair and open to that suggestion of how far to reduce it without the risk of losing the tree entirely, which is the main point of tree preservation order to protect the tree in its entirety and make sure that amenity value isn’t lost.”

Panel chair Cllr Vivienne Windle said: “I can’t see any reason for this tree to be felled.

“It would sort of set a precedent for too many other trees that are also seen as inconvenient.”