Ex-Army chef and wife save £3,000 to remove ‘dangerous’ tree that blocks sunlight and has injured pedestrians… only for a neighbour to tip off council who slapped preservation order on it

• Stephen Petrowsky said he’s received 40 complaints from injured passers-by

A married couple spent years saving thousands of pounds to have a ‘dangerous’ tree removed from their front garden, only to be met with a tree preservation order.

Stephen Petrowsky, 59, and his late wife Frances saved up £3,000 to cut down the 14-metre tree that had been causing them ‘mental health issues’ by way of constant verbal complaints, lack of sunlight and rising fuel bills. 

But just as they reached their target, an anonymous neighbour caught wind of their plan and informed the council of their ‘significant concern’.

This led to an order being issued from the council meaning it could not be cut down.

The former Army chef said he has received at least 40 complaints from injured passers-by over the years, who complain that a branch has fallen and hit them on the head.  

Stephen Petrowsky, 59 (pictured) and his late wife Frances saved up £3,000 to cut down the 14-metre tree that had been causing them ‘mental health issues’

Pictured: The tree located in the front garden of the house has been the source of complaints from passers-by, saying that a branch had fallen on them 

The former Army chef said he has received at least 40 complaints from injured passers-by

Mr Petrowsky said: ‘It’s a danger. Over the years, so many people have knocked on the door and said ‘A branch has fallen and stricken me on the head.

‘It’s people’s health and safety, and during the summer months that tree – it blocks the light.

‘My fuel bills have gone up – let me put it that way.’

The couple moved into their house in Sholing, Southampton, with their two children some 26 years ago – and said they have ‘always hated’ the tree. 

Mr Petrowsky said the tree blocks the sunlight and is a danger to people’s health and safety

Mr Petrowsky had a professional look at the tree earlier this year to work out the next steps in having it cut down

Mr Petrowsky’s wife Frances (pictured) sadly died from cancer last month 

Earlier this year, Mr Petrowsky had a professional look at the tree to work out the next steps in having it cut down. 

But somebody saw that happen, according to Mr Petrowsky, and tipped off the Council who put the TPO (Tree Preservation Order) in place.

Mr Petrowsky raised an objection to this order but a council town meeting on Tuesday blocked that, saying verbal complaints is not a ‘legitimate reason’ to remove the tree.

His letter read: ‘With fuel bills already at a massive height for the vast majority of the UK population, the tree is causing mental distress to all of the residents of the properties listed as they are having to use more electricity due to the sheer size of the tree and the quantity of natural light it completely blocks, placing an increased financial burden on them than what they would be if the tree was no longer there.’

A TPO is usually made by a local planning authority, to protect a tree from deliberate damage and destruction.

A birds-eye-view of the tree which is now protected with a TPO

This order protected the tree, identified as a Robinia, in the front garden of the property.

Records from the council said in July this year, a phone call was put through to the tree team with ‘significant concern’ that the tree at the Petrowsky’s home was going to be felled.

It said: ‘The caller requested that a tree officer visit the site to look at the tree to see if it is suitable to be protected by a tree preservation order.’

Mr Petrowsky said he and his wife – who passed away from cancer last month – were frustrated, having spent years saving money that could have been spent elsewhere.

Mr Petrowsky’s objection to the TPO was rejected on the grounds that ‘verbal complaints’ were not a legitimate reason for not protecting the tree

He said the tree is ‘extremely large in size for the plot’ and could cause ‘severe damage’ to both the property, human life and pets within the grounds.

During a council meeting on Tuesday last week, the objection was rejected and Mr Petrowsky was informed that if he wanted to appeal it he would have to take it to the High Court.

He said: ‘I can’t afford to go to the high court.

‘I don’t think, as a council taxpayer, [the council] were interested in what I had to say in the slightest.

Mr Petrowsky will need to take the matter to the High Court if he wishes to appeal the council’s decision 

‘I understand that there’s a need to retain green space, 100 per cent I’m all for that, but what we’re talking about is something completely different.

‘I get a lot of people coming up to my door and telling me they have been injured.’

In the letter of objection, the council’s tree team said: ‘(We) cannot take negative verbal comments made to the tree owner as a legitimate reason for not protecting the tree.

‘If the council were to accept this as a justified reason not to protect a tree, it would find it impossible ever to protect any tree within the city.’

The planning panel unanimously agreed to protect the tree.

Source: Read Full Article