Councillors have said they are angry and upset after voting in favour of removing the protection of trees to stop more damage being caused to a house in Fareham.

A planning committee meeting at Fareham Borough Council voted in favour of the application, hearing home insurance companies could try and recover their costs otherwise.

Approving the removal of tree protection orders on a total of seven trees - six oak and one lime - the committee heard they were valued at at least £750,000 and must be felled to stop subsidence in two homes.

One is in Heath Lawns and the other in Southmead Road.

The trees that will now be removedThe trees that will now be removed

At the meeting on December 11, the committee was told that if the tree protection orders were not removed, the final cost of underpinning the homes, estimated at £225,000, could fall to the council, it said.

Despite the initial repair costs being covered by insurers, the committee was told they could eventually take action to recover its costs from the council.

This compares to the estimated cost of £5,500 to repair the home at 20 Southmead Road once all six trees are removed, according to the application form.

At a full council meeting on Thursday, December 12, leader Councillor Simon Martin said: “I am angry and upset about the decision that had to be made.” 

He said the council has lobbied the government about tree preservation orders in relation to subsidence cases asking it to change the legislation. Cutting down oak trees should be regarded as the last resort rather than the first option – but he said it had fallen on deaf ears.

Cllr Martin said the government does not intend to change legislation around tree protection orders. Trees identified as causing structural damage need to be cut down so repairs can be carried out once removed. 

Chairman of the planning committee Cllr David Foot said: “This was an incredibly difficult decision for the members of the planning committee. The trees undoubtedly make a positive visual contribution to the area. The visual benefits needed to be considered alongside the fact that the homes of two families are being damaged. 

“On top of this, if the council refused consent to fell the trees, the insurance companies would seek to recover their increased repair costs from the council.”

In a statement earlier this year, the council said it had no budget for compensation claims and had allowed 135 out of 144 felling applications in two years.

A Direct Line spokesperson said: “Direct Line Group takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously. When trees are implicated in subsidence, we undertake a thorough evaluation of all options, including tree maintenance, removal, or engineered stabilisation solutions. Each case is assessed individually, with guidance from expert advisors to consider factors such as tree health, environmental impacts, and geotechnical risks like potential heave damage to nearby properties.

“Although the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) has been approved, the final decision to remove the tree has not yet been agreed upon by all third parties. Until a final decision is reached, we remain open to ongoing discussions with all stakeholders.”