We are losing far too many of our mature urban trees. While tree planting initiatives are valuable, they cannot compensate for the loss of established trees, which provide the greatest environmental, social, and economic benefits. Mature trees reduce urban heat, mitigate flooding, can contribute to improving air quality, support biodiversity, and enhance our health and wellbeing. Yet, despite their immense value, they continue to be felled—often unnecessarily—due to development pressures, risk aversion, and subsidence claims.

Homeowners facing subsidence issues deserve sympathy, but felling should not be the default solution. In many cases, alternative solutions can protect properties while allowing trees to continue delivering their vital benefits to communities.

To illustrate the urgency of this issue, we begin with a tale of two trees—cases where our contributors, writing in a personal capacity, have investigated first-hand how so-called tree protection laws are failing. We then turn to an arboricultural consultant for expert insight into what must change.

The Trees and Design Action Group (TDAG) regularly hears from desperate local groups trying to save much-loved trees. That’s why we are asking for your support for national reform, initiated by our contributors Kat Scott and Laura Ancell, to secure stronger protections for mature urban trees.
Sue James for the Trees and Design Action Group
________________________________________

TALE OF TWO TREES FROM THE RESIDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE

The Old King George Oak, Wivenhoe – By Kat Scott, architect

Darwin. Otley Tittleybottle. Oakley the Plane. Old King George. These aren’t punk bands but names of mature trees across the UK which are presently or very recently at threat of felling and subject to passionate efforts by the British public to be saved. that have been saved—or felled—after intense public battles. These trees, many more than 150 years old, exist across Essex, Leeds, Doncaster, and Shrewsbury.

One of these, the Old King George Oak in Wivenhoe, Essex, is where I live. Estimated to be 120–150 years old, it stands on the historic boundary of Wivenhoe Hall. Oaks support more species than any other native tree—over 2,300—store carbon, absorb rainwater, and provide shade during increasingly extreme heatwaves.

Now, the tree (alongside a nearby horse chestnut and ash) has been blamed for subsidence at a nearby property by insurer Aviva. The original reports have been questioned, yet new assessments remain confidential, held between the insurer and the tree’s owner. The tree stands beside a railway line, where vibrations, sloping ground, and seasonal drought all contribute to movement—yet the blame falls solely on the trees. Many homes in the area have already been underpinned, raising doubts about Aviva’s insistence that felling is the only option.

Despite community outcry, Wivenhoe Town Council is under pressure. Aviva has warned them they will be liable for future subsidence claims if the trees are not felled by 1st February 2025. With legal threats and no resources to fight back, the council appears resigned.

But we are not. Within 48 hours of launching a petition, over 1,500 people signed it—now more than 4,000. We have crowdfunded a third of our £20,000 target to fund legal fees, with barrister Paul Powlesland of Lawyers for Nature helping us challenge the felling.

On 13th January, residents set up a tree protection camp, braving the cold for weeks to defend Old King George. This is an intergenerational fight, bringing together people of all backgrounds, united by a love of nature.
The tree’s assessed value equates to £100,000, while alternative engineering solutions could cost just £30,000–£50,000—yet Aviva refuses to consider them. The company has issued misleading environmental statements, claiming it supports sustainability while pushing for felling.
As the fight for Old King George enters its final hours, will we win?
________________________________________

How Effective is ‘Tree Protection’? The Titchfield Park Oak – By Laura Ancell, producer

We like to tell ourselves that we protect our mature trees in urban areas. And yet, up and down the country, trees with supposed legal protection are being felled with impunity.

The case of the Titchfield Park oak tree, which I along with two MPs fought to save, is just one of many examples. Despite being a towering presence in the community and offering irreplaceable ecological and aesthetic value, it was cut down last week on Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance company’s say so. The tree’s ‘protection’ in my experience was little more than a bureaucratic formality easily overridden by an insurance company citing subsidence claims.

The 110- year- old majestic oak tree once stood on Crown Land at the Office for National Statistics in Fareham, Hampshire. It now finds itself a mere statistic despite having been there long before the affected home was even built.

The reality is that TPOs which are meant to be a shield, are riddled with loopholes. Developers and insurers routinely exploit the current rules, while councils, underfunded and overstretched, often lack the resources to fight back.

Fareham Borough Council wrote to Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner who is also Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but her response was “woeful”.

Insurance companies often blame trees that are close to properties for causing subsidence, yet they regularly fail to take the value of the tree into account and explore non-lethal structural solutions because felling is far cheaper. Meanwhile, biodiversity plummets, urban heat rises, and communities lose not just shade and beauty, but a living connection to history.

It’s time we stopped pretending these protections are fit for purpose. We need urgent legal reform to give TPOs real teeth and I along Kat and many others are determined to see this through.

We cannot afford to keep sacrificing ancient, carbon-storing, wildlife-sustaining trees on the altar of convenience and profit. The public outrage is there; what’s missing is the political will.

The irony is that in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss, we need mature trees more than ever. Each tree lost is a blow to our collective future.

The insurer in the case of the Titchfield Park Oak Tree, RSA, insists that selective felling can cure subsidence and felling is a “last resort”. But over the years ‘protected’ oaks have been falling like dominoes at the Office for National Statistics. Why didn’t the tree’s owner – the ONS, a government department – not push to find a solution which retained the tree and futureproofed the house? Did Defra who support Action Oak approve of this inaction? Removing trees is an easy scapegoat, rather than addressing the real issue—often poor building design and tree maintenance.
________________________________________

HOW CAN WE DO BETTER? THE ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANT’S PERSPECTIVE

Jeremy Barrell, Barrell Tree Care

It is now widely accepted at all levels of government that trees impart significant benefits to local communities and, yet despite efforts to plant more of them, urban canopy cover continues to decrease in many areas. 2024 saw the first whole year of global temperature rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels, which means that more urban canopy cover is needed now, not in the 30–50 years it takes newly planted trees to reach peak benefit delivery. 

There is an obvious and urgent need to focus on retaining existing trees, and yet high-quality trees continue to be lost through poor development protection, unnecessary removals to reduce risk, highway tree losses not being replaced, and subsidence sacrifices to save insurance companies money.

In a subsidence context, the increasing number of local community initiatives emerging to save local trees is compelling evidence of the scale of the problem and all over the country high-value trees are being lost through poor management by loss adjusters and insurance companies.

Of course, the public facing corporate ESG statements do a great job of stating their green credentials, and promoting the fake news that felling is the “last resort”. The reality around the country is that felling is actually the first resort because it is the cheapest option, with the greenwashing veil thinly concealing the harsh reality.

Another common thread in subsidence mismanagement is failing to consider tree value in the management equation when deciding how to deal with subsidence claims. We are regularly seeing trees valued at figures in excess of £100,000 being felled to save lesser amounts in remedial works. This is a great deal for the insurance companies, but local communities pay a high price through the loss of the benefits that those trees provided.

In summary, trees matter but many high-quality trees are being lost because of subsidence claims mismanagement, insurers greenwashing by saying there is no other option, and communities paying the price through lost benefits. But does it have to be this way? The short, but inspiring answer, is no, and there is a precedent on how to solve the problem by taking the decision out of the insurers’ hands. The Town and Country Planning Act, which protects important trees through tree preservation orders, had a mechanism called an Article 5 Certificate, which exempted high-value trees from the normal rules on compensation for harm arising to structures. However, it was removed in 2012 by the previous government to deal with some local planning authorities including low value trees. But since then, we now have the peer reviewed CAVAT method of assessing tree value (https://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/Latest-News/CAVAT-Full-Method-a-lowdown-on-the-refresh ), which means that the previous problem is much easier to resolve. 

The simple solution is for the current government to reinstate the Article 5 Certificate mechanism, with a clear definition of what constitutes a high-value tree.

This would be a great way for the new government to demonstrate a meaningful commitment to sustainability and make significant progress towards empowering local planning authorities to positively manage the impacts of the climate and nature emergencies.
________________________________________

TIME FOR POSITIVE ACTION – ‘STOP THE CHOP’

By Kat Scott

I didn’t set out to be a tree campaigner. But when I saw an ancient oak—part of my child’s playground—facing destruction, I knew I had to act.
If you work in the built environment or insurance industry, you have the power to protect trees, not destroy them. Here’s how:

• Developers & Engineers: Design around existing trees. Recognise their immense value—not just for carbon storage, but for shade, flood control, and biodiversity.
• Insurers: Stop using felling as the cheapest option. Apply CAVAT valuations and explore alternative solutions.
• Local Authorities: Strengthen tree protection policies, seek legal advice, and review TPOs regularly.
• National Government: Reintroduce Article 5 Certificates to shield councils from compensation claims when refusing unnecessary felling.
• Everyone: Check if your local trees have TPOs. Petition for stronger protections. Support campaigns like ours.

👉 Sign the petition: https://www.change.org/p/save-wivenhoe-s-old-king-george-oak-tree
👉 Donate to the legal fund: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/savewivenhoeoldoaktree
It’s time to stop the chop—before it’s too late.