BBCResidents have said they feel “extremely angry” after a council voted unanimously to protect a controversial oak tree.
Winchester City Council received an intention to fell the more than 40-year-old tree from neighbours who raised concerns that it could damage their properties.
Speaking at a council planning meeting, the local authority’s tree officer John Bartlett said there was “no evidence of actual damage being caused”.
The council approved a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), which legally protects it from damage or destruction.
Mr Bartlett said it contributed meaningfully to local biodiversity and visual amenity, adding that its ecological and landscape value outweighed the reported nuisance issues.
The oak, which is situated in a conservation area, is located in the garden of a home on Canon Street, close to Winchester Cathedral.
Dr Sandra Steel lives in a home on the adjacent St Swithun Street and spoke for residents at the planning meeting.
“The spreading roots cause structural damage,” she said.
Adding that “our historic houses are particularly vulnerable”.
Some of the properties on the road date back to the 17th Century and Ms Steel said there was evidence of “cracks in garden walls”.
She added that it was increasing the insurance of the local houses.
Despite these claims the council approved the protection order and said further evidence would need to be provided to consider the felling of the tree.
On hearing that verdict, Ms Steel said: “You are waiting for our houses to fall down I guess.”
Speaking after the meeting she said they all “feel extremely angry” and called it “quite ridiculous”.
“An oak tree belongs an open area or a forest, not in gardens of historic houses,” Ms Steel added.
At least nine residents raised concerns about the tree’s proximity and size after they said it had grown by 6ft (1.8m) in the last year.
They said that the height and mass of the tree combined with unpredictable weather patterns could lead to serious damage to properties or injury of residents.
They argued that any sustainable management plan would require pruning on a five-year cycle, which is seen as an unfair and impractical burden on residents.
The objectors added that the tree, which they claim blocks light and sheds a substantial amount of leaves and debris.
Council said it is willing to accept further reductions to previous cut points on a 5–10 year cycle to improve light penetration to surrounding properties.
