We are prohibited from cutting down the giant ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’ tree owned by our neighbor, even though it poses a threat to our homes.

Homeowners living on a historic road are in a row with the council over a ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’ oak tree they say is a danger to them.

Winchester residents residing in terraced homes have raised concerns about a 45-foot high tree that has been the subject of a preservation order. They criticize the decision as being incredibly irresponsible.

The oak tree, still in its youth and having grown six feet in the past year, was originally planted approximately five decades ago by a former resident who believed it was a good idea at the time.

However, the tree has grown rapidly and now stands out of proportion in comparison to the surrounding properties, completely overshadowing the small garden where it is located.

The current homeowners, Orla Williams, 40, and her partner, moved into the terraced Grade II Listed home on Canon Street two years ago and have since applied to have the tree felled.

However, Winchester County Council put a preliminary protection order on it and cited that it was ‘appreciated’ by the residents on a neighbouring street.

The decision has been slammed by neighbours – who live on one of Winchester’s ‘most prestigious roads’ – who said that they are not the ones who will be forced to deal with the repercussions if it were to topple over.

The street, where the average house price is more than £600,000, is just yards from Kingsgate Street, and was where Admiral Nelson’s mistress Lady Hamilton once lived.

The decision has been slammed by neighbours who said that they are not the ones who will be forced to deal with the repercussions if it were to topple over

Orla Williams, 40, (pictured) and her partner moved into the terraced Grade II Listed home on Canon Street two years ago and applied to have the tree felled

However, the Winchester County Council put a preliminary protection order on it and cited that it was ‘appreciated’ by the residents on a neighbouring street

The doctor said that after moving in, she was approached by several neighbours who raised concerns about the tree.

The mother-of-two said: ‘They were concerned that it is getting very large and that it could cause damage to their properties and potentially harm to people if it gets any larger, so they wanted it to be taken down.

‘We applied to the council to have it removed and someone came to look at it.

‘[The tree officer] said that they want to put a tree protection order on it.’

The homeowner said that an ‘awful lot of detritus’ falls from the oak in the autumn and winter, and she is concerned about the droppings which fall down from wildlife like pigeons and squirrels.

She added: ‘We appreciate that the tree is beautiful but it’s the wrong tree in the wrong place.

‘It is quite sad to remove something like that but it is only going to get bigger and potentially cause damage to lots of properties which is the main concern.

‘The council said they were concerned about removing it because it’s one of the only trees in the area. 

‘All of the local residents seem to be of the opinion that unfortunately, it’s the wrong tree in the wrong place.’

The tree continued to rapidly grow to the point that it is now ‘out of proportion’ to the surrounding properties and totally dominates the small garden it sits in

A Winchester County Council meeting will take place next week to confirm whether or not the order will remain in place

According to a council report, the tree officer visited Ms Williams’ address after receiving notice from the couple that it was due to be felled.

After visiting, he found that that tree met the criteria for a provisional protection order, which was issued in February of this year.

A Winchester County Council meeting will take place next week to confirm whether or not the order will remain in place.

In total nine residents objected to the order.

They all live in the centre of the cathedral city on roads which sit just yards away from Winchester College – the country’s oldest public school and Rishi Sunak’s alma mater.

Mark Pocock, a retired resident living on Canon Street, branded the council’s decision to protect the tree as ‘ludicrous’.

‘As trees grow older they become more brittle,’ he said. 

Pictured: Mark Pocock stood in his back garden with the tree behind him

Ms Williams said that an ‘awful lot of detritus’ falls from the oak in the autumn and winter

‘If it were to fall and damage properties or persons, I would say the responsibility would be entirely with the council – not the owners of those properties.

‘I think putting a tree protection order on is grotesquely irresponsible of the council.

‘It could be a danger to property and life.’

Nick Goff, 80, moved into his property on the road adjacent to Canon Street just over a year ago.

The retired British Airways pilot said he is worried that if the tree continues to go, the roots underneath will damage a medieval wall in his garden, which was built in the Tudor era.

Mr Goff said: ‘The issue is that in 10 years’ time, that will be double the height and double the width.

‘It put on six feet last year it it’s going to put on another six feet this year.’

The homeowner commissioned an independent report from a tree consultancy business who found the oak is still a ‘teenager’. 

A report found that while the tree is in ‘good physiological condition’, it is ‘a large sized tree in a very small area’ and so the tree protection order is ‘unjustified’

The report found that while the tree is in ‘good physiological condition’, it is ‘a large sized tree in a very small area’ and so the tree protection order is ‘unjustified’.

It also said that ‘the possibility of longer term damage to the retaining walls and footings of the adjacent properties as entirely foreseeable’.

‘Some guy planted this as something to do 40 years ago,’ Mr Goff continued.

‘Now, we have got Jack and the Beanstalk. It’s not a historic tree, it’s a silly mistake.’

The council report issued ahead of next week’s meeting stated that the tree officer believed the concerns raised over the tree were ‘speculative’.

It said that while it is ‘not historic’, the tree ‘contributes meaningfully to local biodiversity and visual amenity’.

The report also stated that it is ‘clearly visible’ from residents living on a neighbouring private road, where it is ‘appreciated’.

It added: ‘It is also the last significant tree in an area of land between Canon Street and St Swithun’s Street, enhancing the character of the conservation area.’ 

The report also stated that it is ‘clearly visible’ from residents living on a neighbouring private road, where it is ‘appreciated’

Retired resident Graham Rule, 62, said the decision by the local authority was ‘irresponsible’.

He said: ‘We all love trees but that shouldn’t be there.

‘The people who want the protection order, they don’t live here – its totally irresponsible.’

Mr Rule said the tree was planted in the early 70s by a former resident.

He added: ‘Like a lot of things, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

‘I’m a huge fan of trees but at the end of the day that tree shouldn’t be there.’

The conclusion of the tree officer’s report stated that if the provisional TPO is not confirmed at the council meeting, it will be ‘left vulnerable to being removed’.

The report added: ‘The removal of this tree will have a detrimental impact on the biodiversity and also character of the conservation area.’