A century-old oak tree located in a Somerset housing estate has been spared from removal after a decision by Somerset Council, despite claims that it is causing subsidence to a nearby home.
The oak, protected by a tree preservation order since 1989, stands in the backyard of 5 Collett Way, Frome, near Commerce Park and a planned development of 360 homes by the town’s rugby club. Homeowner Jessica Ohren sought permission to fell the tree, citing damage including subsidence to her garage and conservatory.
However, the council denied the application, emphasizing the tree’s “outstanding amenity value” and warning that cutting it down could worsen property damage. Ms. Ohren’s representatives presented evidence of structural issues such as sloping garage floors and significant wall cracking, and noted tree roots encroached directly beneath the home’s foundations, strongly linking the tree to the subsidence. They argued the damage is ongoing and likely to worsen, making the tree unsuitable for its current site.
READ MORE: M5 Traffic Halted as Van Overturns in Somerset – Live Updates
READ MORE: New Green Space to Transform Yeovil Town Centre Ahead of World Cup
Local opinion is divided. Resident Sally Nilsson opposed felling, stating that the house was built too close to the tree and advocating for foundation repairs—such as underpinning—instead of removing a tree vital for local ecology and flood prevention.
Frome Town Council also objected, highlighting the tree’s historical presence predating surrounding housing and its contribution to local character. The council questioned whether the tree alone caused the subsidence and urged exploring alternative mitigation rather than felling.
Planning officer Nick Ball explained the refusal was grounded in good arboricultural practice and the building’s failure to meet building regulations. He stressed that veteran oak trees support Europe’s richest biodiversity and cautioned that removing the oak could trigger ground heave—a phenomenon where soil swelling after tree removal causes greater structural damage.
The council’s position is that the oak’s long-term presence has influenced soil moisture levels, and felling it would likely cause detrimental ground movement beneath the property. Ms. Ohren has yet to indicate if she will appeal the decision.