Family wins David v Goliath battle

Campaigners fighting to prevent an ancient oak tree from being torn down have secured a major victory after an insurance company’s bid to fell it was blocked.

Linda and Scott Taylor Cantrill have been battling their insurer over the fate of the oak in their front lawn because they say the tree is wrongly being blamed for subsidence on their property.

Furthermore, the pair have also been determined to protect the tree, which has a tree preservation order on it, because of the vital role it plays in their deaf-blind, epileptic son Redd’s mental and physical wellbeing.

The family interrupted their holiday in Cornwall to attend the planning meeting at Exmouth Town Council in person this week (Monday 4 August) and speak out against the application, which had 97 letters of objection to it.

Members of Exmouth Town Council’s planning committee voted unanimously to reject the application to tear the tree down, prompting cheers and applause from members of the public in attendance.

“It was a ridiculous application”, Ms Taylor Cantrill told the planning committee, adding that the tree’s role in her son, Redd’s life was significant.

“Redd will be educated at home, and his sensory, physical education will take place inside and outside in the garden, under the protective shade of the only tree we have been allowed to keep,” she said.

“It provides vital filtered shade for Redd, and is the only protective outdoor space he can safely access.”

The pair said the tree’s shade allows Redd to play safely outside without being in direct sunlight, something that is deemed important by his parents because the prospect of someone with epilepsy having a fit increases in the heat.

The family had previously said if the tree was torn down, it could force them to have to move.

The pair’s insurer, LV= General Insurance, which is owned by Allianz, had already required the Taylor Cantrills to remove all the trees in their back garden – around 20 in all – in the belief it would cure subsidence issues.

Husband Scott, who works in the construction industry, including as a surveyor, said he did not believe the insurance company or its contractors had been robust in their assessments of the tree and the real causes of his property’s subsidence.

“There have been errors in their reporting and there has been no investigation of the house or monitoring of it,” he told the committee.

“No roots have been found around the property.”

Those assertions were supported by East Devon District Council’s arboricultural officer, whose report stated the need to remove the tree “has not been clearly demonstrated within the application”.

The pair said they had suffered a “huge financial cost” in hiring professionals, including surveyors and arborists, to confirm their belief that the oak tree – believed to be anywhere from 180 to 250 years old – was not causing the subsidence at their property.