AN ancient oak tree, which has stood in a borough village for more than 100 years has won a stay of execution from plans to have it felled.

Thurrock Council's planning committee voted unanimously to defer an application to fell a Holm Oak in the grounds of Grices, a listed building on South Hill, Horndon on the Hill.

While the 60ft high tree, which is protected by a tree preservation order, has not affected Grices, it is said to have damaged the foundations of nearby 7 Saffron Close and officers have recommended it be felled.

The large tree, which is reported to be "in good health" forms part of a group of Holm Oaks at the top of South Hill on the edge of the Horndon-on-the-Hill Conservation Area.

Speaking at a planning committee meeting on Thursday, resident Peter Woodard said a vital document had not been made available to the public or the committee.

He said: "An Engineering Appraisal Report (EAR) for this application exists as it is referred to in the planning committee report but it is not available online with all the other documents.

The tree is in the garden of Graces, a large home, and close to a rising terrace of homes on Saffron Close.

"This means the public are at a disadvantage in not being able to scrutinise the planning report.

"To approve this under these circumstances would be an abuse of process. They found no live oak roots in either of two bore holes so this tree is not shown to be the cause of the damage yet this inconvenient fact is ignored in the rest of the report."

Mr Woodard added: "If this policy continues there will be no majestic trees left in Horndon and is the tree actually the cause of subsidence?

"Nowhere in the application does it consider the reason for this subsidence is simply the inadequate depth of the foundations. 

"They found no live oak roots in either of two bore holes so this tree is not shown to be the cause of the damage yet this inconvenient fact is ignored in the rest of the report."

A report to members did say: "The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Survey, Geotechnical Survey Report and an Engineering Appraisal Report (EAR) that considers the damage to the property to be related to clay shrinkage subsidence."

It added: "The EAR provided with the application considers there is "severe" damage to the property. If the tree is felled and repairs undertaken then they advise the costs would be in the region of £15,000, but if the tree is retained and underpinning undertaken, this would be estimated at £45,000. There would be likely ongoing costs if the tree remains and there could potentially be implications for other properties in addition."

Barry Johnson, Conservative councillor for Orsett Ward, said: "The public are really against having this tree felled. I quote from the report that this tree is one of the best specimens in the borough and while I do not take any joy in the fact that 7 Saffron Close is suffering from what is considered to be subsidence caused by this tree I cannot help but wonder why a property some 20 metres away from the tree is suffering such damage when the property that is considerably closer does not appear to suffer from the same.

The rising terrace of homes that is Saffron Close. No 7 is at the top.

"The removal of this tree would substantially harm the character of this lovely conservation area and the surrounding area as it is very visible."

Councillors were asked to consider the possibility that the authority might have to pay compensation of around £14,000 if they refused the application and damage was found to have been caused.

A legal opinion put before them says: "This liability to pay compensation can encompass the reasonable cost of carrying out underpinning or other requisite remedial/preventative works to the affected property where, at the time of refusal, the material available to the local planning authority was sufficient to show, on the balance of probabilities, that there was a real risk of further subsidence.

"A claimant can refer a disputed claim for compensation to an independent Tribunal for adjudication.

"There could also be ongoing costs to the "uthority as result of the above, if permission for felling were to be refused."

The application was deferred for the 'missing' document to be made available to the public and the committee.

The report put before councillors can be found here.