Belgravia residents object to tree protection order, committee votes to confirm it

Westminster Council's Planning Sub-Committee has confirmed a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for an Evergreen Magnolia at 14 Wilton Place, despite objections from Belgravia residents who cited damage to paving and property. The council considered that the tree makes a valuable contribution to amenity, to the outlook from nearby properties, and to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The committee met on 2 December 2025, to discuss Tree Preservation Order No 725 - 14 Wilton Place, which was made on 25 June 2025, following a notification of intent to remove the tree. The stated reason for the intended removal was that the tree roots are causing damage to paving in the front garden and damage to the boundary railings with 15 Wilton Place. The order aims to protect the tree at 14 Wilton Place.

The owner of the property and the owner of the neighbouring property objected to the TPO.

According to the Public reports pack, the owner of the property objected on the grounds that:

• The tree has caused damage to the paving in the front garden.
• The tree has caused damage to the boundary railings with number 15 Wilton Place.
• Cracking has been observed in the lightwell walls which you believe is related to the tree's root system
• If the tree is retained the damage will be ongoing and will escalate. Constantly repairing the damage is not sustainable.
• The tree is not native. It tree could be replaced with a smaller, more suitable species.
• If it is not removed it should be subject to a stringent pruning and maintenance regime to mitigate future damage.

The owner of the neighbouring property objected to the TPO on the grounds that:

• The tree has caused significant damage to your main entrance paving, causing a trip hazard. Repairs to the paving would require an increase in overall levels in the front garden which would introduce a step down to pavement level and which would require planning permission.
• The tree has caused significant damage to your railings and entrance gate to a degree that the gate no longer works.
• If the railings and paving are repaired, the tree will damage them again.
• The proximity of underground services beneath the pavement should be taken into consideration in the decision to protect the tree.
• The tree is not a native species.
• The tree has not been adequately maintained.
• The tree causes significant shading.
• If the TPO is upheld any future application to prune or remove the tree would be increased in complexity and would be more onerous.

The Council's Arboricultural Officer responded to both objections, stating that paving can usually be repaired without removing the tree, and that railings and gates can also be easily repaired. The officer also noted that no evidence had been submitted to indicate the tree was causing damage to the lightwell.

Councillor Hitchcock asked if a structural report would normally be wanted, and the Tree Officer responded that there is no requirement for such reports, but if the TPO were confirmed, then there would be a requirement for such reports and then it could be considered under the merits of that report.

Councillor Chowdhury asked if the tree was on a council island, and the Tree Officer responded that it was in the private boundary of the building.

While the meeting information does not contain the specific costs associated with repairing the paving, railings, and gate, it does mention that if the TPO is made and an application comes in with detailed costings, then potentially the council might be liable for alternative repairs if the tree were removed. So there will be a difference in costs and the council might be liable for a difference in cost in regards to whether the tree were removed or retained.

With respect to routine maintenance pruning, there is no difference in complexity between submitting a six-week notice of intent for works to a tree protected by virtue of its location within a conservation area (a section 211 notice), versus making an application for works to a tree protected by a TPO. There is no cost for making either a section 211 notice or a TPO application.

The difference between a section 211 notice and a TPO application, is that for a TPO application the applicant must provide: a statement of reasons e.g. 'routine maintenance to manage shading and maintain the tree at a suitable size', a sketch plan, and, if a TPO application is made to remove the tree (or undertake any other works) on the grounds of structural damage or on the grounds of the condition of the tree, the applicant must submit appropriate evidence in support of tree removal, whereas no evidence is required to support a section 211 notice for the same works.

Importantly, the confirmation of a provisional TPO does not preclude the success of any future application for removal or for works to the tree. Any such application will be considered on its merits.

Ultimately, the committee voted to confirm the TPO.