The Tree of Heaven in Carlton Hill

A MATURE tree at a St John’s Wood property has become the centre of a planning dispute after Westminster City Council moved to protect it with a Tree Preservation Order.

Councillors are due to decide whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order protecting a Tree of Heaven in the rear garden of a property in Carlton Hill. A provisional order was issued in October after the council was notified that the owner intended to remove the tree for building works.

Under conservation area rules, residents must give six weeks’ notice before carrying out work on certain trees. During that period the council can decide to issue a TPO if it considers the tree has sufficient public amenity value.

According to a council planning report prepared for a meeting next week, the tree stands around 14 metres tall and has a multi-stem canopy. Council arboricultural officers say it is visible from neighbouring properties and contributes to the character of the area.

The report states that the tree makes a “significant contribution to local visual amenity” and “could be managed through pruning works rather than removal”.

The homeowner had proposed removing the tree partly to facilitate a rear extension to the property and also raised concerns that it may be causing damage to surrounding structures.

An objection to the TPO was submitted by Ever Tree Arb Solutions on behalf of the owner. In this document, the firm argued that Tree of Heaven is widely regarded as an invasive species and suggested that removing it and planting native replacements would provide greater environmental benefits.

The objection added: “Ailanthus altissima [Latin name] is considered an invasive species with limited ecological value,” adding that replacement planting with native trees and hedges would be “more beneficial for biodiversity”.

It also raised concerns that the tree may be contributing to damage to the garden patio and boundary wall.

But the council’s arboricultural officer disputed those claims. Their report said there is “no clear evidence that the tree is responsible for structural damage” and stressed that invasive status alone does not prevent a tree being protected.

Officers also argue that replacing a mature tree with new planting would not compensate for the immediate loss of its visual contribution.

The site is also subject to a separate planning application for an extension that would require the tree’s removal.

Meanwhile, the council is investigating the potential unauthorised removal of two protected lime trees previously located in the same garden.

Councillors will decide whether to confirm the TPO – giving the tree permanent protection – or allow it to lapse, which would permit its removal when they meet on Tuesday.