USUALLY a Tree Preservation Order does what it says but not always as a Crediton woman found out. She has a beech tree, probably almost 150 years old, near the edge of her garden.

That tree was beautiful, elegant, but is now dead. To her horror she found that not one but several holes had been bored in the trunk and chemicals put in.

She is distressed and angry, has reported the damage to Mid Devon District Council which is in charge of TPOs.

“The district council sent someone to look at the tree about three weeks after I had reported it and he found there had been two separate attempts to kill my tree because there were old holes and another with fresh sawdust below it where it had been bored.

“I have made repeated contact with the district council and apart from a short visit by an officer two weeks ago nothing has happened,” she said. “What is the point of legislation and not applying it. The district council seems to be ignoring it. I have now contacted the police.”

She explained that the tree had come into leaf this spring but soon afterwards she noticed that the leaves were withered.

The tree is in a corner of the garden of the home of Mrs Mary Collins at The Mews on Deep Lane where it is surrounded by other trees. An oak and a yew have TPOs.

There have been requests over the years for some branches to be removed, mainly because it was overlooking properties on Fairfield Road at the back of The Mews. These have resulted in some cutting back but two later applications were both refused by the district council.

One, from No 16 Fairfield Road (18/01669/TPO) sought to reduce the height of the beech because it cut out light from that and No. 18 and interfered with television aerial signals.

This was refused in November 2018 and an appeal against this decision dismissed this February. Reasons for refusal were that there was a lack of arboricultural justification balanced against the amenity value of the tree. The works would significantly damage the amenity value of the tree.

The same family had applied for a height reduction in 2015, the reason given then was that it had been crown reduced at least once before and was starting to dominate some Fairfield Close properties. It was then estimated to be 15 metres high. Some pruning was approved but not as much as had been applied for.

Dismissing the appeal this year the Inspector Paul Dignan has said the tree had significant public amenity value and contributed positively to the character and appearance of the area.

He added that there was no guarantee the works would resolve the problems complained about, other trees would continue to shade the properties, although to a lesser extent, and could also affect television aerials.

Mr Dignan also said that such trees do not generally come without some inconvenience to those living closest to them.

But he was not satisfied that the justification was sufficient to outweigh the direct loss of public amenity value and the potential for even greater loss in the long-term should the works shorten the lifespan of the tree.

He had noted that the district council had advised that a lighter reduction or crown thinning may help alleviate the problems complained of and might be worth exploring.

It seems someone was so intent on removing the tree that they were prepared to trespass twice to achieve this.

Trees are so important that many are subject to a Tree Preservation Order - and anyone who ignores that and damages a TPO tree does so at their peril. It could be costly, fines have run into thousands of pounds.

Tree Preservation Orders are not a new thing. It is thought the world’s first TPO was more than 2,000 years ago in Ancient Greece. Documents show that in 92/91 BC specific laws in relation to tree protection and the regulation of tree cutting are engraved on a heavy stone tablet.

However, in this country it was the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 when TPOs were originally introduced. So some could be more than 70 years old and still valid.

This makes it a criminal offence to cut down, top, lop, uproot, wilfully damage or wilfully destroy protected trees without prior written consent from the local authority. There is also a duty to replant a tree removed without consent.