This petition went live at some point in the early hours between the 4th and 5th of January, penned while my child was ill. I was kept awake not only worrying about my child, but worrying about the future of our old King George Oak tree as rumour mounted about its imminent felling. Now a month has passed, and the tree(s) still stands. We are not quite out of the woods yet, but I can see the brambles lining the edges.

 My goodness how I, nor I'm sure we, could not have expected in early January how events would be unfolding in the weeks to come. With the petition growing to more than 4100 signatures and our fundraiser now at more than £7000, thank you everyone. Your continued support is much appreciated, particularly when communicating the progress going on in closed meetings and in the background remains a challenge owing to confidentiality. Your trust in us is humbling and a responsibility I and others involved do not take lightly.

It is unfortunate that things have not quite fully progressed as soon as hoped, despite best efforts. I am sorry for any unintended impacts on others not involved in the trees situation directly. I know how frustrating the closure of the car park and toilets is, I trust there will be a solution found very soon indeed. I hope in time we can all move forward together positively. For now, I repeat again my plea to continue to support local businesses and one another through remaining respectful and kind. Remember we live in a small town and we depend on one another more than we realise. This is hard for many of us. But things are always better when we speak in person with understanding and an open ear, than raise our voices or exchange reactive and inflammatory remarks online.

Quick updates

• There is an upcoming exhibition at the Old Grocery gallery in Wivenhoe in support of the effort to save our trees and they are asking for submissions. See here for more details. Thank you to them for the support and looking forward to seeing all the beautiful photos of the tree.
• Local artist Anna Gibb has produced a drawing of the Old King George Oak tree that will be available as a limited print soon. The image for today's update is of a draft of this drawing. Thank you Anna.
• I have been filled with hope and positivity seeing the successful campaign to protect the Middlewick Ranges site of important biodiversity value in Colchester. Read about the biodiversity value of the site here. This success shows how evidence based approaches can change decisions, following the science and hearts of passionate communities.

A (rather long) recap of why so many people are trying to save these trees

While the campaign awaits the ability to share more information together with the council on joint next steps, I thought it might be worth recapping some of the key points underlying the campaign to save the old King George oak tree. This is mostly intended for anyone who is recently following our campaign, or perhaps for those who've become a bit muddled as to why so many people are so passionate about some trees. I won’t (and can't) say much new here, but simply wanted to remind all of us why we care and are trying so hard to save the Old King George Oak tree and the nearby ash and horse chestnut due to be felled. 

Overarching asks

It is important to emphasise that the aim of this campaign is not as some might think, to “save the trees at any cost”. The campaign has always been and continues to be more nuanced than that, as challenging as nuance is to convey in snappy soundbites on the internet and banners. What we want really is a fair hearing and to ensure due process is undertaken both for the trees and the affected properties nearby (including those beyond the scope of the claim at hand).

This petition and the wider campaign asks that any imminent felling works will be held off to allow more time to consider the alternatives on a more even keel and with proper scrutiny of the facts. 

Our priority is therefore unchanged over the course of the last month, or even 19 months since all the latest effort to save the trees started - to commission an independent evaluation with an interdisciplinary team of experts providing their input on the complex issues at hand. This we then intend to use to support an evidence-based approach to decision making. Should the evaluation say other ways forward do indeed exist, this can help to counter any misleading claims made by Aviva or others in suggesting felling the trees is the only and preferred solution. We have already fundraised £7k towards this study and are hoping to raise £20k to cover professional services and legal fees, although professionals have already given time on a pro bono/low bono basis which we are grateful for. I and others are actively pursuing the engagement of industry leading professionals to assist us on an interdisciplinary evaluation.

We have sought an agreement from the beginning of the campaign with the council and Aviva that would allow for this study to take place. While positive progress is now being made we are not quite there just yet. Any rumours to suggest otherwise (ie that agreements are already finalised and well circulated) are incorrect and based on misinformed hearsay, which is frustrating for everyone involved. I must ask that people stick to the facts at hand and statements as released by WTC and the campaign for clarity. We are all still openly positive that a way forward together will be found very soon indeed. We originally expected this would be achieved within one week and we are all doing what we can to be as fast as possible.

Once there is a suitable agreement in place I feel very assured that the tree protectors will feel able to leave the tree site, and gladly. They have been keeping a 24 hour vigil within the fenced area the council have constructed. They are protecting the tree, so far successfully, from being felled. The car park was always going to be closed for a period of time (for some time between 13-31 January) by the council for the felling works in any case, and we are hopeful that this unplanned additional time will be brought to an end quickly. 

 I am, and am sure the wider campaign are, sorry for any inconveniences caused in this time. We have sought to find interim solutions but unfortunately none has been achieved as yet.

Why are we trying so hard to save these trees?

The details and evidence base has evolved somewhat since the initial inception of the petition, with us understanding now even more the potential risks that may be entailed should the trees be felled without full, holistic consideration first. But the principle remains that we feel certain a more in depth, transparent study is needed. Some key factors at play  in our seeking to give a more thorough examination of the circumstances and wanting to try to save the trees include (but not limited to):

1. Age of tree & risk of ground heave. The old King George oak tree is thought to be in excess of 150 years old, with historic maps and experts suggesting it could be as much as 180-200 years old. The redacted FOI reports seen by Aviva concur that the tree is at least of the same age as the properties. This means it's agreed between all parties that the trees are if not the same age as, then older than the properties nearby. This in basic terms means there is a decent chance of ground heave, ie that removal of the trees will create long term risks of damage to those properties (this is a basic principle of ground movement, see the Subsidence Handbook 4th edition page 11). Oak trees are particularly likely as a species to create ground heave. We are concerned that this has not been considered adequately in the decision to fell the trees. This issue is why many of the nearby residents have been very involved in the campaign to save the trees. The perceived risk is further compounded by concerns about the relationship to the railway line beyond, ground aquifers and the sloping park beyond which will exacerbate climate risks associated with flooding and drought, which the trees help to counteract at present. The liability of who would be responsible for any future claims on the resulting heave or landslides is unclear and perhaps not been adequately addressed to date, as to whether this would sit with Aviva or WTC.
2. Is subsidence the problem here? Or is there other ground movement happening in isolation/ in conjunction with subsidence? The unique condition of the houses affected and the wider context may suggest that other ground movements are occurring if not besides, then as well as, clay shrinkage subsidence cited as reason to fell the trees. A wider scope of evaluation can take into account all the potential contributing factors, and will consider whether removing the trees alone is sufficient to address any issues of ground movement, building on point 1 whether it will actually exacerbate issues in the future, and whether actually other mitigations are necessary.
3. Age of tree and biodiversity/carbon. Old oak trees are particularly valuable natural assets for people and wildlife both. The old King George oak tree’s CAVAT value has been now estimated by an Arboriculturalist at £100k. If it were better maintained in the future this value could be even higher. Replanting new trees cannot offset the loss of an older oak in biodiversity or carbon storage terms immediately. In very basic terms it will take a huge number of trees over a large number of years to get anywhere near the benefits this tree provides to us now. If the Old King George Oak tree is felled, we lose a £100k benefit to our town. Where is the compensation for this loss from Aviva? Oak trees and particularly older oak trees support a wide range of species, at over 2300+. They are even more valuable given that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in a time of ecological crisis. Every loss of an old oak tree matters.
4. Children's playground impacts. (This is my strongest personal motivation). The trees collectively provide shade, visual connection with nature and a buffer to the children's playground. For anyone whose kids play there, you'll know how hot it gets in summer months and the work these trees do to make playing there more enjoyable and safe. The trees also filter the air from the car park and road beyond, and provide privacy screens between the residents and park activities, limiting any perceived nuisance. Their loss will profoundly alter the condition of the children's playground and it will very likely be impossible to plant new trees in their place given the issues raised around subsidence. The impact will be felt most by people, children, who have no say in their loss. We have received a large number of drawings from the Wivenhoe younger population and many children have visited the tree to express their regret at the situation.
5. Concerns over lack of consultation, due process and quality of evidence from Aviva. The latest evaluation materials are held confidentially, a requirement placed upon WTC by Aviva. From what we have seen from the FOI material for an earlier study, we have suspicions over the quality of the conclusions that felling the trees will address movement issues in affected properties and that alternative mitigations have been appropriately considered. These concerns were raised in the last 18-20 months with the council through normal channels, and yet we find ourselves in this predicament today. The residents nearby in Clifton terrace say they have not been consulted on the felling of the trees and are not confident that the potential impacts on their properties is adequately factored in. Generally, a large number of the Wivenhoe community would like to see a more transparent decision making process with opportunity to support with crowdfunding and alternative creative solutions should these be viable.
6. Should subsidence be taking place, alternative mitigations exist and may be preferable. The Financial Ombudsman generally is finding preference to more long lasting solutions than felling trees and patch repairing cracks (which is what will likely happen here and be unsatisfactory to affected residents). Subsidence is an expensive business for insurers and they pay companies like those involved in the evaluations to date here (Innovations Group) to ensure their costs are minimised. This does not result in the best outcome for consumers and the ombudsman is increasingly in favour of alternative mitigations such as ground engineering or underpinning as more long lasting solutions. Solutions can cost £30-50k for root barriers or ground engineering. This is proportionate to the value of the tree. Underpinning becomes proportionate where it starts to also address issues of future ground heave against other properties nearby and the financial implications there. We are concerned that failing to undertake long term works to address any ground movement would mean the trees are felled now, we lose some amazing assets and still 5, 10 or 20 years down the line the same properties will have the same issues (or worse) and still need work doing.
7. Setting a precedent in Wivenhoe against similar happening again to more households and more trees, and our council. Subsidence and ground movement claims are increasing with climate change and an ageing housing stock. Insurers are known to want to cut corners to maximise profits. Cases like this are playing out nationwide. Councils or homeowners are pressured by large corporations and feel unable to push back given the disproportionate balance of power. But Wivenhoe is full of brilliant people working together and we feel confident that there is enough to suggest this is worth fighting for. Insurance companies like Aviva can of course afford to do alternative mitigations here. They also very publicly say they care about the environment, so we ask them to simply have the integrity to accept they have not found the most environmentally sustainable solution as they've suggested. This is a growing crisis nationwide, we are not alone here and we have seen similar stories unfold elsewhere where the trees have been saved by communities like ours. By standing against the felling of these trees now and establishing a process we are satisfied with as a collective, we can be prepared in the future should similar situations arise again (which they inevitably will without wider system changes.)
8. Wivenhoe is, simply, better with these trees than without.  Mature trees like these are a special part of our town’s history and association with the original Wivenhoe Hall, as much as the beautiful brick walls and architecture remaining. We love them, and we want to do our bit to try to save them to ensure they can live a long and healthy life for generations to come.

To conclude 

So if you've made it this far, I hope you can appreciate that I  and many others have hope, not rooted (pardon the pun) in fantasy, but based on facts. Saving the trees is very likely possible and worthwhile, while also being possible to be complementary to ensuring the long term safety of the houses affected. 

Should, of course, no alternatives be possible and the trees really do need felling according to independent experts, then undertaking a more transparent process with experts who are not appointed directly by the insurer will allow us all to feel that the decision has been entered into for the right reasons. We would in this instance look to support the council in ensuring proper mitigations and offsets are undertaken to minimise losses faced by our town and in building an approach for other similar cases that may arise in Wivenhoe in the future, given the increasing challenges urban trees face. We would also make sure to make effective use of any funds remaining from our Crowdfunder to prioritise mitigating any loss, supporting biodiversity and carbon sequestration and addressing the above concerns.

I appreciate the challenge that continued delays to an agreement are bringing. I still feel hopeful that a resolution can be found very soon and hope to bring more news very soon indeed on next steps.

Thank you all for the support. I am now going to recall a bit of sage advice, that nothing worth doing has ever been easy.