'Trees need a new law for protection' say Devon family - as they vow to fight on
Planners last night agreed with a long campaign by the Taylor Cantrill family that 'Redd's Tree' was not the problem and should not be felled
Last updated 6th Aug 2025
After winning their three-year battle with an insurance company, a Devon family’s now campaigning for a change in the law to protect trees.
Last night town councillors in Exmouth backed building surveyor Scott Taylor Cantrill’s campaign - along with his engineer wife Linda, who had always maintained their 200-year old tree was not causing their home to subside.
More than 800 people had signed a petition backing the couple, who want the potential financial risks removed for councils that refuse applications from insurance companies - and more help for residents who challenge insurance firms.
Linda Taylor Cantrill said: "Insurance companies have taken down trees because tree owners don't know what to do, don't understand the system and don't understand what evidence looks like and what 'non-evidence' looks like - but we do.
"We dissected everything that was submitted to our town council and we got other professionals in - that we'd not met before - to look over all the evidence and they came to the same conclusion that we did. There was no evidence (to remove the tree), no roots were found."
Husband Scott added: "Thankfully it's come out with a refusal, but that is through hard work, diligence and through the team we've had around us. Other people, who've been in the same position as us, haven't had that knowledge and haven't had that team around them and they haven't therefore saved their tree.
"We're going to Government to say 'you need to change this law' because people are suffering and trees are suffering and buildings are suffering because of this.
"This family is never going to get the time back that we've had to put into this - and we shouldn't have had to do that in the first place."
Councillor Joe Whibley is the chair of Exmouth Town Council's planning committee, who warned after making the decision last night: "It has happened. There have been cases and we nearly had a case like that here and it's certainly been documented that it's been happening whereby the easy way out for the insurance company is to apply to have the tree removed.
"When insurance companies apply effectively to knock down trees they often do so without the consent of the residents. The way that the law works, if a council refuses to knock down a tree because it's causing subsidence the insurance company can put the charges for underpinning the house - or installing other things to the house to mitigate against that - they can charge the costs of that to the council."
Sarah Dodd is the director of Tree Law, which represents councils, homeowners and insurers across a wide range of cases.
More than 300 people have already signed up to her online 'tree law conference' next month looking at the issue.
She said councils are 'facing a claim for compensation, not quite understanding how much money that might be for and how to deal with the defence of that claim - and actually is it going to be wider than just the damage to the implicated property in just the scenario which they are dealing with?
"Is there a risk, which is quite often mentioned, that actually if the tree isn't removed then not only is it going to keep damaging the property that's implicated in the current scenario but it could then go on and damage neighbouring properties at which point planning authorities can panic a little and think this just feels like a non-stop constantly-increasing potential financial risk."
What is the current law?
At the moment, section 202E of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ', makes provision for the payment of compensation where damage or loss has occurred because of the LPA decision to refuse consent'. The updated Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 rules that 'if the application can demonstrate that the tree on the balance of probabilities, is likely to be a contributing factor to the reported damage, the LPA can be held liable for any additional repair costs incurred with the tree retained, as a result of its decision to refuse consent'.
The full report which went to planners last night in Exmouth can be found here (Redd's Tree is the first application and relates to a property in St John's Road]
What does the insurance industry say?
An industry spokesperson has maintained there is 'no default' to cut down a tree and all cases are assessed individually and on their own merits.
An ABI spokesperson said: “Subsidence can have a detrimental impact on properties, including people’s homes, and it can be incredibly worrying and stressful for anyone affected.
“Insurers understand concerns with tree felling, and they will assess each claim on a case-by-case basis, striking a balance between preserving greenery while ensuring that property owners are protected. Sometimes there are alternative solutions, such as introducing tree-root barriers, or tree reductions, but these are not always possible due to space and the proximity of a tree to a property. Underpinning the foundations is another alternative to tree removal, but this itself has an environmental impact via the use of carbon-intensive concrete – alongside being a lengthy and disruptive process for property owners.
“We recently provided feedback as part of Forestry England’s consultation to update the joint protocol for handling cases of tree felling, which, when published, we hope will bring more clarity to councils and insurers alike. Prevention is always better than cure, so we’d encouraging careful consideration when planting trees to help avoid any issues further down the line.”
Following the council meeting, a spokesperson for Allianz UK said: "“Subsidence is a widely known issue in the home insurance market and occurs when the ground beneath a building sinks, pulling the property’s foundations down with it.
“Our buildings experts have surveyed the property and confirmed that an oak tree is causing the damage to the policyholder’s home but we understand their concerns about removing it.
“After a review of this claim, we can confirm that the tree will not be removed, and our experts will visit the property to discuss alternative options to resolve the problem.”