A Rochdale resident has been left fuming, and slightly more shaded than she’d like, after the council ruled that a 100-year-old oak tree’s right to exist takes precedence over her right to a branch-free driveway.
Swera Khalild, owner of a house that came second in a game of chicken with a tree that’s been there since the Edwardian era, applied to Rochdale Council to have “every branch that overhangs the garden” lopped off a stately oak protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The tree, which reportedly predates electricity in the area and at least three local councillors, is considered a “significant local landmark,” unlike her driveway, which is not.
“The tree was there first,” the council concluded, in what might be the clearest legal precedent since finders keepers.
The oak, part of a clutch of leafy titans under the watchful eye of Tree Preservation Order 297, allegedly commits regular atrocities including “blocking light,” “clogging drains with leaves,” and “existing near a property built in full knowledge of its proximity.” Ms Khalild’s proposal to amputate unspecified branches was met with horror by the council’s tree officer, who objected “unreservedly”, presumably while hugging the tree and weeping softly.
Local residents have weighed in, with one pensioner stating, “It’s a tree. It does tree things. If you don’t like trees, perhaps don’t move next to one that’s been there longer than most domestic plumbing.”
Council planning officers noted that no specific branches were identified in the application, leading them to conclude that the whole thing was “basically a vibes-based attack on one of Rochdale’s few remaining natural landmarks.” They also pointed out that moving into a house next to a protected oak and then complaining about the oak is akin to buying a flat above a kebab shop and then lobbying to ban garlic sauce.
When pressed for further justification, Khalild cited “visible damage” to one limb, blocked drains, and the general indignity of living in partial shade. These were deemed insufficient, especially as none involved the tree attacking her with a chainsaw or demanding tribute in acorns.
The council’s final verdict was firm: “No, you can’t cut off half the tree because it slightly inconveniences your lifestyle. That’s not how this works.”
The tree, for its part, declined to comment but was seen standing majestically, minding its own business, and harbouring approximately 47 species of bird and two suspicious squirrels.
