A BARRY resident has said she would have tied herself to a tree if she had known a 28-year-old plant faced the chop.

Gibbonsdown Rise resident Helen Cannon, who lives opposite the former Ysgol Maes Dyfan site, said she had returned home from shopping to discover a 28-year-old horse chestnut tree had been felled.

She said the school grounds, she could view from her house, was also home to a cherry blossom and apple blossom tree and she had watched the tree grow from a sapling into a fully grown plant before housing developers axed it from its spot.

She said plans she viewed afterwards on site seemed to indicate a “blunder” had been made.

Persimmon Homes East Wales gained approval for 47 new dwellings from Vale planners in May this year.

Grandmother-of-two Helen, 67, said: “Had I had known that (felling the trees) was what they were going to do I would have tied myself to the tree.

“I think there has been a blunder. I would like to know the reason why it was fenced off. If you are going to chop a tree down why fence it off? And it was a steel fence around it.

“Besides temper I felt so upset. If it was in my back garden there most probably would have been hell to pay.”

Persimmon Homes East Wales technical and special projects director Richard Keogh said: “The tree in question was shown on the original plans but was removed via a discharge of planning condition submission, which the council has approved.

“There are trees retained around the boundary of the site.”

Vale Council operational manager for development control Marcus Goldsworthy said that while the plan did indicate the retention of the tree in question – something indicated by the developer on their plans, not at the request of the council – this tree was not protected with a Tree Preservation Order and did not lie within a conservation area. Consequently, there was no formal control over the removal of the tree.

Mr Goldsworthy said: “While it is regrettable that the plan indicated the removed tree would be retained, the retention of the tree was not considered fundamental to the acceptability of the proposed development. Had that have been the case, a condition would have been imposed requiring the retention of the tree, or a Tree Preservation Order would have been placed upon the tree. It is therefore considered that the removal of the tree does not constitute a breach of the planning permission.”