Save Wivenhoe's Old King George Oak tree
Save Wivenhoe's Old King George Oak tree
Latest: Feb. 25, 2026
Judicial review permission granted!
On Monday 23rd Feb, it was confirmed that permission was granted for a Judicial Review to take place. This is important news for us!
This means the Court has decided that the legal issues raised about…
Read moreThis fundraiser supports an ongoing judicial review concerning the proposed felling of Old King George, a 170 year old oak tree in Wivenhoe, and a nearby horse chestnut. The court has granted interim protection, but further funds are now needed to ensure the legal process can continue and the issues are properly examined.
Background
'Old King George', a 170 year old oak tree, and a nearby horse chestnut have been identified by insurer Aviva as contributing to subsidence affecting two nearby properties.
However, this is disputed by members of the community, alongside recommendations from several experts who have found that underpinning is the most appropriate solution to the movement issues being observed. The movement is considered likely to be influenced by a combination of factors, including the presence of a nearby railway line (with associated vibration and slope), poor ground conditions, shallow foundations, a history of underpinning within the terrace, drainage and water issues, and the contribution of vegetation. In this context, the decision to attribute responsibility primarily to the trees has been questioned, as has the extent of their contribution. There is also concern that removing the trees could itself create harms, including risks of ground heave affecting nearby properties, as well as environmental harm locally and more widely.
Despite these concerns having been widely and consistently shared with relevant parties, Aviva has continued to press for the trees to be felled by Wivenhoe Town Council, and has indicated the possibility of a nuisance claim otherwise, which could have significant financial implications for the council. WTC appears to have felt unable to resist this pressure, despite there being evidence suggesting there may be grounds to challenge the nuisance claim. There are concerns that, if the trees were felled in line with current plans, WTC may not have fully complied with all relevant statutory processes and could risk acting unlawfully.
Campaign history
I started a petition on 5 January 2025 to try to save the Old King George Oak tree in Wivenhoe, as news began to spread about the original felling plans. From the rapid response (over 1,500 signatures in 48 hours and now more than 5,200 signatures), and the subsequent array of media coverage, it quickly became apparent that the Wivenhoe community wanted to see these trees protected from felling.
By Spring 2025, a large number of people from the Wivenhoe community came together to raise an initial sum of more than £11,500 to fund independent expert evidence and initial legal advice in an effort to protect the trees.
The original plans to fell the trees in early 2025 were delayed to allow an independent expert evaluation to be undertaken, with a "tree protection camp" spontaneously forming during the coldest months of January and February, where members of the community peacefully protested the decision to fell. A delay was then agreed with Wivenhoe Town Council and Aviva. This enabled detailed technical assessment and professional scrutiny of the case. As a result of this work, and subsequent engagement, serious questions continue to arise about whether felling is justified or proportionate in this uniquely complex setting, and whether all relevant environmental duties and statutory processes have been properly followed.
Where things stand now
In late December 2025, with felling imminent (planned for 5 January 2026) and no realistic prospect of the decision-maker agreeing to pause the works, an application was made to the High Court for Judicial Review, combined with an Application for Urgent Consideration and interim relief.
The Court has now (29th December 2025) granted interim injunctive relief, preventing the felling or damage of the trees while the legal issues are considered properly. This safeguard is temporary and is not a final decision on the future of the trees. Its purpose is to ensure that irreversible harm does not occur before the lawfulness of the decision-making is properly examined.
Why further funds are needed
We began seeking to boost our funds in the lead-up to the court application and have so far built available funding of approximately £15,500, which was sufficient to support a responsible application. This includes a combination of direct contributions to our previous Crowdfunder page and pledges made in the event that further funds are required. We are so grateful to everyone who has helped us get to this point.
The next phase of the case now involves progressing the substantive judicial review proceedings, which requires significant further legal work. This may include:
- preparing and finalising the grounds and evidence for the judicial review;
- responding to the defendant’s evidence and legal arguments;
- securing specialist legal advice and representation; and
- meeting court fees and associated costs.
We estimate that a further £15,000 - £20,000 is likely to be required to supplement our existing funds and pledges already made, towards an overall target of £30,000 - £35,000. This should allow the case to be pursued properly, proportionately, and responsibly.
All funds raised will be used to support the legal process and associated professional advice.
Why this legal action matters
This case is about ensuring that decisions of this magnitude - involving the irreversible loss of significant mature trees, potential environmental harm, and long-term implications for nearby homes - are made lawfully, transparently, and on the basis of full and properly disclosed evidence.
Concerns have been raised over several years by members of the Wivenhoe community, including residents living closest to the trees, about the adequacy of the evidence relied upon, the exploration of alternatives to felling, and the fairness and independence of the process to date. Despite repeated requests, key information remained unavailable or subject to ongoing review at the point felling was due to occur.
The interim injunction exists to prevent a situation where the trees are felled first, only for it to be found later that the decision should not have been taken in that way.
There are also wider public concerns about how subsidence claims are handled within the insurance industry, as reported by The Guardian and others. Our situation may be seen as a local case study within a broader national context, and many people from across the UK have already offered support on this basis. We are very mindful that a small town council is not well-resourced to contend with the financial and technical capacity of a large insurer such as Aviva, but also that it's imperitive that decisions of this gravity should be taken following all relevant statutory and legal process.
Environmental and public interest context
The Court has recognised that this is an environmental (Aarhus Convention) claim, which exists to ensure that members of the public can challenge decisions affecting the environment without the process being prohibitively expensive.
Old King George is a much-loved local landmark next to a children’s playground and an irreplaceable environmental asset. Mature oak trees of this age provide carbon storage, cooling, flood mitigation, and biodiversity value that cannot be replicated by replacement planting. In a climate and biodiversity emergency, decisions to remove such assets demand the highest standards of scrutiny.
How your support helps
By contributing, you are helping to ensure that:
- the judicial review can proceed to be properly considered by the Court;
- the lawfulness of the decision-making can be tested openly and fairly; and
- irreversible environmental harm does not occur before that examination takes place.
We are deeply grateful for any support you are able to give. Whatever the outcome, this process is intended to promote transparency, accountability, and respect for environmental law in decisions that affect the public and future generations.
Katherine (Kat) Scott
Feb. 25, 2026
Judicial review permission granted!
On Monday 23rd Feb, it was confirmed that permission was granted for a Judicial Review to take place. This is important news for us!
This means the Court has decided that the legal issues raised about the decision to fell the Old King George oak and the nearby horse chestnut are properly arguable and should be examined at a full hearing.
Permission has been granted on all grounds advanced in the application, which together concern the evidential basis of the decision, the decision-making process, consideration of alternatives to felling, environmental duties and whether the decision was taken lawfully. The Council must now file its detailed response and evidence within 35 days of permission service. The claimant represented by Richard Buxton Solicitors will then have 21 days to reply, after which the Court will list a hearing. The Court has indicated that the case is suitable for a one-day hearing.
Last Friday, there was an unexpected turn of events however, with Wivenhoe Town Council's solicitors sharing reports which they said suggest the Old King George Oak tree to have Acute Oak Decline syndrome, and which in their view means the tree would need to be felled with some urgency. This assertion is disputed so far based on the information provided. The council have not yet formally sought to lift the injunction protecting Old King George and a nearby horse chestnut from harm or felling, though they have publicly signalled an intention to do so. We are in the process of seeking independent professional advice and will cooperate fully with both the Council and the Court so that any decisions are informed by appropriate expertise.
With all this in mind, we continue to seek to fundraise towards our ongoing and potential future legal costs, and are grateful as ever for all the ongoing support received. We have made some good headway towards our £20,000 stretch target already, and now we know that a Judicial Review is to take place, we will be putting some real energy into the fundraising efforts again. If you can help to spread the word of our CrowdJustice page and help us to keep momentum going we would really appreciate it.
We will be sharing information of events and plans in coming weeks to help us reach the full target. This weekend there will be a pop-up shop held at the Sentinel Gallery in Wivenhoe (10-5, both Sat and Sun), it would be great to see you there if you can make it! There will be local artist-made works for sale, ceramics, plants, and more. There are also plans for an auction and for a fun music event in the works.
Thanks again for all the support, we will share more news when we have it!
Save Wivenhoe's Old King George
ps you can follow us on Bluesky, Twitter/X, Instagram and Facebook if you want to hear more regular updates.
Katherine (Kat) Scott
Jan. 23, 2026
Minimum funding target smashed...Stretch target unlocked!
A huge thank you to everyone who has helped us reach our first crucial fundraising target of £10,000 towards the CrowdJustice campaign, almost a week ahead of schedule! We can’t quite believe the generosity that’s been shown, especially in January of all months. While there may still be a long and uncertain path ahead, for now we are taking a moment to celebrate this important milestone.
This fundraiser was set up as a sprint towards a larger overall target, with the initial £10,000 minimum target structured as an all-or-nothing threshold. This was to give clarity about the viability of continuing the legal case and to cover legal fees accrued so far. At times, we were genuinely nervous about whether we would reach this point, or whether our journey would be forced to stop sooner than expected.
Reaching this target earlier than planned gives us the confidence to continue pursuing the case towards a full Judicial Review, for which we’ve been advised we are likely to need around £30-35,000 in total. This £10,000 adds to the £15,500 previously raised (through cash contributions and pledged support), bringing us to a total of £25,500 available or committed towards the case.
This leaves us seeking to raise a further £5,000-£10,000 to reach the recommended budget. We are currently awaiting a response from Wivenhoe Town Council’s solicitors to the injunction order and Judicial Review application, as well as confirmation of next steps from the High Court. We don’t yet know how soon the full amount will be needed; at this stage it appears unlikely to be needed immediately and is more likely to be needed in weeks or months, rather than a matter of days.
Our stretch target to get us there is now unlocked on CrowdJustice and we’ll be doing everything we can over the coming weeks to keep the momentum going. That starts this weekend with a pop-up shop at the Wivenhoe Bookshop shed (just behind the bookshop, down Blythe Lane), featuring plants, artworks by local artists and creatives, fashion and more.
Please keep an eye out for news of further events and activities as they’re confirmed. We will, of course, share updates as soon as we’re able to on the legal case too to give more certainty for when we need to be able to raise the full target by.
We are incredibly fortunate to live among such creative, generous and kind people. Thank you, truly.
Katherine (Kat) Scott
Jan. 9, 2026
Front page news and halfway to funding target!
Hello everyone,
Thank you so much for your support so far! Our ten days have been amazing, we have already reached over the halfway point to our minimum fundraising target of £10,000! This is amazing, we really appreciate every single donation that has brought us to this point.
We now have just under 3 weeks left to our reach our minimum target by the 29th January! If you can please share our story and spread the word with other people, it would really help to make a difference. (See links and social media accounts at the end of this update.) Our longer term stretch target is to raise £15-20,000 to be in the position for a full Judicial Review.
Today our story also hit the front page in local newspaper, the Colchester Gazette, with the headline 'Axing oak won't fix house problems'. They reported on the situation of one of the families affected by the movement issues involved in the subsidence claim at the heart of our story. The Dutton family have said 'we don't want to see the trees chopped, and we don't think temporary repairs are the right solution.' They seek, on the advice of their engineers, underpinning. This is consistent with the separate recommendations made in our Independent Expert Evaluation report too.
The front page of the Colchester Gazette 09 Jan 2026 - more below
We wanted to take this opportunity to say that we are very sorry to hear about the situation faced by the affected homeowners and residents, and the difficulties this family has experienced over several years in being heard. No one involved in this campaign underestimates the stress and uncertainty that structural damage and potential subsidence can cause, and we recognise how challenging this must be for those directly affected.
It is sometimes assumed that this campaign is about “saving the trees at all costs”. That is not the case. Our aim has always been to ensure a transparent and lawful decision-making process, with proper disclosure of the evidence relied upon. We are concerned that felling the trees at this stage may not resolve the movement issues affecting the properties, and that underpinning could still be required later. If so, the trees would have been lost without addressing the underlying problem, at significant and irreversible cost to the wider community.
We do not believe it is appropriate for such an irreversible decision as felling these trees to be taken before key processes have concluded, including the complaints to the Financial Ombudsman that we understand have been made by the Dutton family, and before outstanding Environmental Information Regulations requests have been properly answered. These issues formed part of what was put before the court and were taken into account in the judicial review application and for granting interim relief via the Injunction Order. We await further news on the court case and will share news when we have it.
We believe the injunction provides necessary time for all competing risks and interests to be properly examined, rather than decisions being taken in haste at the insurer Aviva's behest. We hope that all affected residents will ultimately be given a fair and lasting solution.
You can read our thoughts as reported separately by today's Gazette here. The front cover article referenced above isn't live yet as a digital piece, but we will share on social media when it becomes available. We have profiles on Bluesky, X, Instagram and an active community on Facebook. Please give us a follow and say hello whatever your flavour of social media!
We hope sharing this story with you all helps you to see the value in the fundraising efforts and the wider legal case this seeks to support. If you believe in our story, please share our CrowdJustice page link on whatever social media platforms you use, or by email to people you think will be sympathetic to our cause.
Thanks again,
Kat
#SaveOldKingGeorge
_hmBVBXC.jpeg)
More detail from the front page story
_JYAyLJ7.jpeg)
The inside story
Recent contributions