School that wanted to cut down tree to protect child with nut allergy refused permission

The school argued that nuts dropping from the tree posed a significant risk to one of its pupils, who is severely allergic to nuts, as well as nine others who attend the school.

Jonathan Mayne, director of operations at Lichfield Cathedral School told planners at Lichfield District Council the school has a duty of care over its pupils.

He said: “There is no doubt this walnut tree is a beautiful, mature tree.

“Lichfield Cathedral School is certainly a friend of the natural environment. We’ve facilitated the planting of hundreds of trees – both ourselves and in partnership with others, at both of our sites.

“The removal of this walnut tree is about child safety. I would like to make clear there are no development plans for the site where the tree is currently located.

“A major part of my job is to ensure that any risks at the school are managed so as to be as low as reasonably practical.

“The tree in question overhangs one of our playgrounds that has a tarmac surface, and using that playground is a 10-year-old child with a very severe nut allergy.

“I would add there are nine other children within the school currently, also with nut allergies, who could be affected – but to a lesser degree.”

Mr Mayne said the school has a legal responsibility to support children with medical conditions, and tried to fend off scepticism about the severity of the allergy.

He said: “You may be sceptical about the risk a walnut dropping to a playground may have.

“When I showed his parents the location of the tree, the palpable fear showed by the child’s mother – who has a similar allergy –  when she saw walnuts lying on the tree in the garden where the tree is located convinced me that action has to be taken to minimise any risks to the child.”

He said walnuts being trampled underfoot may make their way into the classroom, and if the child came into contact with them it could lead to him having an anaphylactic shock.

He said a range of suggestions – such as netting, cordoning off the area or pollarding – were impracticable and had been ruled out by the school.

Members of the council’s planning committee, which was called upon to settle the issue, said they sympathised with the dilemma the school faced but that removing the tree was a disproportionate response.

Councillor David Salter said: “It seemed rather overkill to remove a tree of that nature on a possible problem, but I hadn’t considered the oils from the nuts could be trodden into the school.”

Councillor Diane Evans, who has a nut allergy and has experienced an anaphylactic shock herself, said: “What concerns me is this tree is 70 years old and potentially had 130 years left.

“For me, it would be very disappointing to fell a tree of this nature and this maturity.

“I totally understand what we’ve been told about the child, but we’ve been told the child is 10 years old.

“The child will be moving elsewhere in the not-too-distant future, maybe on to another playground or whatever.

“I would support the retention of this tree.”

Cllr Ann Hughes said there were other ways of tackling the issue.

She said: “I think it’s very difficult, but I think that tree could be there for another 170 years.

“A 10-year-old [child] will have to learn self-management and will never be 100% safe.

“I think, very narrowly, I would support the tree preservation order.”

Following their discussion of the issue, the committee confirmed they were unanimously in support of preserving the tree.