SOUTHEND Council has come under fire following claims it had allowed the felling of more than 100 of the city’s trees this year.

Shoeburyness Residents’ Association spoke out after the latest mature tree was felled.

The healthy Norway Maple, in Shoebury High Street, was said to have been affecting the foundations of a nearby home.

Speaking on the association’s Facebook page, chairman Peter Lovett said: “Our planning department has already sentenced well over 100 mature trees to death this year, some of which had protection orders.

“The council also seems to remove trees that are leaning slightly, have a large root base on pavements and will use any excuse to support its removal.

“We tried to explain that mature trees collect 21kg of CO2 every year, so these trees are saving our future lives, but they do not seem to care.”

Richard Longstaff from Once Upon a Tree Southend is also a Green Party councillor for Leigh.

He said: “I think the council is disadvantaged in not recruiting a new director of parks and open spaces to give leadership to the parks and highways teams.

“There is clearly some disparity in preserving and increasing our vital tree canopy cover and keeping existing trees monitored and maintained in order to control growth and potential conflict with neighbouring surroundings.”

Mr Longstaff added: “Southend shouldn’t be losing this many trees. It is diminishing our tree canopy cover without any firmed up plans to increase it.”

A council spokesman said: “We never remove trees without good reason, and it is never a decision taken lightly. However, the Norway Maple tree in question was identified for removal because it is subject to an insurance claim for tree-related damage to a private property.

“When a tree within the council’s control is removed, we record the location to make sure that the tree cover within the city is maintained and extended in line with our policy. We will plant a new tree, but it might not be in the exact same spot or road.”

The spokesman added: “It’s important to note that as this tree was not subject to any planning-related designation such as a Tree Preservation Order nor is it located in a Conservation Area. Its intended removal did not involve the planning service, nor do most tree removals within the City."