A 250-year-old tree has emerged as the latest stumbling block in The Petersfield School's multi- million pound plans for new sports facilities. The giant oak stands on a patch of land which The Cranford Road-based school has earmarked for the installation of an all-weather pitch. And headteacher Nigel Poole says the tree preservation order-protected tree must be removed for safety reasons after it developed a condition which means a heavy branch falls off each summer. But this week, a father of two children at TPS branded the school "underhanded", claiming proper tree maintenance would cure it of the "summer limb drop". He added that the school was merely trying to pave the way for its ambitious plans for sports facilities as part of a proposed land-swap deal with neighbours Tesco. Jonathan West, who is also a woodlands consultant based in Clanfield, said: "Saying it is unsafe is a manipulated way of taking a tree down. In this case, it is so that the school can make way for a sports pitch. It's what developers do and it is underhand tactics. "If the tree is unsafe, why are children allowed near it when urgent corrective work could be carried out within a few days? "The school business manager was made aware of the condition of the tree last October, and no attempt has been made to make it safe. "Is this a method of preparing the citizens of Petersfield for its removal? If I am wrong about the affair, anyone is welcome to call me a conspirator." Mr West has vowed to start a campaign to save the tree and says there is no reason why it can't be saved. But Mr Poole said this week that he would need to remove the tree even if the sports pitch was not built, and he said that children's safety at the school came before anything. He told The Herald: "The fact that it has lost a large branch for two consecutive years suggests that it may continue to do so given the particular condition it suffers from. "I cannot risk children's safety, and I am firmly convinced that the only safe course of action is to remove the tree and then involve pupils in replacement planting thereafter. "If I am forced to retain the tree because of the best intentions of others who are not directly responsible for the safety of more than 1,000 children, I trust that they will be prepared to accept responsibility should any accidents then befall children as a result. "I cannot stress how strongly I feel about this – you cannot take risks with other people's children's safety." Adele Poulton, an arboricultural officer at East Hampshire District Council, told The Herald: "The tree certainly has a tree preservation order and we would not have placed one on it if we did not think it was worthy of protection. "There is a duty of care for any tree preservation oder-protected tree, and whoever owns the land it is on is responsible for its safety."
