Former Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been hit with a £70,000 bill to repair his home after losing another battle with neighbours to cut down a troublesome tree in his back garden.
The former MP, 59, is now threatening to sue his local council for compensation after they threw out his second bid to chop down the ‘outstandingly beautiful’ 26ft high Acer.
He claims its roots have caused damage to the foundations of his £3.5million home in leafy Primrose Hill, north London, with cracking in walls and ceilings.
He says it will now cost £68,273 to have the five-storey townhouse underpinned compared with just £3,273 if the tree were removed to stop subsidence caused by clay shrinkage.
Another tree he blames for the damage is a 37ft high Mimosa is in his neighbour’s garden.
Miliband is at war with his neighbours who objected to the felling of the Acer, claiming it was a haven for wildlife and provided privacy to homes backing on to each other in a Conservation Area.
Agents acting for Mr Miliband, who lost out to his brother Ed for the Labour leadership in 2010, made separate applications last year to fell both trees due to ‘root nuisance’.
Former Foreign Secretary David Miliband (pictured) is at war with his neighbours who objected to the felling of the Acer, claiming it was a haven for wildlife
The 58-year-old wants to fell a large Acer tree at his five-storey home in the celebrity enclave of Primrose Hill in North London
The former MP is now threatening to sue his local council for compensation after they threw out his second bid to chop down the ‘outstandingly beautiful’ 26ft high Acer (pictured)
They submitted reports by construction experts suggesting that the Mimosa was the primary cause of the subsidence damage to the ex-politician’s terraced home, and the Acer was a potential secondary cause.
The trees were blamed for sucking up moisture in the clay sub-soil around the foundations at the rear of the four-bedroom house, causing downward movement in the brickwork and cracks to appear.
But council officers ruled there was not enough evidence to conclude that either specimen was to blame, and slapped Tree Preservation Orders on both of them.
Mr Miliband who earns a reported £500,000-a-year in his high-powered leadership role at the New York-based International Rescue Committee, had a second application submitted this year to fell the Acer.
But once again it was rejected by Camden Council after some neighbours objected including one who described it as an ‘outstandingly beautiful’ feature in the neighbourhood which has other famous residents including actors Jenna Coleman, Daisy Ridley and Julian Clary.
A report submitted by Mr Miliband’s insurers suggested that underpinning work would cost £65,000 if the trees were not removed
A report submitted by Mr Miliband’s insurers suggested that underpinning work would cost £65,000 if the trees were not removed, and made the threat that the council would be sued to recover the cost.
It said that failure to allow the felling meant Mr Miliband would have ‘to stabilise the building by other means by way of mass concrete underpinning, and pursue compensation from the council for this excessive cost outlay’.
Remedial work to repair cracks in his home would cost only £3,273 if the risk of future subsidence was removed by the felling of the trees, meaning no underpinning would be needed, the report said.
A report prepared for Mr Miliband provisionally concluded that ‘current damage’ to his house was due to ‘differential foundation movement exasperated by moisture abstraction from vegetation growing adjacent to the property’s foundations’.
The report identified the neighbour’s Mimosa as the primary cause while the Acer could not be discounted ‘as contributing to the overall level of soil drying’ and was regarded as ‘a contributory influence’.
A further report, drawn up after an excavation, found roots, identified as from the Mimosa, as being around the foundations and to blame for the ‘clay shrinkage’.
Mr Miliband’s planning agent added: ‘In the event of a refusal, we, or our clients, will seek to secure compensation for the additional costs incurred.’
Neighbours who objected to the removal of the Acer included Wendy Levitt who wrote: ‘I object to the felling of this outstandingly beautiful tree which I overlook directly from my house.
‘A haven for birds, bees and squirrels, it contributes substantially to the corridor of gardens… a rare environmental amenity at this time of threat from climate change.
‘It also significantly reduces overlooking between houses built so closely together.
‘The notification of its felling comes very soon after the earlier notification which Camden overturned in November 2023, not finding it to be contributing to significant cracking.
‘I would like to know how much the situation has changed in that period of time and why the usual methods of remedying any cracking seem not (to have) been tried.’
Another near neighbour Daniel Stillit wrote: ‘It should not be destroyed on environmental grounds and for the terrible impact it will have on us.
‘In particular, my daughter, who has chronic illness, spends much of her time in the shade of this tree. There is a shortage of trees in the vicinity and the TPO should be respected.’
A third resident added: ‘Removing this tree would considerably change the privacy screen between my house and the houses in the neighbouring street.
The trees were blamed for sucking up moisture in the clay sub-soil around the foundations at the rear of the four bedroom house
‘Since the fig tree was removed the Acer is even more important as a green corridor through our neighbourhood.’
The council dismissed the latest application to fell the Acer, saying: ‘The tree is considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area’
The ruling noted that soil samples and monitoring indicated ‘seasonal movement of the foundations that might be associated with vegetation’.
But it said that the Acer could not be blamed as no root samples from the Acer were found in a trial pit and borehole, suggesting ‘on the balance of probabilities’ that the tree was not ‘contributing to the damage’.
The council’s separate ruling against the felling of the Mimosa admitted that analysis had found root samples next to the foundations from ‘the same taxonomic family as the Mimosa tree’.
But the ruling argued that the monitoring did not ‘present any results of a cyclical nature’ showing an upward movement in the foundations during the wetter winter months which would be expected if vegetation was to blame for the subsidence.
It concluded: ‘Consequently, the evidence submitted at this time is not considered to demonstrate on the balance of probability that the tree is contributing to the damage.’
The council granted separate applications to a neighbour at the rear of Miliband’s home who wanted to cut back branches of the Acer and Mimosa overhanging their garden.
The tree row is the second time that Mr Miliband has been embroiled in a dispute with neighbours.
Soon after he relocated to New York in 2013 with his family neighbours complained about raucous parties being held by property developer Robert Soning who had rented the house for £7,000 a month.
Mr Soning, the son-in-law of Labour donor Sir David Garrard, admitted to staging parties, including one for his daughter, but said neighbours were on a ‘witch hunt’ and they were ‘too sensitive.’
