IN the heart of Southend-on-Sea, at the busy and heavily polluted junction of Chichester Road and Tylers Avenue, Chester – a towering 150-year-old London plane tree – has become the focus of a community fight against urban development.
As the last remaining tree in the area, Chester plays a crucial role as a natural air filter, a fact campaigners have emphasised as a vital reason to protect him.
Far more than a natural landmark, Chester is a symbol of resilience and an enduring connection to Southend’s ecological and historical heritage. Now, his survival hangs in the balance, at the centre of a battle between residents, the local authority, and a property developer.
The controversy began in January 2024, when residents learned of plans by developer Vikesh Kotecha to construct a 14-storey luxury apartment block on the site of a former nightclub. The proposed development would require Chester to be cut down, citing roadway and pedestrian safety concerns as justification.
However, the Save Chester campaign has revealed a decision made in 2022, as the local highways department quietly approved the removal without community consultation.
A HIDDEN DECISION
It emerged that Chester’s fate had already been determined in 2022, when Southend’s highways department identified him as an obstruction to accessibility and safety. The decision to remove him was made behind closed doors, with no public consultation or attempt to explore alternative solutions. This lack of transparency only came to light in January 2024, when campaigners began scrutinising the planning application.
“This was a decision made without the community’s knowledge or input,” said Laurence Leone, a local resident and arborist with Maple Tree Surgery. “It’s shocking that such a significant part of our town’s natural heritage was put at risk without any effort to involve those who care most about it.”
Campaigners have since brought in independent arborists and urban planning experts to challenge the highways department’s rationale. Their findings were clear – alternative measures, such as adjustments to road layouts or introduction of signage, could address the alleged safety concerns without cutting down the tree.
Campaigner Tim Fransen said: “There is no legitimate reason to remove Chester. It’s completely unnecessary and deeply short-sighted.”
THE FIGHT BEGINS
The proposed development galvanised the Southend community. On 26 January, residents first became aware of the planning application, and within days began mobilising. By 29 January, activists gathered signatures near the tree, collecting over 100 in a single afternoon. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was filed on 31 January, offering Chester temporary protection while his future was debated.
By 5 February, the campaign had gone national. A Change.org petition was launched, rapidly gaining over 31,000 signatures. Chester’s story resonated with people across the UK, even drawing attention from press outlets, highlighting the broader significance of preserving urban green spaces.
Meanwhile, Southend Council continued to insist removal of the tree was necessary in the interests of public safety.
Councillor Kevin Buck said: “One of the issues is that the tree is not even on the inside of the pavement, it is in the outside and the trunk is adjacent to the road, so it presents a hazard to large vehicles like buses and lorries.
“It is presenting a challenge to keep the tree and what is important is it is just not what you see on the surface, the tree roots will reach as far as the width of the canopy of the tree.
“I don’t like to see a tree removed more than anyone else, but the council has a duty and responsibility to manage safety in a way that it has to in its authority. That means occasionally a tree has reached the end of its life as a highway tree.”
The national attention helped connect groups including campaigners focused on protecting a cherished oak tree at Thundersley Primary School, which the Save Chester group has supported and championed in recent months. Located just a few miles from Southend, the Thundersley oak has similarly faced and overcome destructive threats, rallying parents, pupils, and environmentalists in its defence.
Tim Fransen said: “The fight to save Chester has inspired and drawn strength from similar battles, such as the one for the Thundersley oak. Each of these trees tells a story of heritage, community, and the challenges we face in protecting nature.”
Katy Threveton, a campaigner who grew up in Southend, added: “This isn’t just about one tree. Chester is Southend’s own Sycamore Gap tree. Losing him would erase part of the city’s identity. It’s a reminder of how vital these trees are – not just for nature, but for us as people.”
A SYMBOL OF RESILIENCE
For many, Chester is more than a tree; he is a personal and communal symbol of resilience. “I’ve walked past Chester every day on my way to work since 1998,” said resident Ray Skinner. “There’s so little greenery left in Southend, and Chester has always been a highlight of my walk. He survived the storm of 1987 – if he can survive that, I believe he can survive this council decision and developer’s will.”
WANT MORE ARB?
- Greenmech purchase was 'three-sy peasy' for growing firm
- Toro launches new range of battery-powered tools - and 'electric switch bid'
- Fresh look (and new name) for well-known retailer
The fight to save Chester also became an artistic rallying cry. On 6 July, the community hosted a pop-up art exhibition, celebrating the tree as a muse for local artists. Events like the Save Chester Festival on 27 April further reinforced the tree’s cultural significance.
A DEVASTATING DECISION
Despite the passionate campaign, setbacks have mounted. On 31 October, the Planning Inspectorate approved the development plans, effectively sealing Chester’s fate. For campaigners, the decision was a blow – but it has not ended their fight. Dialogue with Southend Council and the developer continues, with campaigners advocating for design adjustments that could preserve Chester while allowing the development to proceed.
The highways department’s original decision from 2022 remains a sore point. “The lack of transparency has been shocking,” said Tim Fransen. “Had the community been consulted earlier, we could have found solutions that didn’t involve destroying Chester.”
CHESTER’S LEGACY
Campaigners say the fight to save Chester is about more than one tree – it’s about what he represents. The last vestige of green in an increasingly concrete cityscape, Chester is a reminder of the environmental and emotional importance of urban trees.
Katy Threveton said: “Chester’s story is a wake-up call. When we lose trees like him, we’re not just losing nature; we’re losing history, identity, and a connection to our environment. Southend deserves better, and so does Chester.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here