Weather
Council pulls down teens' tree house (From The Oxford Times)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
Council pulls down teens' tree house
7:00am Wednesday 24th June 2009
TEENAGERS who spent two weeks building a tree house have been left upset after Oxford City Council turned up and tore it down.
The youngsters, who used their own cash to buy building materials, had been praised for their efforts at Spindleberry Close Nature Reserve, in Blackbird Leys.
'At least these kids were using their initiative and keeping out of trouble, but they should have asked permission'
Gordon Roper
The city council said it was pulled down because the local authority would have been liable if anyone had injured themselves inside the house, and others had used it as a drinking den.
Daniel Hewitt, from Knights Road, said a group of about eight friends had spent two weeks finding the materials and constructing the tree house, complete with tarpaulin roof, carpets and windows.
The 17-year-old said: “I’m a bit angry they did it without even giving us a warning. It was the best thing we have ever managed to make, and we were not using it to do anything we should not have been doing.
“We looked around and it was the best place we could find because it was out of the way and not noticeable.”
The teenagers finished building the treehouse on Monday, June 15, after asking neighbours for materials and spending about £50 of their own money to finish the job.
But, when they returned on Wednesday, the tree house had been dismantled and all the materials taken away.
Daniel admitted they had not asked the council for permission, but had approached one of the neighbourhood PCSOs who had no problems with what they were doing.
He said: “We want them to apologise and hopefully build another one for us.”
Some neighbours complained the spot was being used as a drinking den, but one parent said the teenagers were not .
Daniel’s father Mr Hewitt said: “I know my boys don’t do anything antisocial and they wouldn’t have been smoking or drinking in there, they are all pretty good kids.
“They weren’t causing trouble to anybody and we thought it was a great idea for them.”
Council spokesman Chris Lee said the tree house had been built without permission in a nature area. He said: “We had reports that the structure and surrounding area was attracting various forms of antisocial behaviour, including drinking. We found evidence of drinking on the site. We have also seen evidence of drug-taking on this site in the past and our park rangers have worked in partnership with PSCOs and street wardens to rid the area of this problem.
“We do not want these issues to reappear.”
Mr Lee said because the house was on council land, the authority could have been liable if anyone had been injured while using it.
He said: “We would suggest that people do not build things like this without permission.
“Our parks team are always on hand to discuss ideas to improve our parks and open spaces.”
Gordon Roper, former parish council chairman, said: “At least these kids were using their initiative and keeping out of trouble, but they should have asked permission.”
More News stories
- Stars shine for Childish Things
- Walking miles makes a difference
- 286 fined for littering Oxford
- Literary festival sets record
- Lap-dancing club opens
- Ofsted report sparks concern
- Cameron in Sport Relief run
- Boys will get cookery lessons
- Oxfordshire dancers win trophies
- Brookes students design shelter to help quake victims
Your Say YourOxford
Abingdon_born_Cowley, Abingdon says...
9:53am Wed 24 Jun 09
Perhaps they could set up a summer project about bivawacking or something similar and offer the 8 youngsters who built this a free place on the course as some sort of acknowledgment that what they were doing was great, but sadly illegal.
Peat, Littlemore says...
10:16am Wed 24 Jun 09
We were of course devastated at the time and couldn't understand why.
But, they were just covering thier a&ses.
I feel for the kids in the story, but not the parents who are defending 'thier little angels'. They are stupid if they think thier kids are'nt experimenting with drink and cigs in there..... But so what, it shouldn't matter.
What does matter though, is if it were to collapse because, lets face it, these kids are not civil engineers....
The parents would be raping an 'irresponsible' council for all they are worth.
I am not condoning the way things are, merely commenting on them. I think its very sad.
cottage2day, Oxford says...
11:03am Wed 24 Jun 09
Tom Daily, oxford says...
12:02pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Drink? Doss house? Drug house?
Plus what happens when a 10 year old or younger climbs in and potentially dies because the structure is not safe. Or if too many people climb in and the structure fails?
Not a good idea, I would prefer to see a supervised project.
DanOxford, Oxford says...
12:22pm Wed 24 Jun 09
William Windsor, Oxford says...
1:10pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Tom Daily wrote:What if .... what if...? Why live like that, you would do nothing if all you worry about is what if.
Why would 17 years want a tree house??? Drink? Doss house? Drug house? Plus what happens when a 10 year old or younger climbs in and potentially dies because the structure is not safe. Or if too many people climb in and the structure fails? Not a good idea, I would prefer to see a supervised project.
They were having a bit of fun and the council over-reacted as is usual.
If the treehouse is there or not alcoholics and drug users alike use this area on a regular basis, in fact if these lads are there building treehouses the drinkers and the druggies are probably more likely to stay away because the majority want to 'shoot up' in private.
The council worrying about being sued because of accidents should wait for the claims in five years when these lads sue them for causing 'a bad childhood' and 'psychological problems' caused by the destruction of their creation. Let kids be kids and clampdown on the real little scrotes that live round there and everybody will be a lot happier.
Tom Daily, oxford says...
1:57pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Its easy to shoot your mouth of on the side lines, but people like you will be no where to be found when a 5 sigure sum will easily be awarded for an accident to a member of the public!
If anyone wants to build a tree house do so in your own garden or a kind neighbour such as William which is private!
William Windsor, Oxford says...
2:19pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Tom Daily wrote:Couple of things Tommy :
William, why dont you guarantee to pay out any no win no fee claims, which could be put in if a kid was to have an accident on a un authorised playden on public gorunds? Its easy to shoot your mouth of on the side lines, but people like you will be no where to be found when a 5 sigure sum will easily be awarded for an accident to a member of the public! If anyone wants to build a tree house do so in your own garden or a kind neighbour such as William which is private!
Firstly I'm not the one shooting my mouth off if you read your rants before you posted them you would see that.
Secondly, this country has become too much of a nanny state and I think people should take responsibility for their own actions. For example, using your 10 year old, if a parent is dumb enough to let their kid go into a wood known to be occupied by druggies etc and the kid has an accident then in my opinion the parent is negligent and not the landowner.
Thirdly, if people want personal accident payouts should they scrath themselves on a lollipop stick then perhaps the introduction of compulsory accident insurance should be introduced.
Finally, if I had a tree in my garden i would gladly let my kids and their friends build a treehouse I have no problem with kids doing something constructive.
ConcernedOxon, Abingdon says...
2:51pm Wed 24 Jun 09
doddsyblues, foscot says...
4:29pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Tom Daily, oxford says...
4:55pm Wed 24 Jun 09
It does'nt matter what you or I think about the state of the claims culture in this country,, fact is its out of control!
The council which has squandered all public cash as it is, can not afford to sit idle and wait for a serious accident to happen on that thing.
I know the council mess up most of the time, but on this occasion they were spot on!
The alternative, let an accident which is inevitable to happen, pay out a pile of cash, then hike up council tax. Thanks but no thanks.
online_reader, says...
5:24pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Tom Daily wrote:Is it a fact that the claims culture is out of control, or is it urban myth based on a few crazy American stories?
Rubbish William, the fact of the matter is, if the land is not yours, then you have no right to build whatever you please on it!
It does'nt matter what you or I think about the state of the claims culture in this country,, fact is its out of control!
The council which has squandered all public cash as it is, can not afford to sit idle and wait for a serious accident to happen on that thing.
I know the council mess up most of the time, but on this occasion they were spot on!
The alternative, let an accident which is inevitable to happen, pay out a pile of cash, then hike up council tax. Thanks but no thanks.
I was under the impression that a lot of the no win no fee ambulance chasers had gone out of business precisely because the majority of British people are not vexatious litigants.
The NHS pays out a lot, but that's partly because they underwrite themselves and routinely settle out of court cases that they would logically have won.
mael, oxford says...
8:29pm Wed 24 Jun 09
jockox3, Headington Hill, Oxford says...
9:06pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Whilst I do take on board the issue of getting permission (though if someone in a police uniform said it should be OK who at 17 would think maybe to ask anyone else?) I always think that where the council is looking after areas of the "natural environment" use should be clearly stated as "at your own risk".
The Elfin Safety regime is far too strict - like when last year they felled loads of some of the best, most interesting and majestic trees in some parks in case they fell some day on someone.
Sorry - trees do fall, branches get ripped of in storms - it's natures way of clearing the "dead wood" and keeping the rest more healthy. Trying to second guess such "acts of god" just in case is nonsense.
DeeDee99, Bicester says...
9:15pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Peat, Littlemore says...
11:27pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Secondly, i deplore the council for taking it away. These kids showed some inititive and created a place to call thier own so they wouldnt have to rub-shoulders with the 'wrong sort'. The council could have turned a blind eye which would have been nice, but they felt they needed to reduce thier liability (potential for claims against them in the future)so they knocked it down.
I'm pretty sure i made this quite clear in my first post.
Abingdon_born_Cowley, Abingdon says...
9:53am Thu 25 Jun 09
It was against the law for these young people to build this structure on the land they did. Therefore the council have no choice but to dispose of it, sad as I'm sure it was.
To build an extension to your own home, on your own land you need planning permission, so it would fall in or around teh same legislation. Otherwise I could build myself a nice four bed house on South parks couldn't I?
locodogz, bicester says...
10:31am Thu 25 Jun 09
Abingdon_born_Cowley, Abingdon says...
12:40pm Thu 25 Jun 09
jockox3, Headington Hill, Oxford says...
3:41pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Now, whether that could be extended to cover people who have climbed up and fallen down is maybe moot - but who knows, maybe we can look forward to spiked fences surrounding any climbable trees in the future.
Also, on planning, two issues arise - first, it was not planning who took the tree house down and had it been done on planning grounds it would have been a more consultative process - with an opportunity to appeal and so on. Planning is only required for certain types/sizes of tree-houses. Yes, as landowner, they had ever right to take it down, but they also had the right to try to contact the kids and get them to go with them to planning or make improvements or whatever. They seem to have just turned up one day and removed the thing and taken the materials.
But like I said - I don't believe councils should "own" natural resources such as this. They should either be established as common land - Port Meadow/Wolvercote Common seems to function pretty well - or as locally run trusts who could contract to the council for particular services. Most of the bigger parks were given to the residents of Oxford, not Oxford City Council to lord it over them.
Cowley Resident, Oxford says...
3:48pm Thu 25 Jun 09
tribalamazonian, Oxford says...
3:57pm Thu 25 Jun 09
locodogz, bicester says...
4:57pm Thu 25 Jun 09
tribalamazonian wrote:There's a handful of people here who seem to instinctively go down that path - but plenty more who'll discuss issues sensibly - hopefully you'll stick around and add to that number?
It never ceases to amaze me that every article on here ends up as a slanging match at each other...
The tree house
From left, John Hewitt with sons Daniel and James, and Ryan Quinn, where the tree house used to be
Individual Voluntary Arrangement help and Advice | Stay with Prague Hotels | Visit Spain with Barcelona Hotels | 70% off Designer Glasses at Posh Eyes
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Zimmer, Oxon says...
7:58am Wed 24 Jun 09
I hate to think how many times I fell out of trees etc when I was a kid and any injury was treated as part of the learning curve of life!