A 100-year-old tree has been saved from the axe despite causing damage to a woman's home.

Jessica Ohren applied for permission to fell the nuisance tree, saying it caused 'subsidence-related damage' and 'significant' cracking to her conservatory walls.

Ms Ohren's agent claimed it also caused sloping and cracking on the garage floor of her home in Frome, Somerset.

But Somerset Council refused Ms Ohren's application, saying the tree had 'outstanding or special amenity value' and that removing it could worsen the property damage.

The homeowner said there were tree roots 'directly within the foundation zone' of the conservatory making it 'highly probable the tree is a principal contributing factor to the subsidence'.

She and her agent claimed: 'While the tree has amenity value, it is now unsuitable for retention in its current location due to its direct impact on built structures.

'Consent for removal is therefore reasonably requested.'

Neighbour Julian Hight objected to the tree's axing arguing Ms Ohren's garage and conservatory were built on 'inadequate foundations'.

He said: 'The garage and conservatory were clearly built on inadequate foundations so close to an historic veteran oak that predates all buildings in the area by at least a century and likely very much more.'

Another resident, Sally Nilsson, argued it was Ms Ohren's responsibility to ensure the stability of her house without damaging the environment.

She said: 'The house should never have been built so close to it. The root system is at least as wide below ground as it is compared to the canopy above. The tree is now in full leaf and looks completely healthy.

'The house needs to be underpinned and the tree must be saved. Removing the tree could have significant issues to do with flooding and structure damage of the house.

'Ancient oak trees should never be felled because a developer decided to build a house next to it.'

Frome Town Council also objected to the felling of a 'high-value' tree which 'predates the surrounding housing development and makes an important contribution to local amenity and character'.

It said: 'In the absence of an accompanying structural survey and supporting arboricultural evidence, there is insufficient justification to conclude that the alleged subsidence is directly attributable to the tree, to assess the extent and significance of any structural damage, or to demonstrate that felling represents the most appropriate solution as opposed to alternative mitigation measures.'

The council refused the planning application, with planning officer Nick Ball saying it was 'in the interest of good arboricultural practice, because the building with damage doesn't meet the necessary building regulations, and due to the tree's outstanding amenity value'.

He added: 'It is now undisputed that ancient and veteran trees, and particularly oaks, collectively support greater habitat for biodiversity than any other habitat type in Europe.

'It is not enough simply to note the proximity of a building and a tree, and to deduce that the tree is responsible for any damage found in the building.'

He added: 'Pedunculate oak is a species associated with persistent soil moisture deficits.

'The oak covered [by] this order is far older than number 5 Collett Way, therefore the tree may be causing a persistent soil moisture deficit and if it were to be felled there may well be subsequent heave.'

Ms Ohren has not said whether she will appeal the council's decision to the Planning Inspectorate.