Yorkshire couple can't insure their £400,00 home due to protected trees overhanging the property

Brian Tempest, 73 and Susan Dickerson, 60, say three 90ft (30m) sycamores pose a danger to their grandkids and have offered to pay £5,000 to chop them down. The couple say they can't insure their property - worth about £400,000 - against damage from the trees, meaning they could be left homeless if one fell and hit it. But Bradford Council has refused to cut the trees down due to a Tree Preservation Order in place to protect them.

The couple feel the authority has viewed their desperate pleas with "contempt" and believe council chiefs "care more about trees than humans".

Retired publishing industry worker Brian said: "We're just ordinary working-class people who earned some decent money over the years and always paid our council tax. They do treat us with contempt, and I'm really disgusted, to be honest with you, with the things they've said... We could be made homeless if a tree goes down. I'm afraid over these last few years, it's just got worse and worse with people's aggression. The care and attention have just gone out the window."

Two of the "ginormous" broad-leaved maples sit on public land roughly ten inches (25cm) from their boundary line and have branches that extend to within three feet of their home. Yet when Susan raised concerns that bits of tree could fall and injure her grandkids, she claims council staff told her: "Just don't let them play in the garden."

Holistic therapist and beautician Susan added: "We are at our wit's end, and we've even considered moving. Without a shadow of a doubt, I think the council care more about trees than humans."

The pair, who have six grandkids between them, live in a four-bed, 60-year-old brick-built home, which Susan originally bought in 1995, in Bradford. But around 11 years ago, they started writing to their local council as the trees' roots began loosening rocks in their garden wall and later slabs in their patio. The three sycamores that overhang Susan and Brian's garden are all covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), meaning they can't be felled without written consent.

However, the couple claims they've received limited responses from authorities, even after sending over a hundred letters and emails to officials in local government.

Susan said: "To be honest, we didn't get any reaction. We've even sent letters and emails to the chief executive of Bradford Council. We actually offered to pay to have the trees removed and more trees planted, which are appropriate for the area. They wouldn't even listen to that. Last year, they agreed the wall was collapsing [due to the trees] and put up scaffolding for a couple of months. They lowered the wall by five or six inches and secured the top stones with cement.

"But all they've said is if it happens again, if the wall collapses - which it probably will - they will keep coming along to repair it. We had a patio built, and it's Indian stones - and they're now loose. When you step on those they kick up, so we've got to keep maintaining all of that."

Susan said the massive deciduous trees had left them constantly stressed after they found out their home insurance wouldn't cover damage caused by falling branches. And she said their huge canopies, which leave their garden feeling gloomy in the summer, can be particularly dangerous to those sitting underneath them.

She said: "Our insurers actually say, 'You are not covered for any debris, damage from the trees', which we get lots of annually - it's a constant battle. Sycamores shed these windmill things, and in the springtime, they're sticky. They stick to the windows and on our feet. They're just a mess.

"Brian was sunbathing last year, and he got bird poo on his face and on his chest. Because the trees overhang our garden, we just can't get away from them. We've even had one of the council employees tell us when we were concerned about the grandchildren playing in the garden, 'Well, I suggest you just don't let them play in the garden.'"

The couple considered moving house but decided against the idea after neighbours who also have protected sycamores by their home said the trees put off buyers.

Brian said: "If we did put the property up for sale, we know that other people have said they won't even go and view neighbouring properties for the cost of those trees."

Susan said she understood why other people were sensitive to chopping down maples but added the council rejected their proposals to replace them with saplings.

She said: "There are people who do love trees who we can appreciate will probably say 'We need them'. I agree, but these are the wrong types of trees. Let's have some in a better position."

Brian added: "The local tree surgeon said it would be £4,000 to 5,000 to chop these trees down, and we've offered to pay for it, and even suggested replacement trees. Altogether, there's been 80 to 110 letters, correspondence and emails. We've had local MPs out in the past. It's almost like they just don't want to know."

A spokesperson from Bradford Council said although it had received complaints from the couple for "several years", the trees' TPO took precedence.

The spokesperson said: "We have received complaints from the residents about a tree to the rear of the property over several years. However, the tree is considered to be an important amenity tree in the area and is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

"Applications to lift the TPO have been made and turned down on review by an independent third party. The tree is regularly inspected and actions have been taken to remove potentially hazardous overhanging branches. We will continue to inspect the tree and have asked the resident to inform us of any change in its condition or other concerns."