A LEOMINSTER town councillor says it would be the end of an era if a landmark tree in the town – thought to be more than 100 years old – is felled.

Permission is being sought for the complete removal of a copper beech tree – which is subject to a tree preservation order – behind the Clifton Bingo hall.

The owners of the site, Kingsland-based Powell & Co Construction Ltd, commissioned a tree report which stated that, during an inspection of the tree's base, a number of large fronds (the fruiting bodies) of a fungus called meripilus giganteus were found.

A second decay-causing fungus called ganoderma was also, according to the report, discovered on the trunk on the south side.

The writer of the report states that the 'only safe course' to adopt is the removal of the tree – particularly due to its location.

But town councillor Pauline Davies, now 80, said the tree holds a special place in the hearts of many of the town's residents.

Her earliest memories of it are as a four-year-old and she recalls gathering beneath it before going hop-picking each year.

"We would gather under the rear of the Clifton which was then a coal yard and a lorry would take us out to Yeoman's at Canon Pyon," she said, adding that she estimates the tree to be 100 to 200 years old.

"We went every year until I was about 12. I remember playing under that tree and remember it every time I go up that way. I always look across and it's beautiful in spring, the same as it always was. It is very sentimental. People have known it – and I have known it – for years."

She recalled an uproar when five trees were removed from the Grange some years ago, which prompted a requiem mass.

Marsha O’Mahoney, who has been working with Grange Court on a heritage project, added: “It seems this particular tree was where everyone was picked up before they went hop-picking in the 40s and 50s and is a heritage landmark.

"It’s a physical reminder of what once was a big industry.”

The writer of the report concedes that in any location with 'significantly lower occupancy' rates, in view of the tree’s visual importance they would be inclined to retain it for as long as possible, possibly combined with some crown-reduction to reduce the size of the canopy.

“However, the extremely widespread and prolific production of fungal fruiting bodies suggests that the decay caused by the fungus is fairly advanced while its distribution around the tree suggests that decay is widespread.

“Furthermore there are signs that the tree is already showing some degree of physiological stress which suggests it would respond poorly to any significant crown reduction," it states.

"While the tree currently shows no direct evidence of it being at imminent risk of collapse, the serious doubts raised by the symptoms that it does exhibit do, in my opinion, render it sufficiently dangerous as to justify its removal without undue delay."