A row over the future of six “landmark” trees has come before planners.

Eryri National Park Authority’s planning committee unanimously approved a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to “safeguard” the future of a group of Monterey Pines at Llanfair, Harlech, at a meeting on 5 March.

A report said concerns were raised about the trees, however the land owner claimed the issue arose due to a complaint from a neighbour “with a personal grievance”.

The trees, which are around 70 years old, stand between the A496 and an unclassified road on land at Caer Odyn, which had been in the process of being sold, sparking fears the trees could be felled.

A provisional TPO was issued last November.

The report said the order would ensure the small woodland continues to offer “a valuable contribution to the visual amenity of this area of Llanfair and Eryri for many years to come”.

Geoff Cross, who purchased the land on 19 November, objected to the TPO, stating it was “inappropriate” and the trees were “dangerously overhanging” power lines and the highway.

A “bad root system” had been identified which “compromised” the trees’ structural stability and increased the likelihood of falling during high winds or storms “exacerbating safety risks”, he claimed.

He said they also required costly and “extensive maintenance” and as non-native species, provided “minimal ecological benefits”.

The authority’s woodland and tree officer, Rhydian Roberts, said the trees were “very healthy” and although non-native, “well suited to the location”.

He said: “What is required is to prune/reduce back those branches that are overhanging the A498 and roadside pavement.

“If a request came from Mr Cross to give consent to undertake the work we would grant it.”

He said the trees survived Storm Darragh, the authority “would never consider putting a TPO on unsafe trees”, Scottish Power was responsible for maintenance affecting overhead electricity lines at no cost to the landowner, and half of Eryri’s TPOs were for protected non-native trees. He said they also had “ecological significance,” providing bird habitats.

Speaking at the meeting Mr Cross said he “strongly objected” to TPO confirmation, saying the authority had “not provided sufficient evidence to justify protection”.

“It was not triggered by widespread concerns, but as I understand by a single complaint from a neighbour with a personal grievance against my family,” he said.

He also said the community council had not objected, there had been no consultation with local residents, the ageing non-native trees were in “a high risk” location and there was need for maintenance which could be delayed with a TPO.

“They were already protected under conservation rules making a TPO unnecessary and excessive,” he added.

Mr Roberts said an inspection had been made, he consulted with local people and put up a sign.

“There was some local objection but there were also people who supported. They did not wish to come forward,” he said.

“Amenity is the main reason for the TPO, we do have safety in mind also…but we don’t put TPOs on dangerous trees.”