Works on TPO tree

[Pavtree]

Hi

 

We have a large council owned tree on the pavement outside our property which has caused subsidence on multiple occasions over the last 15 years .

 

The Council has only been prepared to deal with the matter by way of pruning in the past but on each occasion the problem reapers after a few years and we are currently going through the nightmare again.

 

On each occasion tree experts have advised that the only long term solution is the removal of the tree.

 

Our insurers have handed the dealing of the claim to a third party and their procedures are confusing us so we would appreciate some advice.

 

They have sent a letter to the council asking them to remove the tree, the council have come back saying no but we will install a root barrier. Nothing has been done at this point to check if a root barrier is actually feasible.

 

We have asked the third party why they have not made a formal application to remove the tree which would mean that we could appeal to the Secretary of State if consent to remove was not given. Their response, it's not needed. Is this normal procedure?

 

They now appear to be saying that they would firstly have to ask for the TPO to be removed before they could make an application to have the tree removed. Does a TPO have to removed before an application is made or can an application to remove a tree be made while a TPO is in place. In general terms when a council gives permission to fell a TPO tree, do they remove the TPO?

 

Thanking you in advance

[Chris at eden]

Hi

 

We have a large council owned tree on the pavement outside our property which has caused subsidence on multiple occasions over the last 15 years .

 

The Council has only been prepared to deal with the matter by way of pruning in the past but on each occasion the problem reapers after a few years and we are currently going through the nightmare again.

 

On each occasion tree experts have advised that the only long term solution is the removal of the tree.

 

Our insurers have handed the dealing of the claim to a third party and their procedures are confusing us so we would appreciate some advice.

 

They have sent a letter to the council asking them to remove the tree, the council have come back saying no but we will install a root barrier. Nothing has been done at this point to check if a root barrier is actually feasible.

 

We have asked the third party why they have not made a formal application to remove the tree which would mean that we could appeal to the Secretary of State if consent to remove was not given. Their response, it's not needed. Is this normal procedure?

 

They now appear to be saying that they would firstly have to ask for the TPO to be removed before they could make an application to have the tree removed. Does a TPO have to removed before an application is made or can an application to remove a tree be made while a TPO is in place. In general terms when a council gives permission to fell a TPO tree, do they remove the TPO?

 

Thanking you in advance

 

You don't need to revoke a TPO before making an app. In fact if you did revoke then you wouldn't need to apply as the tree wouldn't be protected. More to the point, if the council tree is damaging your property and you can demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities then that would be actionable nuisance so an application may not be required anyway.

 

Tree removal may not be the only option. There is root barrier, underpin, or pruning. Pruning is problematic though and will only work if done regularly, probably every year. Underpin and root barrier is expensive, about £1,000 per linear metre. Felling is quick and easy but the loss of trees is not always desirable to the council.

[Pavtree]

Thank you for the response .

 

Pruning has already been tried without success.

 

I know it might be difficult without seeing the site but could you give an opinion as to the feasibility of root barrier .

 

The tree is an oak, about 17m high and 9 m from the property. Is there not an area within which roots should not be cut to avoid destabilizing the tree.

 

Just how wide do these barriers need to be to be effective and are barriers actually effective in managing water uptake in clay soils.

[Chris at eden]

Thank you for the response .

 

Pruning has already been tried without success.

 

I know it might be difficult without seeing the site but could you give an opinion as to the feasibility of root barrier .

 

The tree is an oak, about 17m high and 9 m from the property. Is there not an area within which roots should not be cut to avoid destabilizing the tree.

 

Just how wide do these barriers need to be to be effective and are barriers actually effective in managing water uptake in clay soils.

 

 

From your original post it sounded like pruning was done every few years and it was unclear how much was removed. Research shows that you need to remove almost all of the canopy and probably on an annual basis for it to have any chance of success. I don't quite see the point in keeping a tree like that as its pretty much destroyed.

 

Yes the root protection area. Its a calculation based on stem diameter which shows the area in which you should not excavate on development sites. You also need to consider the size of the roots you are cutting. Its not quite as simple as that as you can enter RPA's and dig by hand in some instances and the shape has to be modified to reflect site conditions in some instances.

 

Barriers can be effective if installed properly. They don't reduce water uptake by the tree but they create a physical barrier between the tree and the foundations so the tree does not extract water from beneath the footings. The soil will still shrink on the tree side of the barrier through. If you leave gaps though the roots will grow through, or under, or over. They also create moisture gradients which actually encourage root growth so again have to be installed properly. For subsidence they will probably need to be at least 2m deep also but this will depend on tree species, soil type, etc. Hence expensive.

 

Please don't take this as professional advice or rely on it as I haven't seen the situation and so I am just giving general information. It needs to be investigated properly. What have you had done previously? Crack / level monitoring, soil analysis, root ID, trail pits for foundation depth?

[Nimby]

This all sounds a bit odd. Why is there a TPO on a tree within the Highway.

 

This is a council tree. They will need to carry out any proposed removal.

 

If there is a TPO in place, you can apply to remove the tree but you will need to get permission from the land owner (the Council), which they will, probably, not give you.

 

Have you seen the report for the alleged subsidence?

 

Contact the Council and get something in writing.

[Chris at eden]

This all sounds a bit odd. Why is there a TPO on a tree within the Highway.

 

This is a council tree. They will need to carry out any proposed removal.

 

If there is a TPO in place, you can apply to remove the tree but you will need to get permission from the land owner (the Council), which they will, probably, not give you.

 

Have you seen the report for the alleged subsidence?

 

Contact the Council and get something in writing.

 

Although TPO's are not designed for council trees there is no reason why they cannot be protected by one. The tree could have been under threat from local residents for example.

 

Additionally, if your council is split between district and county it is likely that the county would manage the tree, and district would administer TPO's. So the owner would be applying to a different authority to do works. Highways departments are not always that tree friendly as they see them as a drain on resources with the damage they cause to footways. This can sometimes force districts into a position where they feel they have to protect the trees.

 

I arranged a training session a few years ago for a highways department at a council I worked for as TO. It was Dave Dowson delivering engineering solutions for footway repair. Real top level training. No one turned up from the highways management team, they were not interested, all they wanted to do was fell the trees. Its easier. Not saying all authorities are like this but some certainly are. Hence, highway trees get TPO'd

[10 Bears]

which has caused subsidence on multiple occasions over the last 15 years

 

I want to clarify this point before we go any further. Could you please describe in detail what the nature or effects of this subsidence damage was i.e. what exactly happened with what you are calling the subsidence damage?

[Pavtree]

The subsidence damage, cracks in walls visible both inside and outside property manly at front of property . Doors sticking that had to be adjusted the last time we went through this. We've had to adjust the slope on some guttering as the water was no longer flowing properly, not sure if that's related to the subsidence. There's no dispute by any party that it's definitely subsidence damage caused by soil shrinkage

 

Investigations have been carried out by the company that the insurers have asked to look at things. Trial pots, level monitoring, soil analysis etc.

 

There isn't really any dispute from the Council that the tree is the cause of the issue, the question is how to best deal with things so that it doesn't happen again.

 

Two arborist have advised that the tree needs to be removed in their reports.

 

An informal approach has been made to the Council by the company lookng after the claim asking the Council to remove the tree and they have said that they would rather install a root barrier.

 

This concerns us as it is is going against professional advice and with the tree being so close to property we are really worried that severing the roots would make what is very large tree unstable.

[10 Bears]

I'm sorry to hear about all this. I work on subsidence cases in my consultancy and they really can be long drawn out affairs when the offending council is being like this. Unfortunately I have seen this bullish approach before.

 

I really wanted to clarify what exactly had happened regarding the subsidence, as quite often folk come on here spouting issues with subsidence when it quite clearly is not. In your case however, you state some of the most commonly occurring problems, so I have no doubt you are absolutely correct.

 

Some of Chris' advice above is spot on, although I would raise a slight counter issue. Root barriers are mainly effective when they are installed at the time of planting. In fact, research has shown that remedial root barriers are more commonly ineffective then otherwise, as even with root barriers at depths down to 2m. In essence, the effected tree will regrow root structures following oxygen-rich macropores in the soil in an attempt to stabilise its structure, seek nutrients, provide starch storage etc. Following this process, the roots can grow under and resurface on the other side of the barrier (even below 2m in some cases), and the original problems, although prevented for a while, may ultimately re-continue. Obviously, this is not an ideal solution to your problem, so should be discounted by the council.

 

Notwithstanding the efficacy or otherwise of the root barrier, there is the issue of tree stabilisation. Legally standing, should you prune the roots back to your boundary thereby destabilising the tree, and this leads to a catastrophic failure of the tree at some point in the future, you would potentially be liable. There would of course have to be a connecting series of events ie the roots are severed, storm winds at the exact angle, passing motorist at the precise time of tree fall etc. however, if the tree failure could be attributed to the loss of the roots - then yes, the fault for this unfortunate event would lie at your door.

 

From the other perspective, I can see why the council are trying to retain the tree with pruning ie taking care of local amenity values etc., but also there would most likely be a negative impact on the site following tree removal. You would most likely get soil heave on the site, that is, additional swelling of the soils as the tree is no longer pumping the additional water away, so the soil become so saturated that they literally expand upwards - again in to your foundations, and this could cause a secondary phase of damage to your property. Heave situations can go on as long as 5 years before the site develops a new way to deal with the additional water that the tree is no longer removing. If the council were to remove the tree and a heave situation occurs - again any new damage could be attributable to their removal and therefore at their cost to repair. This could be part of their justification in why they are reluctant to remove the tree.

 

My personal opinion, and please bear in mind 'forum advice' and the fact I have not seen the site etc., is that I would also most likely recommend removal, but attempt to gain a legal agreement with the council on due responsibilities for repairs/damage should soil heave become a factor at a later date. This is certainly what I would argue for and particularly as insurers appear to be involved already, there will be the insurers solicitors that you should bring in to deal with this side of the issue. All the other information you have been given in the posts above about the TPO's is correct.

 

I empathise with your ongoing situation, so please feel free to PM me should you want to discuss any elements of this matter further.

[john p]

I'm sorry to hear about all this. I work on subsidence cases in my consultancy and they really can be long drawn out affairs when the offending council is being like this. Unfortunately I have seen this bullish approach before.

 

I really wanted to clarify what exactly had happened regarding the subsidence, as quite often folk come on here spouting issues with subsidence when it quite clearly is not. In your case however, you state some of the most commonly occurring problems, so I have no doubt you are absolutely correct.

 

Some of Chris' advice above is spot on, although I would raise a slight counter issue. Root barriers are mainly effective when they are installed at the time of planting. In fact, research has shown that remedial root barriers are more commonly ineffective then otherwise, as even with root barriers at depths down to 2m. In essence, the effected tree will regrow root structures following oxygen-rich macropores in the soil in an attempt to stabilise its structure, seek nutrients, provide starch storage etc. Following this process, the roots can grow under and resurface on the other side of the barrier (even below 2m in some cases), and the original problems, although prevented for a while, may ultimately re-continue. Obviously, this is not an ideal solution to your problem, so should be discounted by the council.

 

Notwithstanding the efficacy or otherwise of the root barrier, there is the issue of tree stabilisation. Legally standing, should you prune the roots back to your boundary thereby destabilising the tree, and this leads to a catastrophic failure of the tree at some point in the future, you would potentially be liable. There would of course have to be a connecting series of events ie the roots are severed, storm winds at the exact angle, passing motorist at the precise time of tree fall etc. however, if the tree failure could be attributed to the loss of the roots - then yes, the fault for this unfortunate event would lie at your door.

 

From the other perspective, I can see why the council are trying to retain the tree with pruning ie taking care of local amenity values etc., but also there would most likely be a negative impact on the site following tree removal. You would most likely get soil heave on the site, that is, additional swelling of the soils as the tree is no longer pumping the additional water away, so the soil become so saturated that they literally expand upwards - again in to your foundations, and this could cause a secondary phase of damage to your property. Heave situations can go on as long as 5 years before the site develops a new way to deal with the additional water that the tree is no longer removing. If the council were to remove the tree and a heave situation occurs - again any new damage could be attributable to their removal and therefore at their cost to repair. This could be part of their justification in why they are reluctant to remove the tree.

 

My personal opinion, and please bear in mind 'forum advice' and the fact I have not seen the site etc., is that I would also most likely recommend removal, but attempt to gain a legal agreement with the council on due responsibilities for repairs/damage should soil heave become a factor at a later date. This is certainly what I would argue for and particularly as insurers appear to be involved already, there will be the insurers solicitors that you should bring in to deal with this side of the issue. All the other information you have been given in the posts above about the TPO's is correct.

 

I empathise with your ongoing situation, so please feel free to PM me should you want to discuss any elements of this matter further.

 

 

What an informative post, this sort of thing is what makes this forum great. Nice one.