Tree removal & heave advice

[alexsmith]

Hi

 

I would like some advice for the best approach to remove a tree from my garden.

 

We have recently moved into the house and during the sale we had a survey conducted. The survey recommended that we remove a silver birch tree from the garden and that we should do this gradually to reduce the chances of heave. Following this I spoke to a number of tree surgeons who all assured me that this practice is no longer used and that we should remove the tree in one go.

 

The house is a Victorian terrace and was built around 1900 in Bristol BS3. I believe parts of Bristol have clay soil and are therefore susceptible to subsidence. The area is known to have previously been used for mining and I am therefore slightly worried that removing the tree may cause heave.

 

The tree is a silver birch (I have attached some photos below). It is approximately the size of the two story house, with a trunk diameter of 90cm and is around 5m from the nearest property.

 

I am considering the following options:

1) Consulting a structural surveyor for an opinion in the likelihood of heave

2) Removing the tree gradually

3) Removing the tree in one go

 

I would be very grateful if anyone has any experience in this they could pass on.

 

Many thanks in advance.

Kind regards

 

Alex

[Paul Cleaver]

sounds to me like the person who did the report has never studied this area of consultancy!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Additionally, Birch is a low water demand tree ...

 

"hey, get me a drink...NOW"

 

Sorry, just got to dash off as my Birch tree's shouting for a drink

 

This term, as I recall, has been challenged before recognizing that tree roots are opportunistic and whilst they will exploit a moisture source if one is present they don't actively seek out / "demand" water.

 

I think 'usage' was the preferred term.

 

Similarly, Mr Heuch will doubtless be along shortly to "put me right!"

 

Cheers Chris, hope yer well..

Paul

[Gary Prentice]

"hey, get me a drink...NOW"

 

Sorry, just got to dash off as my Birch tree's shouting for a drink

 

This term, as I recall, has been challenged before recognizing that tree roots are opportunistic and whilst they will exploit a moisture source if one is present they don't actively seek out / "demand" water.

 

I think 'usage' was the preferred term.

 

Similarly, Mr Heuch will doubtless be along shortly to "put me right!"

 

Cheers Chris, hope yer well..

Paul

 

I think Charles Biddle said that the 'water demand category' was a classification requested by Insurers in an attempt to pigeon hole tree species. I got the impression that he wasn't too keen about the term at all.

[Mark Bolam]

So what you're saying Paul, is that my drinking demands may actually just be usage?

 

I'm going to see how that one flies when I get in tonight.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I think Charles Biddle said that the 'water demand category' was a classification requested by Insurers in an attempt to pigeon hole tree species. I got the impression that he wasn't too keen about the term at all.

 

Indeed, and I think he was very reluctant about the whole thing but recognized that if he didn't produce a model the insurance industry themselves would...YIKES!

 

Cheers Gary

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

So what you're saying Paul, is that my drinking demands may actually just be usage?

 

I'm going to see how that one flies when I get in tonight.

 

:lol::lol: just don't mention my name...n don't "shout" too loud

[Chris at eden]

I think Charles Biddle said that the 'water demand category' was a classification requested by Insurers in an attempt to pigeon hole tree species. I got the impression that he wasn't too keen about the term at all.

 

Who is Charles Biddle? Any relation to Giles?

[Chris at eden]

"hey, get me a drink...NOW"

 

Sorry, just got to dash off as my Birch tree's shouting for a drink

 

This term, as I recall, has been challenged before recognizing that tree roots are opportunistic and whilst they will exploit a moisture source if one is present they don't actively seek out / "demand" water.

 

I think 'usage' was the preferred term.

 

Similarly, Mr Heuch will doubtless be along shortly to "put me right!"

 

Cheers Chris, hope yer well..

Paul

 

 

I spoke with Giles about this at one of his subsidence seminars a couple of years ago and he doesn't like the term as its been misrepresented and miss used. It doesn't actually relate to the amount of water a tree uses and it wasn't ever designed for arbs.

 

It was a way he could convey information to builders in a non-technical manner that they could understand as a laymen. His comments on the issue relate to his observations on the ability of certain trees to cause damage to buildings so for example oak causes a lot of damage while birch is relatively less. Therefore they were considered as being high and low water demand respectively but not necessarily just to do with water uptake.

 

I read another paper on the difference between oak and beech and why trees which are pretty similar would be high and moderate water demand respectively. I forget who wrote it but his thoughts were more to do with rooting depth so with beech being shallow rooted it was less likely to extract moisture from deeper down and this made it less likely to damage deeper foundations. Hence deeper foundations for high water demand trees. Before anyone corrects me, I know there is more to rooting depth than genetics but this was his general view and it made sense to me.

 

We did an assignment on water demand on the L6 and the outcome was that there was not a great deal of reliable data on water demand.

 

My point being that when I said water demand I didn't necessarily mean the amount of water taken up. Just that Birch as a species tend to be less problematic than some other species. I should probably drop the water demand thing as it seems to confuse the issue but I tend to stick wit it as its within the NHBC guidance.

 

Cheers Paul - hope you are well too.

[Gary Prentice]

Who is Charles Biddle? Any relation to Giles?

 

That's close enough for a Friday night, it's been a long week.

[Gary Prentice]

I spoke with Giles about this at one of his subsidence seminars a couple of years ago and he doesn't like the term as its been misrepresented and miss used. It doesn't actually relate to the amount of water a tree uses and it wasn't ever designed for arbs.

 

It was a way he could convey information to builders in a non-technical manner that they could understand as a laymen. His comments on the issue relate to his observations on the ability of certain trees to cause damage to buildings so for example oak causes a lot of damage while birch is relatively less. Therefore they were considered as being high and low water demand respectively but not necessarily just to do with water uptake.

 

I read another paper on the difference between oak and beech and why trees which are pretty similar would be high and moderate water demand respectively. I forget who wrote it but his thoughts were more to do with rooting depth so with beech being shallow rooted it was less likely to extract moisture from deeper down and this made it less likely to damage deeper foundations. Hence deeper foundations for high water demand trees. Before anyone corrects me, I know there is more to rooting depth than genetics but this was his general view and it made sense to me.

 

We did an assignment on water demand on the L6 and the outcome was that there was not a great deal of reliable data on water demand.

 

My point being that when I said water demand I didn't necessarily mean the amount of water taken up. Just that Birch as a species tend to be less problematic than some other species. I should probably drop the water demand thing as it seems to confuse the issue but I tend to stick wit it as its within the NHBC guidance.

 

Cheers Paul - hope you are well too.

 

Much better explained and remembered than me:biggrin: