2018 - four-fold increase in subsidence claims and trees are always to blame?

[Tallgrass]

I'm covering a Tree Officer role at the moment and am receiving a large number of section 211 notices, and some TPO removal apps, due to claims of subsidence after 2018.

I am receiving trial pit reports that detail clay soil, but do not establish a plasticity index. Often root samples are not found of the species of tree which is proposed for removal. Other causes of subsidence do not appear to be thoroughly ruled out, foundation types not discussed, and, especially relevant right now, there is zero mention of the extended dry conditions of the summer of 2018 which many of these claims relate to, and the influence that had on the soil shrinkage in general. 

 

It seems common sense, that in 2018 with the lack of rain, subsidence could occur even if there were no trees present, (but of course I only see the claims which propose a solution of vegetation management ie. blame the trees).  

 

My job is only to say (in the case of a section 211 notice) whether we (the LA) would object via placing a TPO on a tree. But in the case of TPO'd trees, I want to be sure the attribution of the cause of the subsidence as moisture extraction by the trees (as opposed to the extremely dry conditions) is correct. With section 211 notices, where a householder (or their insurance company) is notifying us of their intention to remove, or applying to have TPO'd trees removed from their neighbour's gardens - I am aware that if we do not object/grant, it could be contentious, especially if the insurance reports (Arb, Soil testing, Root testing, drainage etc) are not 100% conclusive (as I outline above.  The 3rd party neighbour may not get to see all the reports, or even know an application/notice has gone in. (In our case the LA does upload reports provided onto the internet on the planning portal though - but how would a neighbour know to read them if not notified by the subsidence sufferer next door?). The first thing the neighbour hears is from the subsidence sufferer is 'We have permission to remove your trees'. In which case, the neighbour looks at the reports online and thinks "But my tree is tiny. 2018 was a really dry year, why doesn't their report mention that..."

 

Arrrggghh. My life would be a lot easier if I didn't have such an overly developed sense of fairness, but I feel insurance assessors are lazy. They spot a tree, and then get an arb in to write a report to say 'remove the tree' because it's the cheapest solution. There is no thorough examination of other possible causes by an engineer etc.

 

In one case I am looking at now there are 2 defective drains which have been leaking, closer to the point of subsidence (3-4m), than a semi-mature 10m ash (about 8m away in the neighbours garden, which is due for removal).  Nothing in the report discounts that soil has been washed away in this area after years of leakage except to say 'the drain defects are considered to be outside of the area of the concern in regards to the building movement', nor evaluates the 2018 weather conditions

 

I know I should look at the zone of influence too (NHBC), and in this case, that ash won't be there for long anyway, but my point is general.

 

Is it worth me going back to insurers to highlight these areas missing from the reports? I have had one minor success where I got them to agree to a 30% crown reduction of a magnificent Liriodendron, rather than a full fell (though I know it's suggested CR might increase moisture uptake in subsequent years), but the elderly resident loved the tree, she won't last much longer (her daughter said), the insurance will still pay out, and we get to keep the tree in the conservation area. It might come back to bite me yet though, especially if we have more drought conditions as expected! And if the insurance companies do continue in this vein, despite climate change, we'll have no trees left in towns soon.

 

Anyone else wading through this type of mud? Any thoughts? Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

[tree77]

Hi

 

Think your probably best just to focus on whether or not you would TPO the tree, if the answer is yes, then you could go back and ask for supporting evidence but if your not going to TPO the tree then there isn't much you can do and even if you ask for more information they have no obligation to provide it. I would be a little carful  requesting reductions as unless the reduced size is maintained it could still be a problem, plus 30% reduction according to the horti link project. The 3rd party owners do have the right to challenge the insurers request.

 

The fact that it was a dry year 2018 just means that there was more subsidence claims, not much we can do with that one.

 

hope this helps

 

 

[Jon Heuch]

On 17/01/2020 at 18:57, Tallgrass said:

Is it worth me going back to insurers to highlight these areas missing from the reports? 

Simply:

i) evidence does not need to be provided with a s211 notice so the best approach to this is, as Edward has suggested, are you prepared to serve a TPO on the tree(s) to prevent the works taking place? If not, let it go. You may be able to negotiate with some applicants, but it depends who they are and what they know.

ii) for those that you are prepared to serve a TPO simply contact the agent or applicant and make your concerns known...say a TPO will be served unless the information is provided. Give them the timeframe.

iii) TPOd trees? Government guidance provides a long list of evidence that should be provided. Bureaucrats will ask for this & this can be a pain, but sometimes useful; in law, the applicant has to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the tree(s) are a material cause of damage. That is all. If they haven't done this (prove their case, not produce the long list of evidence) you are right to refuse the application. If there are leaking drains near the area of damage, they have to be discounted. However, if level monitoring is showing clear seasonal movement, the drains are probably of little relevance.

[sbyorkshire]

We have been dealing with a few on  behalf of the tree owner, trying to counter their own insurance companies from clear felling their gardens, and we try as I believe you are trying to do, get to the correct cause of the problem.

 

If tree removal was really , really expensive they indeed would look at the other aspects such as drain leakage, but because removal is cheap (in comparison to the drain repairs for example) the trees go, clients if the tree owners are reluctant to lock horns with their own insurer and tend to be passive and 'do as they are told', as they often cant afford not to.

 

If there was a cost value  in £  to the tree, perhaps a different decision would be made, or even the correct decision for the stability of the site.

 

We have to deal with the legislation we have, and that , even though it is meant to protect trees in fact lets them down badly in s211 notices  in these  cases as mentioned above a 'threat' of a TPO unless you provide what we feel acceptable will get some to do so if time frames allow, though  those hard nosed insurers will play the game and won't................