The inevitable tree too close to house on clay soil question

[BellaB]

Hello

I’m new here, and thanks in advance

I live in WSuffolk, it’s clay, we’re atop a hill, if that’s relevant.

2 story House, walls go down 1m deep, below which is concrete in trench.  (We needed soil taken away after an oil spill elsewhere, so I saw this)  No sign of subsidence.   Previously the whole estate was a pig farm.  Maybe the odd shelter here and there, maybe some shelter trees. It wasn’t woodland. 

 

It’s been standing about 22 yrs,  now surrounded by patio, with a lean-to kit built conservatory, which sits on concrete pads, will be demolished within a year or two, it’s in an appalling state!  To be replaced by patio I expect.
 

 Patio shields soil somewhat, It’s on a bed of mortar blobs and not well pointed. Some water may get through but not all. Prior to that going in 8 yrs ago it was gravel. Next door has an original patio laid as well, and the birch roots are lifting it nearest the tree.   Both houses about 5m distant. So we’ve had a request to do something about the tree. 
 

The original owners (probably) planted trees down the boundary,( I’m sure they don’t predate the houses,)and closest to the house is a silver birch, and then a Malus, then a palm, each about  2m apart. The birch is now taller than the house. Trunk about 30cm diameter  We topped it about 6-8yrs back and it rewarded us with a spurt of growth, and two trunks instead of one!

 

We've had a tree surgeon look at it, and he advises to take it out in one go. We’ve heard about heave and that worries us, but he dismissed the idea.  He actually said taking it down gradually would stimulate the roots to grow more. What do you think of that please?  We’ve already cut it back once, as I said. 
 

We chose him because he did a balanced and attractive job of thinning a neighbour’s young trees, but I don’t know his training. He said he wasn’t insured to give a guaranteed opinion, and to inquire further, and so I’ve found you in my search. Sorry pic is rotated. Don’t know how to fix that!

Can you help please?  Many thanks

Edited July 10, 2020 by BellaB

[benedmonds]

36 minutes ago, Khriss said:

In a word Bellinda - No.  Frankly you will need far more detail and proper assessment by a subsidence savvy arborist plus an engineers report for soil and...

Stop scaring the op. An expensive report would tell you nothing... It might give you a likelihood or risk level of heave damage occurring. But even if high risk (which it isn't. See daltontrees posts) the solution is to remove the tree and repair the problem.  

[Khriss]

What is the intent here ?? What are you asking ?? Is the tree safe , is it affecting yr property ,  do you like trees ? K

[richyrich]

2 hours ago, BellaB said:

Hello

I’m new here, and thanks in advance

I live in WSuffolk, it’s clay, we’re atop a hill, if that’s relevant.

2 story House, walls go down 1m deep, below which is concrete in trench.  (We needed soil taken away after an oil spill elsewhere, so I saw this)  No sign of subsidence.   Previously the whole estate was a pig farm.  Maybe the odd shelter here and there, maybe some shelter trees. It wasn’t woodland. 

 

It’s been standing about 22 yrs,  now surrounded by patio, with a lean-to kit built conservatory, which sits on concrete pads, will be demolished within a year or two, it’s in an appalling state!  To be replaced by patio I expect.
 

 Patio shields soil somewhat, It’s on a bed of mortar blobs and not well pointed. Some water may get through but not all. Prior to that going in 8 yrs ago it was gravel. Next door has an original patio laid as well, and the birch roots are lifting it nearest the tree.   Both houses about 5m distant. So we’ve had a request to do something about the tree. 
 

The original owners (probably) planted trees down the boundary,( I’m sure they don’t predate the houses,)and closest to the house is a silver birch, and then a Malus, then a palm, each about  2m apart. The birch is now taller than the house. Trunk about 30cm diameter  We topped it about 6-8yrs back and it rewarded us with a spurt of growth, and two trunks instead of one!

 

We've had a tree surgeon look at it, and he advises to take it out in one go. We’ve heard about heave and that worries us, but he dismissed the idea.  He actually said taking it down gradually would stimulate the roots to grow more. What do you think of that please?  We’ve already cut it back once, as I said. 
 

We chose him because he did a balanced and attractive job of thinning a neighbour’s young trees, but I don’t know his training. He said he wasn’t insured to give a guaranteed opinion, and to inquire further, and so I’ve found you in my search. Sorry pic is rotated. Don’t know how to fix that!

Can you help please?  Many thanks

I have heard it's best to reduce it over a number of years- possibly in 2 or 3 goes if heave is a risk. It might need an expert who charges alot to tell you this or not...

[Mark J]

50 minutes ago, richyrich said:

I have heard it's best to reduce it over a number of years- possibly in 2 or 3 goes if heave is a risk. It might need an expert who charges alot to tell you this or not...

There's no point in phased reductions. The soil moisture will ultimately balance out whether you deck the tree in a oner or remove it over time.

If the tree is younger than the house/conservatory, heave is very unlikely.

Without knowing the properties of the soil and site it's impossible to assess it.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Mark J

[Steve Bullman]

I think the old staged reduction thing is 20 year old science now, things have moved on I believe. Not sure what the latest 'expert' opinion is. Personally the logic behind the tree throwing out more roots to make up for all the panic growth it will put on after a reduction makes perfect sense to me.

[Mark J]

20 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

I think the old staged reduction thing is 20 year old science now, things have moved on I believe. Not sure what the latest 'expert' opinion is. Personally the logic behind the tree throwing out more roots to make up for all the panic growth it will put on after a reduction makes perfect sense to me.

It's a birch though, it'll have a bit of a tantrum and die off.
Pops etc., then aye, they'll go crackers.

[Khriss]

41 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

I think the old staged reduction thing is 20 year old science now, things have moved on I believe. Not sure what the latest 'expert' opinion is. Personally the logic behind the tree throwing out more roots to make up for all the panic growth it will put on after a reduction makes perfect sense to me.

20 years is not a huge moment  in the tree world... k

[Khriss]

1 hour ago, richyrich said:

I have heard it's best to reduce it over a number of years- possibly in 2 or 3 goes if heave is a risk. It might need an expert who charges alot to tell you this or not...

Hence yr post . K

[daltontrees]

9 hours ago, Steve Bullman said:

I think the old staged reduction thing is 20 year old science now, things have moved on I believe. Not sure what the latest 'expert' opinion is. Personally the logic behind the tree throwing out more roots to make up for all the panic growth it will put on after a reduction makes perfect sense to me.

The tree will try and replace shoots to be in equilibrium with existing roots. Won't produce more roots.

 

The situation with pops is different, Poplar reproduces asexually for the most part and throwing up suckers is an automatic reaction to felling or heavy pruning.

 

The staged reduction thing has been discredited, as you suggest.

[daltontrees]

I meant to say, the issue seems to be nothing to do with shrinkability of clays.