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

[daltontrees]

6 minutes ago, Stere said:

If an enginner comes back &  report says might be heave etc if removed how do you proceed if you want rid of tree?

Keeping but cyclically reducing the tree is an option, and could in the right circumstances be defensible in a claim for damages form adjacent owner.

[daltontrees]

All the circumstances suggest there's little risk of heave. i.e. no history of trees on the site, recent construction that should have adhered to NHBC guidelines, deep foundations already noted. There's a big difference between patio slabs being lifted by shallow roots and heave/subsidence by shrinkage or swelling of deep clays.

[Stere]

 

Seen a 30 inch diameter beech felled (Stump was left) that was less than 1.5m from a probably 200yrs plus old farmhouse. Wondering if heave was even thought of.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Stere

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours 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 structure. Obvs this costs - but you are trying to establish guarantees here, so online searching cannot do that. It can only point you in what ever direction you choose based upon selecting only those parts of the detail which support the premeditated desired outcome. K

Just a petite amend suggestion K....

Edited July 12, 2020 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Khriss]

2 hours ago, benedmonds said:

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.  

 Or it might tell you exactly how to procede Ben, but then I have been handling tree related subsidence claims for TfL for a few years now - so what would I know  , eh ?  K

 

( I'll get me white cloak n rattly chains ) 

[Khriss]

... thanks Kev     K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 minute ago, Khriss said:

... thanks Kev     K

Always a pleasure 

[Khriss]

49 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Always a pleasure 

Very like Andy Summerly at Tree Life.......  

[benedmonds]

47 minutes ago, Khriss said:

 Or it might tell you exactly how to procede Ben, but then I have been handling tree related subsidence claims for TfL for a few years now - so what would I know  , eh ?  K

 

( I'll get me white cloak n rattly chains ) 

I am not trying to be argumentative, genuinly interested.

 

Let's assume we get a report. Costing hundreds if not thousands , as presumably we need soil samples for an engineer to make any conclusions. What will it say?

 

Will it say more than high, medium or low risk?

 

And if it does say high risk what are the actions we can take to lower the risk.. 

[Khriss]

@benedmonds - good - 

 

I always ask for a Structural damage report and a Soil report, often a Arb report too ( thou I often do that myself as it is Our trees they are claiming for soil shrinkage ) .

a) this weeds out the chancers who are looking for a wad to fix their shoddy extension built without Planning Permission

b) if it is a serious claim , their insurance company will actually do this ( actionable nuisance etc )

c) although nearly all claims are on London clay - a few are not - last proper claim was on a gravel substrate , the builder just did not go down the extra metre to it  ! 

d) Our trees 'might be'  causing soil shrinkage - but so are the honking great Leylandii in their next doors garden ! 

Then it gets interesting ....

 

K

Edited July 12, 2020 by Khriss
abt 10% of claims end up with tree removal .....