Opinions please.

[scotspine1]

As a Builder I can't see that tree causing subsidance, even if it was, how come its only just become apparent?

Both the neighbours house and the tree look like they've both been there for a very long time.

 

 

If a tree is causing subsidence a building can subside during the summer as the soil beneath its foundations dries out, and it will rise during the winter as the soil completely rehydrates. This is broadly what does in fact happen, except that the constant movement of foundations causes a gradual long-term settlement (sometimes referred to as "dynamic settlement"). Many buildings - particularly those of a more traditional construction - will tolerate considerable movement, so that there may be no harm done (or some that can be tolerated) But excessive movement of foundations can lead to serious harm to the building above. (C. Mynors)

 

Are the neighbours new/recent owners of the house?

 

Good question

[Ian C]

I agree Mick, that Oak looks a nice health balanced tree, why remove it, do the crown reduction if it's getting a bit out of hand and leave it at that. Those conny's are doing more harm than the oak and next door probable want abit more light in summer

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

That oak looks like its been pruned before, and I like others doubt it is having any affect whatsoever on the foundations next door. The connies are a bigger issue, but the biggest issue is the shoddy extension work, but its just so much easier to persue the tree than go back to a biulder who may have followed the rules and done the foundations to spec, but we all know these extensions are never as good as the old build.

 

Id go back to the nieghbours and ask them for a copy of the report and contact details of the surveyor, and start with an inquirey to him over the phone.

[Mick Stockbridge]

The neighbours have lived there a long time.......Interesting what you say about the more traditional house being able to take more movement Tim. The neighbours house is 1930's and the clients house was built in 1729.

[scotspine1]

The neighbours have lived there a long time.......Interesting what you say about the more traditional house being able to take more movement Tim. The neighbours house is 1930's and the clients house was built in 1729.

 

Wouldn't look too much into that Mick, those are the words of Charles Mynors - 'The Law of Trees' author. Was just using that quote to explain to Jellybelly about the incremental effects of tree roots/subsidence leading to permanent damage.

 

Simple facts are the deeper foundations are the better, e. g. if water gets under very shallow house founds then freezes it'll cause subsidence as it expands and contracts. Suspect the 30s house would have deeper founds than your clients but Hama made a good point about the extension on the neighbours house, wonder when that went up and how deep the founds were?

[treequip]

There is no subsidence until the other side brings empirical evidence implicating the Oak tree. Until that happens all you have is the unsubstantiated opinion of a surveyor.

Following a formal communication the tree owner should respond (in writing and by registered post) indicating a willingness to abate any legally actionable nuisance that the other party can establish. Copy you own insurers on this.

 

This puts the ball back in their court. They then need to put up or shut up. If they are unresponsive after a reasonable time period write to them again saying you consider the matter closed.

 

If they do respond it will likely escalate to insurance companies, who will then do the usual dance. They will probably instruct a loss adjuster and or one of the ARB consultancies who deal with tree and subsidence issues. The first letter will likley mention dire consequences and reserve the right to recover costs etc. This is usually devoid of any evidence indeed at this point they may not have made a site visit, much less conducted any investigations. This can have the same response as the first letter, the time to take notice and action is when they start providing evidence of seasonal movement and can link it to your tree.

 

I would probably advise my client to ask the LA to consider making a TPO which is a good place for the tree owner to shelter. (Provided you don’t want to go for the fell)

 

As others have said the “official” letter is often a ploy and the real issue is often shade. Anyone involving their insurers is waving goodbye to the policy excess which is often 1K so you can be sure they are serious.

[gingertreeninja]

just another thing you could mention to the neighbour is just how much water a long established oak like that takes up! the removal could result in ground heave or even flooding. i know this is more likely in clay soil but you could leave that bit out, or i could be completly wrong

[Arborist]

I was told that heave would only happen if the tree was there before the house! is this right?

[Lee Winger]

If you check the NHBC guide to tree planting distances you will see, they [NHBC] think a tree that close could become a problem.......

 

The only proper option is investigations pits, ie dig a series of holes close to the property and see if there are significant amounts of roots visible............

 

Oh and a proper soil plasticity test

[Lee Winger]

This has reminded me of the whole tree root / subsidence matter which my parents had for years with a Willow. Back in the day I had a list of trees with safe distances i.e. willow was 40m from house, Poplar 35m and so on - is that old hat or still relevant? Anyone got the list? Sorry for the derail.

 

Yep I still have the list, I'll dig it out and see what it says about oaks