Distance a Tree Can be safely growing to a house

[Chris at eden]

5 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Go for the subsidence/damage to property angle.

Only problem with that is that they will need: 

 

• tree report
• engineers report 
• info on foundation depths
• atterberg limits testing - very expensive 
• root id and starch testing 
• and evidence of actual damage - level or crack monitoring

they wont even register an app without the detail as it is legally required by the one-app. 

 

that is a real long shot when the house would have to have been designed with the tree in mind to get a building control certificate

5 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

 

Got à picture?

 

[Chris at eden]

5 hours ago, Khriss said:

If it was built in the  90's with a retained tree in place, usual building  precautions should have been taken.

i agree

5 hours ago, Khriss said:

An Area TPO should give room to maneouvre,

On what basis?  The only issue with area orders is that they may protect trees that don't warrant protection, or confusion on old orders as to whether specific trees were present when the order was made.  This tree probably was and they will have records from the planning app to prove it on file.  I know its good practice to review area orders but no one does.      

5 hours ago, Khriss said:

get arb report and then put in an application to fell. Cite health concerns with Drs letter included. K

Long shot in my experience.  

[Khriss]

1 minute ago, Chris at eden said:

i agree

On what basis?  The only issue with area orders is that they may protect trees that don't warrant protection, or confusion on old orders as to whether specific trees were present when the order was made.  This tree probably was and they will have records from the planning app to prove it on file.  I know its good practice to review area orders but no one does.      

Long shot in my experience.  

Hence my 'quiet word' before he splashes too much cash in this.  Or time. Very dependent on what TO is like. K

[Chris at eden]

4 hours ago, Dan27 said:

Hi, I did consider this but was quoted £800 for a report. Does this seem about right? It seemed excessively high to me - when this is something I thought I might be able to do myself.

It depends what the report would cover.  If its just a visual tree assessment based on safety then yes that is expensive.  If you start adding amenity assessments and such then yes it is probably still a bit expensive.  Its about right for a CPR (expert witness) report and very cheap for a subsidence report.  The soil analysis would cost more than that.

 

With all due respect you could not do it yourself.  Supporting evidence has to be prepared by a competent professional.  you could do the app yourself but that is about it.  

            

[Chris at eden]

4 hours ago, Scottish Cleaning Service said:

The roots will be right under your house.

 

Highly unlikely.  Soil environment under the house is sub-optimal and so probably won't support root growth.  Plus, the house foundations will be at least 1m deep.  As i am sure you are aware, the vast majority of tree roots are in the top 600mm so wont be deep enough to go under.  The droppers that go deeper tend to be vertical.  Even if roots are under the house, what is the risk?    

    

[Chris at eden]

3 hours ago, Scottish Cleaning Service said:

Who in there right mind would build a house next to a massive tree? They obviously cut through a lot of roots to set the foundation.

You have hit the nail on the head there mate.  Trouble is, tree officers object based on proximity and are labeled the bad guy.  Planners overrule the TO and allow the build and then we end up with this situation.  Developers make the argument that it will be obvious to potential buyers and get consent.  But it isn't always the case.     

3 hours ago, Scottish Cleaning Service said:

The first thing you would do is cut the tree down then build the house.

That isn't the correct approach in planning terms.  You should build the house with sufficient clearance from the higher quality trees.  

[Chris at eden]

14 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Hence my 'quiet word' before he splashes too much cash in this.  Or time. Very dependent on what TO is like. K

Pre-app discussions is always a good idea.  👍

[Chris at eden]

Where is the site?  

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Can't see from the pic, is the tree in your garden or on the highway?  

 

Are YOU the tree owner?

 

It's only partly of interest since the tree owner gets to decide what might happen after the LA has issued the decision.  If you don't own the tree you've got even less than the already slim chance of getting what (you think) you want.

 

Might be best spend a bit of cash on getting the allergy identified properly since it may not even be the tree and you'd likely be North of £2k light in pocket if you did get an approval and paid for a removal.

 

For that sort of mullah you'd be better off getting a air purifier and some private health screening.

 

Sounds like a typically slack LA with that ATPO though.  Should last no longer than 6 months!  

Tree Preservation Orders and trees in conservation areas - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

---

Explains the legislation governing Tree Preservation Orders and tree protection in conservation areas.

 

 

[Dan27]

1 hour ago, Chris at eden said:

The LPA won't allow felling for allergens and you would probably lose on appeal as well.  I had an application a few years ago when working as a tree officer for a LPA which was similar.  Resident was allergic to the Birch in her garden.  Even got a doctors letter to support the application.  I refused the app on the basis that hay fever is a natural hazard and that there were other trees in the area so it wouldn't resolve the issue.  It would be unsustainable to fell tree due to allergens.  I wasn't sure how it would go on appeal but the PINS inspector dismissed the appeal and was pretty scathing in his assessment of the applicant.      

It doesn't matter how big the tree was when the house was built.  LPAs are meant to consider ultimate height when determining applications.  Pressure for future tree removals, nuisance, etc.  

Proximity to the house is a different issue to safety.  Occupiers Liability (1957 and 1984 - i think) is the main law for tree safety.  Proximity to buildings comes from BS5837:2012.  Assuming your tree will grow to have a stem diameter of >600mm it should be planted at least 1.2m from the house.  This is to prevent direct damage from contact.  Subsidence risk should be low as the tree predates the house and so foundations should have been specified with the tree and site conditions in mind.    

As above.  Pruning may be an option if the tree canopy is close to the building.   

That is because there isn't any.  Its nonsense propagated by insurance companies trying to get out of paying claims.  Next time an insurance company ask you a question like that, ask them where the figures come from and listen to them waffle and glaze over.    

Standard practice, they have a legal duty to protect trees in the face of development - S197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - i.e. there is a law for that.  The area designation isn't great but there is no question that your tree wasn't there at the time so they are covered.   

You could potentially argue that the issues you face outweigh the visual amenity.  you would need to do an amenity assessment and report that looks at all the issue.  not just one angle.  

 

 

Thank you for your response. 

I do feel that I need to approach it from more than just the one angle. 

What is an amenity assessment? 

 

The tree is in my garden. 

My house is one of 10 on the road and I am at the end of the cul de sac. 

 

This tree can not be seen by the main road and other than 2 houses other houses of the 10 - the other house can only see the part of the tree that is above my roof. Ie - that can see the top 20-30ft.