Retaining trees in (damaged) hard surfaces

[arbgirl92]

Looking for some collective wisdom here...

 

The company I work for own a significant number of trees within a town, we also own a number of publicly accessible pavements/footpaths/walkways.

We've had some insurance claims go through, where people have tripped over tarmac that has been lifted/cracked/damaged by tree roots - not on a path but on a tarmacked strip of land between parking areas - so now we need to action this to prevent it becoming a recurring issue. I have suggested removing the tarmac (it is completely unnecessary anyway) to discourage people from walking on it. But the raised tree roots will still be there and still be a potential trip hazard.

 

I'm sure i've seen some LAs use white paint to denote areas of uneven pavements, yet I have tried to look online for info on this, and whether it is defendable in terms of liability if someone trips over the roots, but I cant find anything! Have I imagined this? Does anyone have any links to precedents? Does anyone have any suggestions or solutions? Of course, money will always be a factor in terms of engineering solutions, and we do remove the worst offending trees where no solution seems to exist but frankly we would fell probably 80% of our tree population if we ended up felling all the trees causing significant damage which obviously we do not want to do!

 

FOR CONTEXT:

When the town was originally developed over 50 years ago, a large number of Poplar, Silver Maple, London Plane etc where planted, and in many cases in places that were only ever going to cause problems... We (the company i work for) own the majority of the housing estates including footpaths and some roads (most roads are adopted). We have an awful lot of trees that cause major damage to hard surfaces, paths, paving etc. BUT we dont have a replacement planting budget (i get away with what i can RE planting but not too much). There are talks of a long term replacement planting plan (getting the right tree in the right location) but i dont expect this will happen any time soon.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

When I was a former TO, with a senior highways engineer who loved trees ("phew"), we quite successfully 'ramped-over' rootplates where the existing (level) tarmac surface had lifted / cracked. This was done in the knowledge it would need to be re-done on circa 5years time but that was viewed as acceptable (there are now many more flexible resin-bonded surfaces available but don;t know if they'd meet highways spec requirements (LTOA did a research project on these, or similar, and published it, check their website.

 

In terms of issuing disclaimer to remove liability I don;t think that's an option unfortunately  

 

I had the pleasure of visiting Seattle many years ago and they had many raised footpaths, that you stepped up and down from, bridging, in effect, tree rootplates...not very wheel-chair / pram friendly but meant the trees remained (a comment, not a suggestion         

 

Good luck

Paul

 

PS the partial compromise with the Highways was that we removed most 'flowering cherries' from verges which decimated adjacent tarmac / slabbed footways, as they do, but most were very mature and heavily cankered anyway so no big loss...and we replaced with something more suitable. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by AA Teccie (Paul)
Additional commentsTypos

[JaySmith]

There is always a conflict between the highway (road and footpath) and the trees. The white paint is usually to mark the area for the contractors to show them what to do and to measure and spec the job. It also acts as a heads up that it is being dealt with. It can’t be used as get out of jail card.

There are often options with regards to engineering solutions, such as Flexipave or the equivalent but it can be expensive. Although the cost of flexipave is far more significant than normally tarmac it doesn’t often need redoing time after time so can become more financially viable long term if you think some footways are patching nearly every year!

The rub comes when you are told there is no engineering solution as the damage is so significant and they cannot relay within the tolerances. In this case the tree often has to come out and a replanting arranged elsewhere.

There are docs online from the Dept of Transport that outline best practice and tolerances. If you struggle to find them let me know.

I am lucky where I work in that we have a designated highway stewards who deal with things like the tarmac, I purely advise on the tree, whether it has long term viability and what they can or cannot remove to facilitate the repairs. The stewards then work out if the footway can be patched within tolerances. Sometimes they will open the footway and we will say yes or no to cutting some of the roots to smooth the patch.

If you get involved with section 278’s and your assets are lost could you go for CAVAT and put that towards replanting?

[daltontrees]

It occurs to me that if the tarmac is not needed and you remove it but leave the roots there as a trip hazard your liability will not be os great, Basically if you make something look like a pedestrian surface people walk on it expecting it to be safe but if it's a  rough surface the law expects them to be more careful.

The case law I know of is not encouraging, it favours the professional idiot who would trip over anything in broad daylight.

[daltontrees]

31 minutes ago, JaySmith said:

There is always a conflict between the highway (road and footpath) and the trees. The white paint is usually to mark the area for the contractors to show them what to do and to measure and spec the job. It also acts as a heads up that it is being dealt with. It can’t be used as get out of jail card.

There are often options with regards to engineering solutions, such as Flexipave or the equivalent but it can be expensive. Although the cost of flexipave is far more significant than normally tarmac it doesn’t often need redoing time after time so can become more financially viable long term if you think some footways are patching nearly every year!

The rub comes when you are told there is no engineering solution as the damage is so significant and they cannot relay within the tolerances. In this case the tree often has to come out and a replanting arranged elsewhere.

There are docs online from the Dept of Transport that outline best practice and tolerances. If you struggle to find them let me know.

I am lucky where I work in that we have a designated highway stewards who deal with things like the tarmac, I purely advise on the tree, whether it has long term viability and what they can or cannot remove to facilitate the repairs. The stewards then work out if the footway can be patched within tolerances. Sometimes they will open the footway and we will say yes or no to cutting some of the roots to smooth the patch.

If you get involved with section 278’s and your assets are lost could you go for CAVAT and put that towards replanting?

I'm intrigued, what does 'go for CAVAT' mean?

[Khriss]

Found flexipave to be crap, lot of effort and fails just like tarmac over time. K

[JaySmith]

I'm intrigued, what does 'go for CAVAT' mean?

If a developer removes your trees to facilitate development then should the owner not be compensated?

[Rich Rule]

Jay,

 

Who are you working for these days mate?  Still at SL?

[Mick Dempsey]

39 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

I'm intrigued, what does 'go for CAVAT' mean?

Capital Asset Value of Amenity Trees according to Google.

[Treerover]

Capital Asset Value of Amenity Trees according to Google.

Is this the new Helliwell scale type ‘o’ ting ?