Neighbour has requested removal of my 160 year old Copper Beech (TPO/AONB/Conservation area)

[MarkII]

Neighbours house built in the 1970's, the attached garage is within a couple of metres of the tree, which would have been over 100 years old when the house was built. Built on clay sloping away from the tree and with 6ft retaining walls other side of the property and another large Beech tree on that side.

No damage or subsidence occurred until suffering cracking during last 6 months of 2022. (ABI has identified 2022 as the worst subsidence claims issue UK wide since 2006 - due to drought)

My neighbours claims management company appointed structural engineers and an arborist to assess the situation.

The cracking in the house appears to be in the middle of the house which is away from my tree and from the movement assessment, the main movement seems to be at the opposite end of the property with next to no movement right next to the tree. 

The first course of action is to insist on the tree's removal with an aggressive couple of letters. 

The engineer reports suggest that the tree 'contributes' to the issue, not suggesting it is the main cause however the arborist states the tree as the main cause. Also mentioned by the engineer is that the house has insufficient foundations and once the tree removed, will require further monitoring and probably underpinning anyway.

 

Does anyone experienced any similar situations and can offer any advice/guidance i.e. how fast do Beech's grow? Are there any alternatives to removing/can it be chopped back bit to reduce water consumption without losing it's stature? If it is removed, is it likely to cause more issues as it's 160 year old root base declines? (I am estimating it's age based on Mitchells rule with a girth of 330cm)

We're in an AONB, conservation areas and the tree has a TPO on it, in addition to being widely loved by the community (applied to have it dead-wooded and the parish council turned up at my door!) and is visible throughout the valley when in leaf.

Just feels like the insurer is trying to offload the liability onto my insurance and remove this grand old copper Beech to try to avoid paying for fixing the insufficient foundations, any advice or guidance would be gratefully received!

 

Pics show the tree in question, the attached double garage of the neighbours on the right

 

Many thanks

Mark

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by MarkII

[Mark J]

It is very likely that a period of level/crack monitoring which proves cyclical movement associated with soil drying effects of vegetation, coupled with site investigations with positive root ID, foundation design information, and the properties of the soil will be required before a Local Authority will consider felling a TPO'd tree. 

If the tree is the found to be the cause then sadly there is no reasonable way to reduce your tree's water intake by pruning as the wounds would be too big for a beech to accommodate. 

[manco]

without bias toward the integrity of the buildings or regard to that, my opinion is tell them to sod off as much as possible until the tree can be 100% proven at fault.

its a nice tree and once its gone its gone, ya cant nail it back up if the house still keeps cracking.

doubtful that a bit of reduction would do any harm, and would only increase light into your house.

taint blocking out anything you dont wanna see so you could knock a bit off the top and sides.

 

im sure someone will provide you with a bucketload of technical stuff about how fast a beech grows in relation to soil and air quality and water source and space.

its a tpo so if the council tree man says no then its a simple no.

suggest independent arborist survey, possibly from outside the area.

if the tree has to go, who is paying?

[AHPP]

1 hour ago, manco said:

 

its a tpo so if the council tree man says no then its a simple no.

 

No it isn’t. 
 

 

2:11 onwards 

[manco]

3 minutes ago, AHPP said:

No it isn’t. 
 

 

2:11 onwards 

Humpy as usual. im sure youve missed out on a better one to quote, seem to recall theres something about a no only being a no until you turn it into a yes.

 

if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one time with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.

[AHPP]

3 minutes ago, manco said:

Humpy as usual. im sure youve missed out on a better one to quote, seem to recall theres something about a no only being a no until you turn it into a yes.

 

if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one time with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.

I was in a hurry. Big feng shui job on here. 

[donnk]

your property is damaging their property.

 

pay up.

[Mark Bolam]

If someone headbutted your house and damaged their face would that be your fault as well?

[Steven P]

5 hours ago, donnk said:

your property is damaging their property.

 

pay up.

 

Allegedly and only partly.

[alandurrant]

Of no help, but, dispite my love of trees, I see many on my boundaries and think, if only I cut that back/down 30 years ago...

[Chris at eden]

22 hours ago, manco said:

without bias toward the integrity of the buildings or regard to that, my opinion is tell them to sod off as much as possible until the tree can be 100% proven at fault.

its a nice tree and once its gone its gone, ya cant nail it back up if the house still keeps cracking.

 

The evidential test for civil litigation is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt so they don’t have to show 100% proof to win. Just more chance than not that the tree is implicated. I.e.. 51%, or even 50.1%.  It doesn’t have to be the only cause either.  They should be providing full details though which often they don’t. 
 

22 hours ago, manco said:

doubtful that a bit of reduction would do any harm, and would only increase light into your house.

taint blocking out anything you dont wanna see so you could knock a bit off the top and sides.

 

It would have zero impact on water uptake so not realistic. 

22 hours ago, manco said:

 

im sure someone will provide you with a bucketload of technical stuff about how fast a beech grows in relation to soil and air quality and water source and space.

 Jules has already provided the relevant technical info. 
 

22 hours ago, manco said:

its a tpo so if the council tree man says no then its a simple no.

 

Not really. TPO refusals are subject to appeal via the planning inspectorate and if they have enough info to show that the tree is implicated on the balance of probabilities then it may become exempt due to actionable nuisance.  Note the word may, I would strongly advise to stay away from the exemption unless it’s accepted by the LPA or they have some solid legal advice.   Not worth the hassle and could land them in trouble if they haven’t ticked all the boxes.  It’s always best to get in writing from the LPA. 

22 hours ago, manco said:

suggest independent arborist survey, possibly from outside the area.

 

This I agree with although it makes no difference where they are from realistically.  Legal advice also if they intend to fight it. 

22 hours ago, manco said:

if the tree has to go, who is paying?

The duty holder or their insurance company.  It’s the owners responsibility, not the claimant.