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

[manco]

4 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

 

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. 
 

 

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

 Jules has already provided the relevant technical info. 
 

 

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. 

 

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

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

ahah wasnt really expecting answers, was just throwing thoughts around for other people to consider

but since you mention, non-local arborist to reduce any influence on their opinion

and my suggested reduction being less about resolving the issue and more just a general comment