Help and advice required regards apple tree and subsidence on neighbours new extension

[haltny1977]

Hi All

 

Apologies if this has been asked many times but I need some advice. I live in a conservation area and have a lovely mature apple tree in my garden believed to be around 30-35 years old. It is right up against my fence line. In 2018, when we moved into our home our neighbours were having a new extension built. It has since come to light that at the time they did not have any arboriculture report and stated on their application that there are no trees within the immediate vicinity of the proposed extension. There are no mentions of the tree in the plans submitted by their architect. The tree sits around ten feet from the edge of their new extension. Prior to us moving into the property in 2018, they had previously submitted to have another tree in our garden felled due to possible subsidence in their main house. This was done prior to us moving in but shows they are not oblivious to trees and what they can do. 

We live in South London on clay soil. Last year their new extension started showing big cracks, primarily on the opposite side to where our house is, where there is another large mature tree, also not mentioned in their application or plans. Their insurance company wrote to me telling me that core drill samples had been taken and apple tree roots identified at a depth of 2m. At this point I should mention that our gardens are not flat and level, they drop down from the main house. I have decking and have four steps to get from my decking to the garden below. Their insurance company are now telling me I must cut down my lovely apple tree or risk being pursued for costs, they even submitted a planning application to the local council to have the tree felled, which against objections was approved. I was hoping the council would put a TPO on the tree given the area is a conservation area, but alas they did not. 

According to their insurance companies report the foundations were dug to 1.3m. This doesn't seem deep enough and from previously speaking to someone I was told that had they have had a proper arboriculture report taken, it would almost certainly have recommended far deeper foundations. 

I know insurance companies will always look for the cheapest and easiest way to fix subsidence, but I feel like I am being bullied into removing a lovely, healthy tree when it was the carelessness of my neighbours as to why they are now suffering subsidence. 

Has anyone ever come across a situation such as this? I am informed I cannot appeal the councils decision to allow the tree to be cut down. 

 

Any advice greatly received

 

Thank you

[daltontrees]

Unfortunately there is case law that would support your neighbour's position. If the Council TPO'd it to prevent felling, it would become partly responsible for the damage too.

[haltny1977]

Hi Jules, thank you for your response. Do you happen to know the case in question so I can look it up? My searching online is hitting a dead end. 

[Squaredy]

8 hours ago, haltny1977 said:

Hi All

 

Apologies if this has been asked many times but I need some advice. I live in a conservation area and have a lovely mature apple tree in my garden believed to be around 30-35 years old. It is right up against my fence line. In 2018, when we moved into our home our neighbours were having a new extension built. It has since come to light that at the time they did not have any arboriculture report and stated on their application that there are no trees within the immediate vicinity of the proposed extension. There are no mentions of the tree in the plans submitted by their architect. The tree sits around ten feet from the edge of their new extension. Prior to us moving into the property in 2018, they had previously submitted to have another tree in our garden felled due to possible subsidence in their main house. This was done prior to us moving in but shows they are not oblivious to trees and what they can do. 

We live in South London on clay soil. Last year their new extension started showing big cracks, primarily on the opposite side to where our house is, where there is another large mature tree, also not mentioned in their application or plans. Their insurance company wrote to me telling me that core drill samples had been taken and apple tree roots identified at a depth of 2m. At this point I should mention that our gardens are not flat and level, they drop down from the main house. I have decking and have four steps to get from my decking to the garden below. Their insurance company are now telling me I must cut down my lovely apple tree or risk being pursued for costs, they even submitted a planning application to the local council to have the tree felled, which against objections was approved. I was hoping the council would put a TPO on the tree given the area is a conservation area, but alas they did not. 

According to their insurance companies report the foundations were dug to 1.3m. This doesn't seem deep enough and from previously speaking to someone I was told that had they have had a proper arboriculture report taken, it would almost certainly have recommended far deeper foundations. 

I know insurance companies will always look for the cheapest and easiest way to fix subsidence, but I feel like I am being bullied into removing a lovely, healthy tree when it was the carelessness of my neighbours as to why they are now suffering subsidence. 

Has anyone ever come across a situation such as this? I am informed I cannot appeal the councils decision to allow the tree to be cut down. 

 

Any advice greatly received

 

Thank you

You haven't stated how big the apple tree is.  I am guessing it is fairly large, in which case I guess you are up against it.  No doubt you could fight the insurance company, but this will probably be expensive and stressful, and you may lose.

 

Maybe the best thing is (sadly) to agree to have the tree felled and re-plant a much smaller tree further from the building (with dwarf or semi-dwarf root stock so it will never become large)?  It is of course a classic David and Goliath situation, so it depends how much money and energy you are willing to put into a fight.  Unfair probably, but you have to be selfish and weigh up the how much you value the tree and how much you value an easy life!

[Squaredy]

2 minutes ago, haltny1977 said:

Hi Jules, thank you for your response. Do you happen to know the case in question so I can look it up? My searching online is hitting a dead end. 

Also, don't forget, if you were to persuade the council to TPO the tree, this could bite you in the bum, as you would need to get their permission every time you prune it, or if you ever wanted to reduce or remove it.  Be careful what you wish for.

[GarethM]

Let them pay for removal, then sit back and watch the cracks continue to grow from their trees.

[peds]

12 minutes ago, Squaredy said:

Also, don't forget, if you were to persuade the council to TPO the tree, this could bite you in the bum, as you would need to get their permission every time you prune it, or if you ever wanted to reduce or remove it.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

Forgive my ignorance here, but would there ever be a form of TPO which stipulates that the tree must be maintained in such a manner that it wouldn't get the chance to escape or become a problem or just otherwise continue to be a tree? That an apple tree, or indeed a whole orchard, could sneak through with the necessary occasional pruning, without having to apply for the work every time?

 

Not necessarily relating to this poor apple tree, just in general.

 

Established big hedges in historical areas, urban Street trees, that sort of thing...

 

Edit:

To the OP, knock the tree down, plant at least 3 more, slightly further away. 

Edited September 19 by peds

[Muddy42]

Say if they want the tree removed they have to pay for it and be done with it.  It feels so wrong doesn't it, but that's how the law works.  I had a similar thing happen to me.  A neighbour built a house in his garden near our boundary.  Just on our side of the boundary was an old and dying ash tree.  They started claiming the tree was dangerous and would damage their house.  I fended them off for a while by saying things like "the tree was here first" but they got good lawyers on the case.  I didn't want to spend any money on this, but after doing some research I realised I didn't have a case.  So I just felled the tree and a few days later I'm pretty sure they nicked the logs !

[GarethM]

Might be worth getting a solicitor type to write a worded letter saying effectively that.

 

You could argue that it's not been DNA typed from the roots etc, but in a neighbourly fashion I would be reluctant but amenable to them having the tree removed to your satisfaction providing they covered all costs of felling, removal and stump grinding to ensure it's entirely dead and poses no risk of regrowth 🙂.

[Peasgood]

Must be some apple tree if its roots are causing issues on the other side of their extension. Apple trees in my experience do not have big root systems and I've never seen any significantly sized roots extend beyond the dripline.

I can't offer any professional advice further to what has been written but my expertise is apple trees rather than the law.

If I was in that situation it sounds like the tree would have to go but there would be a brick through each of their windows.

[peds]

1 hour ago, Peasgood said:

If I was in that situation it sounds like the tree would have to go but there would be a brick through each of their windows.

 

A logical and reasonable response.