Tulip Tree Vs Extension

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

Sorry just read through the whole thing and answered my own queries.

So I assume that you have concluded the damage is purely down to incremental growth of roots rather than clay shrinkage subsidence. I think it unlikely that the tree predates the house (tulip trees are from the poplar family i.e. fast growing). So I do not think that heave is an issue. Has the owner taken this up with his insurance company? Insurers will usually carry out all the structural, soil and tree surveys and testing necessary to establish the cause of damage and will often pay for the removal if required.

[Paul Barton]

Sadly the tree is too close to the house (or visa versa depending on your perspective!).

 

Too close for what?

[David Goss]

Too close for what?

 

too close for a truck to pass between:001_tt2:

[Pete Bannister]

Too close for what?

 

too close for comfort!

[Paul Barton]

too close for comfort!

 

Thats what I feared! Surely we should be able to substantiate a reason for removal better than a feeling.

 

Having said all this in defence of the tree, if the owner wants to remove it then I wouldn't stand in their way. It's their property and their tree after all.

[Old Mill Tree Care]

What about starting with something simple:

The tree looks very bushy, as if it's had a reduction before. If so, reduce it again. Reduction of foliage equals a reduction of water uptake and the root expansion requirements.

Clients usually like this as it's cheaper than a fell, they get to keep the tree and it greatly improves the safety factor.

Yes, I know it will grow back. Bonus!

 

If it must be felled then make it a staged removal over three or two years.

[Paul Barton]

What about starting with something simple:

The tree looks very bushy, as if it's had a reduction before. If so, reduce it again. Reduction of foliage equals a reduction of water uptake and the root expansion requirements.

Clients usually like this as it's cheaper than a fell, they get to keep the tree and it greatly improves the safety factor.

Yes, I know it will grow back. Bonus!

 

If it must be felled then make it a staged removal over three or two years.

 

But Steve has said that the tree is not on a clay soil, so he doesn't need to be concerned about water uptake. Subsidence caused by trees can only occur on clay soils with a high plasticity i.e. ability to swell and contract.

 

The research I have read about this indicates that reducing/pruning is ineffective for reducing water uptake - after one year the tree will have put grown enough foliage back to compensate that the water uptake will be the same.

 

And the staged removals are also a myth - probably conjured up by an arborist looking for repeat business:sneaky2:

[Le Sanglier]

But Steve has said that the tree is not on a clay soil, so he doesn't need to be concerned about water uptake. Subsidence caused by trees can only occur on clay soils with a high plasticity i.e. ability to swell and contract.

 

The research I have read about this indicates that reducing/pruning is ineffective for reducing water uptake - after one year the tree will have put grown enough foliage back to compensate that the water uptake will be the same.

 

And the staged removals are also a myth - probably conjured up by an arborist looking for repeat business:sneaky2:

always rather suspected that, does anyone here have proof (anecdotal or otherwise) to the contrary? thanks in advance.

[Paul Barton]

It is sometimes explained as a way of avoiding 'heave' i.e. the swelling of soil that has previously been home to a tree which has drawn away alot of moisture.

 

The thinking is that by removing the tree over a number of seasons, the soil has time to 'adjust' to the extra moisture that is present because the tree is not removing it. However, as far as I am aware (and I ain't no subsidence expert) the soil will always return to its original soil moisture content (all other things being equal) once the tree has gone, whether it takes 3 years or 3 hours with an 088!

 

If the house/extension was built after the tree was there, and the soil is a clay, the swollen soil could lift the building.

 

If the house was there before the tree, the soil will return to its previous state and the house will return to its original position.

 

Sorry to derail Steve - have you decided what you are going to recommend?

[Le Sanglier]

It is sometimes explained as a way of avoiding 'heave' i.e. the swelling of soil that has previously been home to a tree which has drawn away alot of moisture.

 

The thinking is that by removing the tree over a number of seasons, the soil has time to 'adjust' to the extra moisture that is present because the tree is not removing it. However, as far as I am aware (and I ain't no subsidence expert) the soil will always return to its original soil moisture content (all other things being equal) once the tree has gone, whether it takes 3 years or 3 hours with an 088!

 

If the house/extension was built after the tree was there, and the soil is a clay, the swollen soil could lift the building.

 

If the house was there before the tree, the soil will return to its previous state and the house will return to its original position.

 

Sorry to derail Steve - have you decided what you are going to recommend?

 

sorry I should of explained I understand all that from my college days, what I meant have you or anyone seen this?