Tree removal due to subsidence

[shaggy]

I have been asked to price removing a mature oak tree for a local parish council. Due to a subsidence claim from neighbouring property.

 

The tree stands on the side of a small track accessing a piece of ground behind a row of houses. Either side of the track are 2 houses approximately 5-10m away

 

The tree is situated on the left hand boundary of the track. The house on the right hand side of the track (the house which is furthest away of the two) has made a subsidence claim backed up by a report that this oak tree is casing subsidence to their house, and therefore their insurance company want the tree to be removed.

 

The houses were built well after the tree was there and are built on shrinkable clay. In my view if the tree was to be removed they will be opening them selves up to a subsidence claim from the house on the left which is closer to the tree than the house on the right.

 

In my eyes the house with the claim should be looking at other options such as underpinning rather than removing the tree.

 

The parish council have also asked whether a staged removal would get round these problems. The way I see it is that it will have the same affect but just take longer to show the damage.

 

I am no expert on the subject, the above is an educated guess I would be interested to hear other peoples views.

 

Thanks

 

Ben

[Ruskins Trees]

I would advise the parish council to speak to their insurance company.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I have been asked to price removing a mature oak tree for a local parish council. Due to a subsidence claim from neighbouring property.

 

The tree stands on the side of a small track accessing a piece of ground behind a row of houses. Either side of the track are 2 houses approximately 5-10m away

 

The tree is situated on the left hand boundary of the track. The house on the right hand side of the track (the house which is furthest away of the two) has made a subsidence claim backed up by a report that this oak tree is casing subsidence to their house, and therefore their insurance company want the tree to be removed.

 

The houses were built well after the tree was there and are built on shrinkable clay. In my view if the tree was to be removed they will be opening them selves up to a subsidence claim from the house on the left which is closer to the tree than the house on the right.

 

In my eyes the house with the claim should be looking at other options such as underpinning rather than removing the tree.

 

The parish council have also asked whether a staged removal would get round these problems. The way I see it is that it will have the same affect but just take longer to show the damage.

 

I am no expert on the subject, the above is an educated guess I would be interested to hear other peoples views.

 

Thanks

 

Ben

 

Morning Ben,

 

Have they presented any evdience to show the tree is repsonsible, i.e. level monitoring / crack monitoring? If not it may be a speculative claim, i.e. house with subsidence = nearest big tree responsible. Whilst, sometimes, that may be the case some degree of site investigation should be undertaken to establish the actual cause (obvioulsy this is both in the interest of the tree owner but also the house owner so they get the correct diagnosis and solution.)

 

Even where the 3 main factors in subsidence are present, i) shrinkable soils (clays), ii) a house / structure (often inadequatley founded) and iii) a large tree in close proximity, in my epxerience, damage may be likely but not inevitable as the interaction between the various factors is notorious complex and, largely, unpredicatble.

 

Hence, after checking if the trees are TPO'd as if so the LPA will want to see evidence of causation, it all depends how your clients wish to proceed but if they do decide to react and remove the trees it should be on a "without prejudice basis", meaning we are reacting to your speculative claim but do not acknowldege responsibility (might be difficult to defend tho.)

 

Quite reasonable though to go back and say "where's the evidence please?"

 

On numerous occasions I have observed properties at a greater distance than others being damaged by trees so logic that the nearest should also be affected doesn't always follow...strange!

 

Also you are quite right in that there is no evdience to suggest / indicate that phased removal is any better and this is usually considered in potentuila heave cases ("don't go there!") rather than subsidence.

 

If the tree is respsonsible 'underpinning' the house would only be a consideration if the tree was exceptional in terms of it's amenity AND your clients insurers agree...very unlikely!

 

Hope this helps....if only a little.

 

Cheers..

Paul