How best to deal with this copper beech

[Legohead]

Hi

 

I am about to buy a house, and initially was not that put off by the large copper beech in the front garden. I was just going to have it out. However now having done the research I am starting to think twice.

 

As you can see from the picture, the tree starts at ground level of the property to the right, and has a wall built around it. It is leaning on to this wall. It pre dates the house in the 1970 s I believe so quite a large soil deficit I would imagine. The house is sitting on some loamy, reasonably good draining soil at the top of a hill, leading down to a river, so I am assuming decent drainage down the hill. The house is one of those 3 level houses so it has a basement, and am worried about heave should I remove it, laterally onto the basement walls, and also the wall that borders the property to the right as you look at the picture. There is no subsidence issues and has never been. The structure of the house is good. But the tree certainly needs to be trimmed as it is touching the windows of the house. What should I do?

[Graham]

If you're worried about heave you'll need to get a soil test done to determine its plasticity. I think I'd be tempted to manage it as a pollard. Future veteran there :-)

[StephF]

It sounds as if the tree just needs some light crown reduction on the house side to stop branches touching / damaging windows/gutters.

I would advise getting the tree inspected regularly (annually) by a qualified, insured professional, with a written report done. Someone on this site may be able to recommend someone in your area?

If the verdict is good health then insurance wise you should be covered, if any problems, then act on what advice is given, it is impossible to tell from a photo if all is well with the tree. I hope it is healthy & stays put for a long while yet!

[sloth]

Don't concern yourself with heave, heave as a result of tree removal is incredibly rare, tree reduction, almost unheard of. Regarding the woodsman talking of sonar, hmmm. What are his credentials?!

If you'd like a pre-purchase report I cover the area, feel free to get in touch for a chat.

Kevin

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Arbtalk mobile app

[JimM]

Maybe because I live in a rural area I can only think that it's completely the wrong tree for that size of garden.

It's too close to the house and in a tiny garden.

Get rid and if your conscience is twanging away then replant with a small cherry/apple or similar more in the centre of the garden space.

[peatff]

Guys,

 

I am not a tree hater, but i am sure you would be worried if the tree blows down hits my property, the property to the right and left etc. I am liable.

 

If it hits your property your insurance should cover you, if it hits theirs it's their insurance's problem. This was illustrated on another thread on here a few months ago when the tree owner was shown only to be liable up to his own boundary. Will your insurance cover you with a tree that close to your property, it was a question on the form I filled in for my house insurance if there were any trees within falling distance of the house.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Maybe because I live in a rural area I can only think that it's completely the wrong tree for that size of garden.

It's too close to the house and in a tiny garden.

Get rid and if your conscience is twanging away then replant with a small cherry/apple or similar more in the centre of the garden space.

 

 

There's the voice of reason!

 

Yes, it would be a great pity, but here is a situation that can only get worse as the tree matures. Nice tree, poor situation.

 

Do what you can to mitigate the loss by replanting something more suited to the built up environment.

[Johny Walker]

i,d go for a 3,cut reduction ,job done

Edited May 20, 2014 by Johny Walker

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

If it hits your property your insurance should cover you, if it hits theirs it's their insurance's problem. This was illustrated on another thread on here a few months ago when the tree owner was shown only to be liable up to his own boundary. Will your insurance cover you with a tree that close to your property, it was a question on the form I filled in for my house insurance if there were any trees within falling distance of the house.

 

 

Insurance (after the scrutiny of the claim, the voice tone analysing and the mealy mouthed wrangling and wriggling of the insurance company) is just a cheque in the post (if you get one!).

 

It doesn't necessarily account for the worry (before any potential failure), the disruption and upheaval of possibly having to move out whilst repairs are effected and the potential for personal injury.

 

I know that all sounds very dramatic and is an example of worse case scenario. But frankly, I'd be surprised if the mortgage and insurance companies didn't require a fairly extensive report prior to underwriting and then periodically thereafter. So there's an enduring cost which as a stand alone consideration is likely to cause the prospective purchaser to consider removal.

[daltontrees]

If it hits your property your insurance should cover you, if it hits theirs it's their insurance's problem. This was illustrated on another thread on here a few months ago when the tree owner was shown only to be liable up to his own boundary. Will your insurance cover you with a tree that close to your property, it was a question on the form I filled in for my house insurance if there were any trees within falling distance of the house.

 

If the tree's failure wasn't foreseeable, then what you say is correct. If it was foreseeable, then the tree owner is liable for damage outside his boundary. Since the potential purchaser has been told there is decay that could be further investigated, reliance on not being liable for offsite damage woild be a very poor decision.

 

In plain language, the way I see the law is (and imagine th tree falls over after the house has been bought and moved into aand wrecks the neighbour's house).

If the tree was knackered and you knew it, you're liable.

If the tree was obviously knackered and you hadn't even checked it, you're liable.

If the tree was knackered, you checked but only an expert would have known it, you're not liable.

If the tree was knackered, you hadn't checked but only an expert would have known it, you're not liable.

If the tree was knackered, you had checked and suspected it had hidden problems but did nothing more about it (like getting in an expert), you're liable.

[daltontrees]

PS I know this won't be poular view, but I'd buy that house and then get rid of the tree. Why? Who would live in the shade of a beech tree, it would be like living in a cave. You'd have the lights on all day. It would make the house unattractive to most buyers and the house would be a bargain. But my tree work costs me nothing.

 

Actually what I would probably do is plant something smaller and more appropriate in teh garden towards the road, leave to for a coupke of years to establish and meantime reduce the beech once a year quite substantally and see if it could be kept as a garden bonsai with bearable shade implications..