Any advice on Maidenhair

[Chris at eden]

Hi,

 

Many thanks for all your help - sorry, I neglected to mention that the house was built in 1901....so not a new build......

 

thought it looked old, it has sash windows thats why i asked. does it have a cellar? if not then the foundations are probably about 900mm and that is shallow. Wouldn't meet current building regs on shrinkable clay with trees present.

[tone123]

many thanks for your reply. The house is three story and does not have a cellar. the clay type in this area is (i believe) shrinkable clay.

 

Are you able to guess as to the age of the tree?

[woodyguy]

When young they grow fast (one of mine that is 22years old has grown 2foot this year already) but slow when older. As two of us have said, it is probably 40 years old but could be up to 60 at most.

[Chris at eden]

many thanks for your reply. The house is three story and does not have a cellar. the clay type in this area is (i believe) shrinkable clay.

 

Are you able to guess as to the age of the tree?

 

I would agree with Woodyguys assessment of age as a guess. The important thing with age is, is it significantly older than the house as this is what influences heave. I wouldn't comment further on a forum as it would be getting into technical detail which would make up a report. Issues of liabillity go with that. My advice is get a report from a local arb. For info. you cant just look at this tree if there is a risk of subsidence. You would have to consider:

 

• vegetation on your land which could damage your property
  
• vegetaion on your land which could damage adjacent properties
  
• and, vegetation on adjacent lands which could damage your property
  

 

These all carry potential liabilities.

 

Hope this helps,

[tone123]

Many thanks for all your replies.

 

The house was built in 1901 and so based on the guessed ages, it would have been planted after the house was built. The land to the front of the property does not actually belong to it - therefore the tree is owned managed by these estate. I am wondering if this helps or hinders the situation or actually makes no difference what so ever?

[Chris at eden]

Many thanks for all your replies.

 

The house was built in 1901 and so based on the guessed ages, it would have been planted after the house was built. The land to the front of the property does not actually belong to it - therefore the tree is owned managed by these estate. I am wondering if this helps or hinders the situation or actually makes no difference what so ever?

 

 

It makes the situation a little more compliated in terms of getting works done as the tree is not under your ownership but it is jumping the gun a little at this point. The first step is to identify if there is an issue and ownership doesn't make too much difference when inspecting the trees. Inspections in terms of tree condition may be limited due to lack of access but the subsidence bit will be relatively unaffected. You can measure the distance from building to tree with a laser so not an issue if its off site. You would just deal with the results in a differnt way.

 

I'm surprised your mortgage leder or insurance provider have not asked for a report. I did one recently in Birmingham where the tree was touching the building. If retained there was a risk of direct damage as the building it was touching was a light weight single storey extension. If removed there was a risk of heave as the geological data said the soil was shrinkable and the tree was older than the house. Fortunatly for the new owner the geo data was out of date and the soil was actually not shrinkable so he could remove the tree. He exchanged contracts before he found any of this out as the engineers report only loosly mentioned the tree.

 

I wouldn't advise this approach as if there is a problem it becomes yours. Also, if you get it done upfront you could ask the vendor to part fund.