Tree Identification

[Chris at eden]

If that is the builder taking care of the tree I would hate to see him trying to get rid of one. Don't see how you can retain this tree long term as even if by some miracle it survives the dominance and nuisance issues will be horrendous. Even if its subject to a TPO and the council refused to allow felling, you would most likely win on appeal.

 

Another point to consider is that if the building is a breach of planning the LPA may refuse to discharge the planning conditions. This can create issues when you come to sell the house. Un-discharged planning conditions tend to make solicitors and bit twitchy. Not always, but sometimes. Be carful, speak with planning to makes sure the boxes have been ticked. I don't see how planning could have consented this layout with the agreement of the tree officer.

[IVECOKID]

Madness,total madness , who gave the go ahead in the first place !! The footings alone would of had to be at least 5plus feet to clear any chance of roots so the root system will of been totally hacked at , my neck of the woods the council building inspector would of put the kybosh on that !

I did a footing job early this year and a apple tree plus a self seeding multi Stem Sycamore were a good 40 feet away and job got the knock back until Sycamore was felled and stepped the footings down from 3feet to 5 near the apple tree .

 

Ste

[fagus]

+1 for Ivoekids response.

My advice to LA's in these situations is that you either have the tree or the house in that position-you cannot have both successfully-a compromise will not work the house will eventually win if approved there. So make the decision at approval and approve the felling of the tree even if it is protected; otherwise it is just embarrassing later (well it is now) and possibly eventually unsafe.

A reasoned response to a felling decision will be more readily accepted and do less harm than the locals later long remembrance of the LA's ineptitude.

[Chris at eden]

Madness,total madness , who gave the go ahead in the first place !! The footings alone would of had to be at least 5plus feet to clear any chance of roots so the root system will of been totally hacked at , my neck of the woods the council building inspector would of put the kybosh on that !

I did a footing job early this year and a apple tree plus a self seeding multi Stem Sycamore were a good 40 feet away and job got the knock back until Sycamore was felled and stepped the footings down from 3feet to 5 near the apple tree .

 

Ste

 

The apple trees would be irrelevant in this situation. Apple has a zone of influence (ZoI) of 7.5m so at 40ft (12m) its not close enough to be an issue.

 

I would think that the foundations were specified with the sycamore in mind which has ZoI of 16.5m and with the soil being classed as highly shrinkable with an MPI of 40%+. That would mean with the sycamore in situ the foundations would need to be 1.4m (4.6ft) @ 12m distance and 1m (3.3ft) outside of the ZoI. Under no circumstances should foundations be less than 1m on highly shrinkable soils, even if there are no trees present. That ties in roughly with what the inspector said. Not sure where the site is but you could possibly reduce the depth by 100-150mm based on climatic variation if you are in Cheshire but not below 1m so possibly down to 1.25m at the closest point.

 

As for the OP, the foundation depth would depend on soil type but if it was low shrinkage then they could be as shallow as 750mm. High shrinkage they would possibly need to be 2.35m deep at that distance.

 

To the OP. This is fairly speculative on my part so don't take this as professional advice as I have not been involved in either sites and my comments are based on very limited information. To echo what others have said get a tree consultant involved.

[Chris at eden]

The apple trees would be irrelevant in this situation. Apple has a zone of influence (ZoI) of 7.5m so at 40ft (12m) its not close enough to be an issue.

 

I would think that the foundations were specified with the sycamore in mind which has ZoI of 16.5m and with the soil being classed as highly shrinkable with an MPI of 40%+. That would mean with the sycamore in situ the foundations would need to be 1.4m (4.6ft) @ 12m distance and 1m (3.3ft) outside of the ZoI. Under no circumstances should foundations be less than 1m on highly shrinkable soils, even if there are no trees present. That ties in roughly with what the inspector said. Not sure where the site is but you could possibly reduce the depth by 100-150mm based on climatic variation if you are in Cheshire but not below 1m so possibly down to 1.25m at the closest point.

 

As for the OP, the foundation depth would depend on soil type but if it was low shrinkage then they could be as shallow as 750mm. High shrinkage they would possibly need to be 2.35m deep at that distance.

 

To the OP. This is fairly speculative on my part so don't take this as professional advice as I have not been involved in either sites and my comments are based on very limited information. To echo what others have said get a tree consultant involved.

 

Sorry, slight typo there. Min depth on low shrinkable would be about 1.55m for the OP, possibly reduced to 1.4m. Again speculative. Same caveats for my comments.

[Gary Prentice]

huge beech in the wrong place, leaves and moss on roof and gutters, beech can drop branches - fell it.

 

Sorry - can't agree on this point though. The tree is in the right place. Its the build that appears not to have been lead by a tree constraints plan, therefore the building is in the wrong place - quite literally.

 

Some peoples tolerance to tree problems are higher than others.

 

I wonder if tolerance is higher in those on the consultancy side of arboriculture, compared with those on the contracting side?

[IVECOKID]

Either way that said Beech tree ( neglected ) is going to come back and HAUNT the Op in later years and will clean his wallet out at the wrong Time .

 

 

Ste

Edited November 24, 2015 by IVECOKID

[devon TWiG]

With all the current legislation / rules ( bs 5837 ) etc etc and a general awareness of trees and what would appear to be the intention of the developer to retain the tree as a feature ( if not made to ... TPO ) does this situation still arise !!!!!!!!! That tree has virtually no chance of long term survival , sadly this is not uncommon at all , unbelievable !!!

[Milesboyd]

Thanks 10 Bears & all......after several hours today on the phone to the solicitor we have a site meeting next monday to review the situation. Conservation is my primary focus however I don't want to live with a time bomb in my front garden.....

[Kveldssanger]

Have mercy...