Subsidence Claims..

[Yorkshireman]

ime its the tree that gets in the frame first, not geo reports, had one report stating a clients tree was cause third party damage, yes they did sample digs & found that the tree roots were indeed present in the grounds (small expolitory fiberous roots), however they failed to carry out plastisity index report, the main issue was with regards to a brand new kitchen extension that had cracks internally, the footings and shell were built in wet winter completed in a dry summer then after a discussion with the my client it came to light that because the lady of the house was in a rush to use the new kitchen the plasterer had used a space drier to assist the curing of the plaster DER !!!!

 

Tree not at fault , although it was also mentioned by the complainant, that it (The Tree) would still cast a shadow on the recently landscaped patio & bbq area.

 

as intermated previously subsidence is an issue but if done in error the heave potential once the tree is gone doesnt seem to catch the attention.

 

why do they not go for canopy reductions, & inderpin the house ? = cost & its only a tree grrrrrr

[detritus21]

The problem you have is people blame trees for subsidence as they are visible and you see heave from the roots immediately round the base of the trunk. At the weekend I removed a spruce root ball and the root system is massive but when you bare in mind that the spruce was less than 2m away from a wall and there were no visible signs of damage it makes you think. My house is built on foundations that are at most 12 inches deep its a 1930's jobbie and we have 3 mature ash trees in the garden and there is very limited evidence of subsidence. The only tree we do have minor problems with is a holly bush which has cracked the front step but that could be to do with the frost we've had.

 

The problem you will get with cutting trees down where subsidence is a problem is the soil may heave as the ground saturates and expands. Also as the roots rot you have a potential for ground movement thus causing further damage.

[Lee Winger]

 

The problem you will get with cutting trees down where subsidence is a problem is the soil may heave as the ground saturates and expands. Also as the roots rot you have a potential for ground movement thus causing further damage.

 

 

We can't do anything about heave, phased reductions don't work, and to be honest i've not seen heave happen that often.

 

If you suspect [for those of us who carry out mortgage reports] a tree might cause subsidence just, put it on your report as a fell , thats what I do , I don't mess about.

 

Ian , your right most consultants don't send soil samples away for plasticty reports, the reason as you know is , these type of reports are the last thing the lender or the buyer think of , and often need the report asap, the geo firm that carry out my plasticity tests take up to 10 days to come back with there results, too long for a mortgage report.

[raafbeard]

hmm mixed responses here..

 

Did another 10m approx. Yew yesterday - I remain deeply sceptical and think I would refuse this work if it was my business.

 

Drainage is definately an issue - so many "paved" areas and altering rain patterns due to global warming.

 

Don't think felling is a long term solution

 

And what about street trees I don't see councils felling them in a hurry because of the risk to the homeowners - their voters??

[Log-ologist]

Don't think felling is a long term solution

 

And what about street trees I don't see councils felling them in a hurry because of the risk to the homeowners - their voters??

 

 

 

The council had to fell lots of Oak trees round here as the insurers where going to sue the council, some that I could see from the window here where only 20 to 50 metres away.

[raafbeard]

The council had to fell lots of Oak trees round here as the insurers where going to sue the council, some that I could see from the window here where only 20 to 50 metres away.

 

 

forgot the local council did some here as well but not for subsidence reasons!

 

Was thinking more of the planes and lime pollards but guess they have a reduced water requirement.

 

Did another today a 10m Oak but yet they leave a load of sh***y sycamores and pops. seems to be fairly random sometimes and dare I say it illogical...

[Lee Winger]

hmm mixed responses here..

 

Did another 10m approx. Yew yesterday - I remain deeply sceptical and think I would refuse this work if it was my business.

 

Drainage is definately an issue - so many "paved" areas and altering rain patterns due to global warming.

 

Don't think felling is a long term solution

 

 

 

 

A yew 10 meters from a property can very easily cause a property to subside.

 

You worry to much..

[Amelanchier]

IMO its market forces coupled with an increasingly litigous society. Houses are major investments and people are more willing and able to go to court over damage.

 

Unfortunatley for trees, the evidence is against them. We can't pretend its not, thats why the bloody construction and legal professions don't take us seriously! (See attached and linked .pdfs)

 

http://www.oca-arb.co.uk/pub/journal_of_building_appraisal.pdf

 

In case anyone didn't know, the TPO application process is out for consultation with the aim of stremlining the process to bring it within a general overhaul of planning applications.

The upshot is that as part of this, local authorties will be given the provision to ask for any supporting documents they deem reasonable to support applications to work on TPO trees.

 

That means two things -

1. Lots more demand for reports (good for me!!)

2. Local authorities can demand PROPER reports and surveys with regard to TPO trees in subsidence cases.

breIP706.pdf

[raafbeard]

Thanks for posting Tony some good info. there...

 

Still hate doing it would rather have trees than houses!!

[Dean Lofthouse]

That means two things -

1. Lots more demand for reports (good for me!!)

2. Local authorities can demand PROPER reports and surveys with regard to TPO trees in subsidence cases.

 

I think one big side effectof this is that Tree owners will be less inclined to maintain there trees.

 

They already quibble about cost and more often than not have to be reassured they are doing the right thing.

 

The only way they will be able to get people to spend loads of money just to apply to maintain or carry out works on their trees would be to force them to through the threat that if they don't they may be sued by "Mr Itrippedovermyshoelace".

 

We have to be careful we don't see a trend of houses or property not being bought simply because they have one or more trees within its grounds. Then it will be a case of, if the trees haven't got a TPO then they will have it down quick sticks before someone slaps one on it.

 

We are seeing this at the moment within the construction industry. Local councils receive an application for a new build, they refuse it first time and slap a tpo on every tree on site.

 

What happens then is the next time the developer buys land to build on, wise to the tactics of the planners, he cuts down all unprotected trees on site before the application goes in.

 

We need to see a little common sense approach to the TPO process