Denise in E18

I thought that heave isn’t an insurable risk because there’s no construction solution (unlike underpinning for subsidence)? A family member who was in insurance told me this several years ago: heave leaves the house damaged, unrepairable, uninsurable and unsaleable. if I had known about heave before I bought my own property (huge sycamore about 5-10m from house), I would have run a mile from it. I hope that the original poster found a different property! I found this article helpful and knowledgeable: https://www.peterbarry.co.uk/blog/clay-soils-subsidence-heave-trees-roots-part-2/

Khriss - no visible damage from heave. Original report (done by the 2018 people - so, yes,Jules, a conflict of interest) stated that there was no visible tree root disruption/damage to patios etc. Jules - is there a recognised “gold standard” qualification or association certification I should look out for, to be sure that I’ve got the right quality standard? Even if the individual turns out to be a plank?! You’re absolutely right about the insurance situation. For my sins, as well as owning my flat, I also own (and have the obligation to insure) the entire building’s freehold. This tree is but part of my tribulations on that front. Being able to claim against someone else’s insurance would make a welcome change, but I’d rather not get into trouble in the first place! Thank you both for your replies. Greatly appreciated. Denise

Hi I live in north-east London, on heavy clay. My home is a converted flat in a Victorian semi, built in 1879. About 15-20 metres from the house is a mature sycamore. No idea if it pre-dates/matches/post-dates the building of the house, I’m afraid. In general, my philosophy is to leave trees alone, especially in urban gardens. However, this is massive and too close to the house for comfort. My garden (the lower half of the original undivided garden) is also down a narrow path (less than a metre wide), and the trunk of the sycamore tree is a significant obstruction. When I bought my flat four years ago, the surveyor said “get rid”. However, my sister (retired insurance claims manager) warned about heave, and advised me to get a tree surgeon to do an assessment. I used an Arboricultural Association approved firm which advised that heave was a risk and that reductions needed to be made in three stages over six to eight years. It was reduced by about 25% in January 2018. I didn’t have the funds to do further work last year, and am just gearing up to get it looked at again now. My neighbour was having a tree surgeon do some work a week ago and I asked him to look at the tree and let me have a price for reducing it by a third. He looked and said that he’d recommend complete removal now, rather than staggered reductions. When I mentioned heave as a risk, he said that industry thinking has moved on in the last few years. His explanation made sense: reduce the tree crown, tree puts out lots of new growth above AND below ground. New growth has significantly higher water-uptake needs and therefore increases the risk of subsidence while the tree remains in place, and increases the heave risk when it’s removed, as there’s greater supply but with the balancing (higher) water uptake by the tree, removed. I’ve been reading conflicting sources of information online since that conversation. I came across this forum and hoped that your combined experience may give me a better framework of questions so that I can make headway with this. Thanks in advance for your contributions. Denise