Would you buy a house with for a nice price but with a huge oak right beside the wall?

CarterNomad

I know that these kind of houses are cheaper for a reson but i wander how to calculate it, and if cutting down the tree beside the house is a game worth playing. 

horsewithnoname

All sorts of questions come to mind. Can you chop it down (TPO?) would you suffer from the excess water if it went. How long has it been there, is any damage already done?
just few things to consider, sorry, I don’t have an answer. 

Martin_the_Unjust

Depends how old the oak is, more than 300 and less than 600 years old, yep definitely especially if the price was good.

(Oaks spend roughly 300 years growing, 300 years just being an oak and 300 years dying)

whizzywoo

Martin_the_Unjust said:

(Oaks spend roughly 300 years growing, 300 years just being an oak and 300 years dying)

No advice to give but I love this:  "300 years just being an oak"

Section62

CarterNomad said:

I know that these kind of houses are cheaper for a reson but i wander how to calculate it, and if cutting down the tree beside the house is a game worth playing. 

If it were legal and worth doing then you'd need to ask yourself why the current/previous owners have chosen to take a hit on the property value rather than getting rid of the tree themselves.

AskAsk

you may need permission to cut the tree as it is protected and you may be shocked at how much it will cost to get it cut down.

oystercatcher

If I loved the house I would get an experienced serveyor to look at it with particular reference to the tree and likely problems.

koalakoala

I wouldn’t buy it, seen too much damage done by tree roots

AskAsk

oystercatcher said:

If I loved the house I would get an experienced serveyor to look at it with particular reference to the tree and likely problems.

and also get a tree surgeon to give a quote for removing it.  i remember someone said they got quoted £12k to have an oak tree removed!

Annemos

As a general rule, a Tree should not be removed if it is older than the Property, because this could result in Heave. (The opposite of Subsidence and which can cause more damage than Subsidence.)

This is more of an issue on Clay soils. 


(Having had a long and painful Tree Root Subsidence claim, I now prefer Trees that are at least a mile away from my place.)
 

Please see this Post I replied to a few weeks ago, for more details on Heave. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6585994/tree-roots-impacting-the-neighbours/p2

Section62

Annemos said:

As a general rule, a Tree should not be removed if it is older than the Property, because this could result in Heave. (The opposite of Subsidence and which can cause more damage than Subsidence.)
...

A a general rule yes, but trees can be removed provided it is done the correct way - for example with a vulnerable combination of property and soil type, by a process of gradual reduction in the size of the tree over a number of years, perhaps with some ongoing monitoring of the structure to detect movement.

Definitely something to take advice from a structural engineer on.