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

Annemos

Section62 said:

 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, 

 "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," 

=====================================


 I think there is some debate about this, which I noticed in my research at the time of my own Claim. 

The big expert in the field called Giles Biddle, said the following:   

"Giles Biddle told us way back in 1992 (ARN 108/92/EXT) that ‘phased removal of a tree over several seasons merely prolongs the period of recovery’." 



They also discuss this topic in here (link below) . Page 3 has some opinions: 

"If there is a persistent moisture deficit caused by the tree that has caused the ground to shrink, removing the tree over time will just prolong the length of time it takes for the heave to take place. The same change will occur, and so theoretically the same damage. Hence Adams comment."

And this one also says      " I agree with Adam. I know there is a BRE publication that suggests staged reduction but it doesn't stack up for me as the soil will still ultimately recover to the same position and so cause the same damage, just at a slower pace. I asked Giles Biddle this question at a seminar and he said the only option is structural re-enforcement using anti-heave precautions."   (That is, I think, do an Underpinning.)

https://arbtalk.co.uk/forums/topic/96348-chances-of-heave-if-willow-is-felled/#comments



It is indeed a very complex subject. 

AskAsk

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.)

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

ha ha, a mile away    that only happens if you live on a farm, lol

AskAsk

Section62 said:

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.

and that would cost an absolute arm and a leg.

Section62

Annemos said:

Section62 said:

 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, 

 "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," 

=====================================


I think there is some debate about this, which I noticed in my research at the time of my own Claim. 

...

Some of the debate is probably because there are so many variables - type of tree, size of tree, type of foundations, type of walls, (changing) weather patterns etc.

Most buildings, despite being constructed of 'solid' materials, usually have some degree of flex in them.  If you've ever stood near the top of a tall narrow concrete-framed building in a gale you might be surprised at how the solid reinforced concrete is allowing the building to gently sway.

In a typical domestic dwelling subsidence situation there will be movement within masonry walls which is accommodated in the mortar joints.  Hence the first sign there is something wrong will often be with something that doesn't tolerate movement so easily - such as gypsum plaster cracking, or doors sticking when the gap around them closes up in one corner.

I'm not a structural engineer, but from what I remember of my degree course I suspect some of the debate in the quotes you posted relates to the extent the building and its support (as a 'system') is undergoing plastic deformation vs elastic deformation.  The argument "The same change will occur, and so theoretically the same damage." is probably leaning too heavily on an elastic model - i.e. based upon the original changes being 100% reversible returning the 'system' back to the starting point.  Whereas the true picture is likely to involve the ground and building adapting to a new equilibrium.  This is where the rate of change becomes an important factor - the degree to which a building can accommodate movement often depends on how quickly the movement occurs - and it matters more if the building is going to a new place, not back to where it started.

My understanding is this is why reducing the size of a tree over time (with some monitoring of movement) has the potential for causing less damage than sudden total removal of the tree.  But I'm not claiming to be an expert - just pointing out that there is hope and people should seek expert advice rather than giving up and accepting the worst.

newsgroupmonkey_

AskAsk said:

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.

I had a tree cut down for £85. It was approximately 80 foot tall.
Part of the deal was to let them have all the wood.

Oak is very, very valuable.

MeteredOut

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

AskAsk said:

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.

I had a tree cut down for £85. It was approximately 80 foot tall.
Part of the deal was to let them have all the wood.

Oak is very, very valuable.

Was your tree right next to the house wall? And when and where was this - prices have increased fairly significantly in some areas.

AskAsk

MeteredOut said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

AskAsk said:

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.

I had a tree cut down for £85. It was approximately 80 foot tall.
Part of the deal was to let them have all the wood.

Oak is very, very valuable.

Was your tree right next to the house wall? And when and where was this - prices have increased fairly significantly in some areas.

My neighbour paid £1,000 for her tree in her back garden to be cut down.  It wasn't a huge tree but access was through the house only and it wasn't oak.

So the cost can depend on access.  The quote of 12k I saw was that plant equipment was needed to get up that high.

Section62

AskAsk said:

MeteredOut said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

AskAsk said:

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.

I had a tree cut down for £85. It was approximately 80 foot tall.
Part of the deal was to let them have all the wood.

Oak is very, very valuable.

Was your tree right next to the house wall? And when and where was this - prices have increased fairly significantly in some areas.

...
So the cost can depend on access.  The quote of 12k I saw was that plant equipment was needed to get up that high.

And then some.  Easy access makes all the difference.

Also the condition of the tree.  A large healthy tree can usually be climbed, but one which is dead or diseased can be risky, which is when some kind of access platform is needed.

So many variables, it makes the OP's original question impossible to answer.

newsgroupmonkey_

MeteredOut said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

AskAsk said:

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.

I had a tree cut down for £85. It was approximately 80 foot tall.
Part of the deal was to let them have all the wood.

Oak is very, very valuable.

Was your tree right next to the house wall? And when and where was this - prices have increased fairly significantly in some areas.

This was about 4 metres from my house wall, New Forest and last August.

EDIT to add: Yes, it was outside the front of the house. They were able to do it entirely without special equipment.