Tree Trouble

daff_duck

I have just found documents relating to a tree outside my house. Basically the tree is about 25' high and about 15' away from my house. the tree is council owned. Anyway it goes that the house was underpined in 1989 because of the root damage from this tree. The recomendations are for the council to remove it. That is the last correspondence I have, so I phoned council telling them and he is refusing to put the tree as priority felling. Have I got a good case to get the tree removed? Anyone giving me insurance wants proof the tree is gone.

tanith

I am sure there will be more informed comment soon.. but my brother had to have his house underpinned because of trees in the local park and he was told that there can also be problems if a tree is felled . Root shrinkage and extra water that is not taken up anymore by the tree...

PasturesNew

The recommendation was for the Council to remove the tree.
That doesn't mean they have to.
And they don't have to make it a priority of theirs to do so.
How much would it cost to have it taken down at your own expense? If it wasn't too much, it might be an easier/quicker/cheaper solution to get their permission and do that

spinks

We had the same problem with some trees.

They were absolutely huge and we reported them to the council and were advised they needed cutting down but there was a 3 year long delay and it was illegal for us to touch them.

In the end it took a strong wind to take one of them down which created a domino effect along the trees which ended up wiping ours and the neighbours fences out.

Seeing as the trees had proven to be a danger the council soon came and got rid of them.

daff_duck

Thanx all, but surely if it is their tree and it has already damaged the property, and according to report will continue to cause problems, then they should remove it? I am sure if something of mine was damaging there property it would be a different story. I am having real trouble getting buildings and contents insurance also because they all want proof the tree is gone.

spinks

daff_duck wrote: »

Thanx all, but surely if it is their tree and it has already damaged the property, and according to report will continue to cause problems, then they should remove it? I am sure if something of mine was damaging there property it would be a different story. I am having real trouble getting buildings and contents insurance also because they all want proof the tree is gone.

I think we had to go along the route of "we will be taking legal action should your trees cause any further damage to either our property our ourselves."

My dh is brilliant at getting these sorts of things resolved, he is a firm believer in speaking to the top. He always makes a point of finding out the Chief Executives name of the Council and going directly to them. You usually only get to speak to their assistant but from past experience they are usually pretty helpful.

The next option is your local MP. He came in handy because we couldn't even get hold of the council (any department whatsoever) as they only had a answer machine service which promised a call back which you never got in weeks.

It turned out the council had been rated as 'weak' by The Audit Commission' inspection and had been given a deadline to improve or face being run by administrators.

TJ27

daff_duck wrote: »

Anyone giving me insurance wants proof the tree is gone.

So do you have insurance? Or are your insurers saying that they won't renew unless the tree's removed or something?

silvercar

gardenlaw.co.uk

courtjester

Hang on a minute - you said the property was under-pinned in 1989 according to your documentation and that the last correspondence recommended removal of the tree.

(1) what was the date of that 'last' correspondence?
(2) which authority gave that recommendation - a structural engineer?
(3) does the property exhibit any signs of movement or cracking now?
(4) when did you acquire the property and was the under-pinning not declared at the time of purchase or mentioned in any survey you carried out?

The insurers who paid for the under-pinning will generally continue to insure the property, so there should be no problem....?

You can't remove a council tree without authority - that would be criminal vandalism and if your property has been under-pinned (as an alternative solution to removing the tree), and the property and soil conditions have stabilised, removing the tree now will almost certainly upset the stability that has been achieved, so you are asking for trouble....

Note that trees are not the SOLE cause of subsidence. They may be contributing factors, but there are other issues such as soil conditions, foundation depth and construction, location and condition of drains, seasonal weather, slope, water table etc., etc. In the bad old days (and 1989 was towards the end of that period) trees were often incorrectly diagnosed as the sole culprit and removal recommended as if they were a bad tooth needing pulling. In general, removing trees should be a last resort but not without careful consideration of the consequences which arise from that removal.

daff_duck

TJ27 wrote: »

So do you have insurance? Or are your insurers saying that they won't renew unless the tree's removed or something?

I only found out about this last week. I phoned to tell my insurers and they cancelled the policy.

daff_duck

courtjester wrote: »

Hang on a minute - you said the property was under-pinned in 1989 according to your documentation and that the last correspondence recommended removal of the tree.

(1) what was the date of that 'last' correspondence?
(2) which authority gave that recommendation - a structural engineer?
(3) does the property exhibit any signs of movement or cracking now?
(4) when did you acquire the property and was the under-pinning not declared at the time of purchase or mentioned in any survey you carried out?

The insurers who paid for the under-pinning will generally continue to insure the property, so there should be no problem....?

You can't remove a council tree without authority - that would be criminal vandalism and if your property has been under-pinned (as an alternative solution to removing the tree), and the property and soil conditions have stabilised, removing the tree now will almost certainly upset the stability that has been achieved, so you are asking for trouble....

Note that trees are not the SOLE cause of subsidence. They may be contributing factors, but there are other issues such as soil conditions, foundation depth and construction, location and condition of drains, seasonal weather, slope, water table etc., etc. In the bad old days (and 1989 was towards the end of that period) trees were often incorrectly diagnosed as the sole culprit and removal recommended as if they were a bad tooth needing pulling. In general, removing trees should be a last resort but not without careful consideration of the consequences which arise from that removal.

I bought the property when my father passed away. I purchased it from the family so no, I didn't get a survey done. The last letter we have was from the structural engineers regarding the tree being removed. Yes there is slight cracking again on that corner. I tried the origional insurers but she said because I haven't been insured with them continuaslly they can't help. We had our own buildings insurance with our mortgage.