During the last big drought we had to have a number of trees taken out because of subsidence to our house. We had to have under-pinning as well. All the trees were younger than the house and had been planted much too close. I think you need professional advice because it is a complex and very costly business. Yours is a beautiful tree and I hope it can be saved but if not, make sure you don't have to bear the cost.
@Janie B DON'T have the tree felled. For both your and your friendly neighbour's sake, you need to employ a structural engineer to do a report for you - one with genuine experience of these issues. What you have been told makes no sense.
1. Tree roots are largely - though not entirely - within the breadth of the tree canopy. Beech is quite shallow rooted, so it does spread wider and there will be some roots beyond the canopy, but still most of it's bulk will be within it's own canopy breadth. The angle of the photo makes it difficult to see but it looks like the house is well away from the tree canopy? The exception would be a tree that's been regularly pollarded to restrict the top growth. 2. If the tree really is affecting the house then felling it will make the situation worse. As the roots die, the soil will move - either swell or subside but move - and one way or the other, their house structural problems will be exacerbated and not relieved. 3. The tree was pre-existing and is not on their land. They CANNOT demand that you fell it, the house should have been designed to take cognisance of the risk that that tree (and any other in the vicinity) poses to a new structure. It should have been built with deepened foundations locally and a root barrier. Building Control should have seen the tree and insisted on this when it was built so there ought to be records of what was agreed.
I'm not sure exactly what the house problem is. But if it's subsiding or settling, the most effective remedy now is probably going to be to underpin the house and introduce a root barrier as close to the house as they can get. Felling the tree is not going to help.
You both need better technical advice than you've been given so far.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Oh and another thing. You have absolutely no liability for the costs. You haven't done anything. You didn't even plant the tree. It's your neighbour's insurers trying to swerve the costs and pin it on you. They need to cough up for the remedial works caused by defective construction in entirely foreseeable circumstances. They will, of course, try hard not to.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
I understood that it was the amount of water taken out of the soil rather than root damage. I'm not sure that officials will favour a tree over a dwelling which is why I suggest professional advice.
I understood that it was the amount of water taken out of the soil rather than root damage. I'm not sure that officials will favour a tree over a dwelling which is why I suggest professional advice.
It's a number of factors - soil is dynamic and all the trees will be affecting it, as well as the weather - the Beast last winter followed by the dry spell will have made clay soils especially heave and then shrink. It may have nothing at all to do with the tree. Or it may be that tree along with the others locally. But either way, the problem is the foundation design and not the neighbour's garden.
I completely agree and have said - @Janie B needs professional advice - better advice than she's had to date
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Thanks for all your replies... @raisingirl and @posy you make some valid points... we have pretty much decided that we will do all we can to prevent it from being felled, but have been warned that if we go against all insurers' advice, we will be liable for any future structural problems that occur due to us not following advice (need to check if this is true...). It makes no sense that their Building Control has no responsibility at all for this, so that is definitely an avenue to investigate. My husband has just said that it's in fact more like 10m-15m from her property rather than my initial guesstimate of 50m. It doesn't look as though her house is under the canopy at all. Also, @raisingirl, are you implying that her insurers will have to pay for taking the tree down (rather than our insurers)? That's something else I'll need to check... Thanks for giving so much food for thought...
I guess professional advice from an arboricultural consultant would be a good start. We have used one in the past for tree advice.
You did say that you lived in a Conservation area right at the beginning, did you not? In which case the tree is automatically covered by a TPO. In that case neither you nor your neighbours can do anything to the tree without permission from the Council. Our daughter could not even take down a dead Laburnum without permission as she is in a Conservation area.
Yes, I realise that the Council will have to get involved. Always very careful with what we do regarding local restrictions, as our neighbours too are always on the look out for people getting rid of trees willy nilly, putting up satellite dishes where they shouldn't be, changing window frames on listed buildings etc ...
What nightmare situation for you! I do hope you can save your tree but a quick search reveals this rather depressing article on the RHS website. I don't know if it's up to date though. https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=225
Thanks for that link @Singing Gardener. Quite alarming. The bit that read: "Tree owners are liable for full costs of repairs if a tree is found to be ‘materially contributing’ to that damage. It is no defence to claim the following: the tree was there before the building; the foundations were inadequate; the tree is more valuable than the building; or that as tree owner you were not aware of the risk."
leapt out at me! So much conflicting advice to think about.
Posts
1. Tree roots are largely - though not entirely - within the breadth of the tree canopy. Beech is quite shallow rooted, so it does spread wider and there will be some roots beyond the canopy, but still most of it's bulk will be within it's own canopy breadth. The angle of the photo makes it difficult to see but it looks like the house is well away from the tree canopy? The exception would be a tree that's been regularly pollarded to restrict the top growth.
2. If the tree really is affecting the house then felling it will make the situation worse. As the roots die, the soil will move - either swell or subside but move - and one way or the other, their house structural problems will be exacerbated and not relieved.
3. The tree was pre-existing and is not on their land. They CANNOT demand that you fell it, the house should have been designed to take cognisance of the risk that that tree (and any other in the vicinity) poses to a new structure. It should have been built with deepened foundations locally and a root barrier. Building Control should have seen the tree and insisted on this when it was built so there ought to be records of what was agreed.
I'm not sure exactly what the house problem is. But if it's subsiding or settling, the most effective remedy now is probably going to be to underpin the house and introduce a root barrier as close to the house as they can get. Felling the tree is not going to help.
You both need better technical advice than you've been given so far.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
I completely agree and have said - @Janie B needs professional advice - better advice than she's had to date
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Thanks for all your replies... @raisingirl and @posy you make some valid points... we have pretty much decided that we will do all we can to prevent it from being felled, but have been warned that if we go against all insurers' advice, we will be liable for any future structural problems that occur due to us not following advice (need to check if this is true...). It makes no sense that their Building Control has no responsibility at all for this, so that is definitely an avenue to investigate. My husband has just said that it's in fact more like 10m-15m from her property rather than my initial guesstimate of 50m. It doesn't look as though her house is under the canopy at all. Also, @raisingirl, are you implying that her insurers will have to pay for taking the tree down (rather than our insurers)? That's something else I'll need to check... Thanks for giving so much food for thought...
I guess professional advice from an arboricultural consultant would be a good start. We have used one in the past for tree advice.
https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=225
"Tree owners are liable for full costs of repairs if a tree is found to be ‘materially contributing’ to that damage. It is no defence to claim the following: the tree was there before the building; the foundations were inadequate; the tree is more valuable than the building; or that as tree owner you were not aware of the risk."
leapt out at me! So much conflicting advice to think about.