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.
That's not right. If there is a mature tree present, then it SHOULD be taken into account when the foundations are designed. Not to do so is negligent
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
As I keep telling the man at the back of me. If you don't want a 100 year old oak in your garden,(actually only a quarter overhangs his garden.) Don't buy a 30 year old house there that was built in full knowledge of the TPO on it. It is marked on the deeds. Yes, it drops a lot of leaves in Autumn. Tough.
My OH has spoken to the Tree Officer in the District Council. It appears that the Council do not stand in the way of insurance claims, as it is expensive, and Councils don't have the money for a long drawn out appeals process. It seemed like he would be happy to give the go ahead to the vast majority of insurance requests ... Apparently the insurance companies only have to prove that "the balance of probability" is that the tree is contributing towards the damage to the building to require felling. He said the only thing we can do is fight it on our own, but it is very difficult (not to mention very costly) to prove the the tree is 100% NOT contributing to the damage. He also mentioned that building companies are forever folding and opening up under different names, so it is possible that the building company responsible is no longer in existence. Did not talk about whether any sort of planning for the building of the house was granted by the Council...
Also, to make matters worse, from our insurance company regarding felling the tree:-
“Unfortunately this is not something you can claim for, as your policy does not extend to cover maintenance of the property or its grounds. However you will need to take action, as if you do not cooperate with the requirements suggested by the Adjusters, you could then be held accountable for any further damage which will not be covered by your insurance policy.” Aaaaargh!
Oh, and apparently the neighbour's bleeding insurance people also want the beautiful cherry tree (lhs of beech in pic) to be felled! And we have to maintain the laurel hedge! I ask you!
We have booked a visit from the Arbiricultural Consultant as a first step. He will come in a couple of weeks, and has experience dealing with these issues. Hopefully he will advise further... watch this space!
Really appreciate the update although it looks as if they will have to come down 😭 Don't know how you would find out if it is possible to sell the tree or maybe look at having one if them turned into a wood sculpture, depends on your budget I suppose.
Our insurance company have agreed that they will pay to have a professional arboricultural consultancy come and provide a report on (a) whether or not the tree is causing the subsidence, and (b) if indeed it is, could there be other remedies than the proposed felling of the tree...
I do hope the tree can stay. Seems madness that you can be forced to chop it down for it's impact on 'new' properties which should have had foundations designed to take account of it! The engineers probably weren't even aware of it, the site survey wouldn't necessarily have included trees outside the site.
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour".
It looks like we have come to an agreement re our trees... after over 2 years! We have agreed to fell the cherry, and to reduce the beech by 25%, a very good result. I believe that all specialists seem to agree that this reduction will have very little effect upon the house, but it has been offered it up as a solution that the neighbours' insurers could accept (and have done so).
We are aware that the neighbour is considering building an extension in her garden. Sadly our solicitor cannot limit our future liability. I guess it will be a question of contesting any planning application that she may make.
What a palaver but good if you are happy with the outcome. As for the future, your neighbours know the trees are there so it's up to them and their architect and builders to take them into account when building any and all extensions.
Vendée - 20kms from Atlantic coast.
"The price good men (and women) pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men (and women)."
Posts
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
My OH has spoken to the Tree Officer in the District Council. It appears that the Council do not stand in the way of insurance claims, as it is expensive, and Councils don't have the money for a long drawn out appeals process. It seemed like he would be happy to give the go ahead to the vast majority of insurance requests ... Apparently the insurance companies only have to prove that "the balance of probability" is that the tree is contributing towards the damage to the building to require felling. He said the only thing we can do is fight it on our own, but it is very difficult (not to mention very costly) to prove the the tree is 100% NOT contributing to the damage. He also mentioned that building companies are forever folding and opening up under different names, so it is possible that the building company responsible is no longer in existence. Did not talk about whether any sort of planning for the building of the house was granted by the Council...
Also, to make matters worse, from our insurance company regarding felling the tree:-
“Unfortunately this is not something you can claim for, as your policy does not extend to cover maintenance of the property or its grounds. However you will need to take action, as if you do not cooperate with the requirements suggested by the Adjusters, you could then be held accountable for any further damage which will not be covered by your insurance policy.” Aaaaargh!
Oh, and apparently the neighbour's bleeding insurance people also want the beautiful cherry tree (lhs of beech in pic) to be felled! And we have to maintain the laurel hedge! I ask you!
We have booked a visit from the Arbiricultural Consultant as a first step. He will come in a couple of weeks, and has experience dealing with these issues. Hopefully he will advise further... watch this space!
Don't know how you would find out if it is possible to sell the tree or maybe look at having one if them turned into a wood sculpture, depends on your budget I suppose.
Our insurance company have agreed that they will pay to have a professional arboricultural consultancy come and provide a report on (a) whether or not the tree is causing the subsidence, and (b) if indeed it is, could there be other remedies than the proposed felling of the tree...
Fingers crossed!
We are aware that the neighbour is considering building an extension in her garden. Sadly our solicitor cannot limit our future liability. I guess it will be a question of contesting any planning application that she may make.