Mindfulness Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Hi all Am wondering if there are any chartered surveyors, arborealists, tree conservationists out there who can help me I live in a flat on a site of 20. We live nestled in amongst 10 trees, some over 100 years old. 2 years ago, an unusually dry summer, we had a bit of movement in the mainblock which sent everyone into a panic. The insurance company surveyed the matter and decided that 8 of our trees needed to be chopped down! A number of the residents had very strong feelings about such drastic measures being taken, and it was decided that we would monitor the situation for 6months before any decision was actioned. In that time, the original movement has corrected itself with the clay soil being rehydrated and there has been no further incident. I should mention that in the 90s, there had been subsidence following again an unusally dry summer, and a system of hydrating the soil was put in place. And there had been no movement for 20 years. My question is, what power do we have as residents to save these trees? Our freeholder wants to keep our current insurers, so we don't have the option of changing companies, even if another company would insure us. Do we have to do what our insurer says? Is there any way we can negotiate? It's all being done via our managing agency at the moment, but I really don't want to see all these trees destroyed for minor subsidence that has already rectified itself. It's really very upsetting Any advice that would save these trees would be gratefully received Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Hi all Am wondering if there are any chartered surveyors, arborealists, tree conservationists out there who can help me I live in a flat on a site of 20. We live nestled in amongst 10 trees, some over 100 years old. 2 years ago, an unusually dry summer, we had a bit of movement in the mainblock which sent everyone into a panic. The insurance company surveyed the matter and decided that 8 of our trees needed to be chopped down! A number of the residents had very strong feelings about such drastic measures being taken, and it was decided that we would monitor the situation for 6months before any decision was actioned. In that time, the original movement has corrected itself with the clay soil being rehydrated and there has been no further incident. I should mention that in the 90s, there had been subsidence following again an unusally dry summer, and a system of hydrating the soil was put in place. And there had been no movement for 20 years. My question is, what power do we have as residents to save these trees? Our freeholder wants to keep our current insurers, so we don't have the option of changing companies, even if another company would insure us. Do we have to do what our insurer says? Is there any way we can negotiate? It's all being done via our managing agency at the moment, but I really don't want to see all these trees destroyed for minor subsidence that has already rectified itself. It's really very upsetting Any advice that would save these trees would be gratefully received Thanks It might be 'minor' subsidence but what damage is it causing to the structural integrity of the building itself? I assume that's the insurer's take on it. Prevention being better than cure and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Can you get a tree preservation order put on them all, with them being 100 years old and such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Would the organisation which issued the tree preservation order pay the insurance premiums? In the event that there was further damage and the insurer had declined to insure the property (and the OP suggests that the insurer has stipulated that the trees be removed as a condition of insurance) who do you suggest should be held liable for the damage? - The organisation which issued the TPO against the advice of the insurer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindfulness Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 Would the organisation which issued the tree preservation order pay the insurance premiums? In the event that there was further damage and the insurer had declined to insure the property (and the OP suggests that the insurer has stipulated that the trees be removed as a condition of insurance) who do you suggest should be held liable for the damage? - The organisation which issued the TPO against the advice of the insurer? it is a sticky wicket indeed wrt the insurance company - they want to minimise claims in the future of course, so take a hardline wrt to trees, which are relatively cheap to destroy compared to more involved measures like root pruning, root barriers etc. I'm interested if anyone knows where we would stand in a 'sit and wait' policy? Surely there must be another option?? Once the trees are gone, they're gone for good. And we could still have subsidence related to clay shrinkage. So we'd be back to square one, but be bereft of trees . the subsidence was far worse 20 years ago, the insurance company did far less than they are proposing today - and we've had no movement since the 1990s! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Of course if you take the trees down you may end up with excessive water in the ground and have heave causing issues instead of subsidence... how close and what sort of trees are these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 So. Like many developers, they have built too close to pre-existing trees despite well-known potential problems. Then buyers have bought without considering the risk. I often see planners accepting plans allowing developments too close to large trees. I would recommend you pay for a good independent expert to give you a second opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Might find this worth looking at to see if they are too close... http://www.subsidencebureau.com/subsidence_trees.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 it is a sticky wicket indeed wrt the insurance company - they want to minimise claims in the future of course, so take a hardline wrt to trees, which are relatively cheap to destroy compared to more involved measures like root pruning, root barriers etc. I'm interested if anyone knows where we would stand in a 'sit and wait' policy? Surely there must be another option?? If an insurer offers to underwrite a risk subject to certain conditions then you have 3 options: 1. Comply with the conditions, pay the premium, enjoy the coverage. 2. Reject the conditions and find an alternative insurer. - You might be obliged to mention to that insurer that you were required to have trees removed by another company and you rejected those terms. 3. Do without insurance and accept the risk yourself. (The freehold owner may not permit you to do that.) If you choose to 'sit and wait' you are not insured while you do so. The insurer offered you an insurance contract and you have declined to accept the terms. There is no insurance contract. You may also be in breach of the terms of your rental agreement with the freeholder. If you decide you want to investigate root pruning or root barriers (I wish you luck there!) that's up to you. If you do so, perhaps it would be a good idea to find out how much the company who would do the root pruning / fit the root barriers would charge to assume liability for the insurance? Once the trees are gone, they're gone for good. And we could still have subsidence related to clay shrinkage. So we'd be back to square one, but be bereft of trees . You would (provided you had complied with the terms of the insurance policy) be insured against the damage caused by that subsidence, however. the subsidence was far worse 20 years ago, the insurance company did far less than they are proposing today - and we've had no movement since the 1990s! All sorts of things were different 20 years ago! (I'm not being heartless - I live in an area where the requirements of the insurance companies change each year and each year they become more onerous (and more expensive to comply with.) It's an unfortunate fact of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 With regard to the specific question of what you can do? Someone has already mentioned it ... apply for a Tree Preservation Order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.