Rupert_Baehr 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 Thanks for that link. I was told that as a general rule, if you look at where the branches of a tree overhang the ground, the roots extend at least the same distance. - So if the tree overhangs the roof, the roots go under the footings. I had a house which had a Mimosa tree in the back garden. A large Mimosa tree. One day, I went into a bathroom and there was water on the floor. I called the plumber, he removed the toilet and found a 9" thick tree root, which had forced the toilet off the ground. The tree was thirsty. It found a sewer, opened the sewer, put a root in and found water (along with a few other nutrients, no doubt.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/about/urban-design.html They're the bods that could issue a TPO. In the absence of one or more TPOs it's the freeholder and their insurer that make the call I'm afraid. Which could well be the wrong one if very established trees have extensive root systems under the structure as tree roots are very strong when alive. A lot less so when dead and rotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindfulness Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 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? You would (provided you had complied with the terms of the insurance policy) be insured against the damage caused by that subsidence, however. 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. thanks for your reply rupert...i'm just trying to seek out all the options at the moment! ---------- Post added 25-03-2013 at 19:57 ---------- Might find this worth looking at to see if they are too close... http://www.subsidencebureau.com/subsidence_trees.htm thanks for this obelix! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtom66 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 No what would be upsetting is the flats coming down on your face when your in bed because of a dry summer but hey ho , their is a reason why insurers worry about things like this. Do you want to fund repair costs for the walls coming apart ? Or would you complain and campaign about that aswell ? Have you ever thought they may be looking after your safety ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindfulness Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 No what would be upsetting is the flats coming down on your face when your in bed because of a dry summer but hey ho , their is a reason why insurers worry about things like this. Do you want to fund repair costs for the walls coming apart ? Or would you complain and campaign about that aswell ? Have you ever thought they may be looking after your safety ? Read my post again TomTom This is a minor subsidence episode, building movement was minimal and has rectified itself once the clay soil was rehydrated. No I don't believe the insurers have my safety as paramount, as there has never been any danger. Not 20 years ago and even less so now. I believe they want a low cost solution that limits their future liabilities. Trees are cheap to destroy and everyone appears to be jumping on this tragic bandwagon Never mind that the trees have been there longer than the sodding buildings....one crack and everyone lifts up their skirts and go screaming for the hills. I know you are trying to be helpful Tomtom, but hysterical reactions are already part of this problem. Building cracks that move and rectify with the seasons don't frighten me. Losing my beloved trees is far, far worse ---------- Post added 25-03-2013 at 23:32 ---------- https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/about/urban-design.html They're the bods that could issue a TPO. In the absence of one or more TPOs it's the freeholder and their insurer that make the call I'm afraid. Which could well be the wrong one if very established trees have extensive root systems under the structure as tree roots are very strong when alive. A lot less so when dead and rotten. so would be best not to destroy it as it might likely be supporting the building? (said hopefully) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 If you're that certain that the buildings won't be damaged by the trees then is there anyway you can take the trees out of the insurance cover...ie not be covered for subsidence..obviously if you're wrong then you'll have a big bill to pay for the repairs to the building.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindfulness Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 If you're that certain that the buildings won't be damaged by the trees then is there anyway you can take the trees out of the insurance cover...ie not be covered for subsidence..obviously if you're wrong then you'll have a big bill to pay for the repairs to the building.. That's what the insurance company are threatening to do Which I would be happy to go with, tbh But would mean a drop of 30% apparently, in property price, which the other residents aren't too happy about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetreeteam Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 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. Hi there! If the trees are indeed close and getting personal with the building, then a arborcultural survey should be carried out. Removing in one go could create a larger problem, rehydration (Heave) for just one. It could be that a reduction in the tree may well be a simpler answer and this may satisfy the insurers & residents. These survey are reasonably priced, considering the nature of getting it wrong. On the quoted situation these must be carried out by a suitably qualified Consultant. This then would stop a lot of input from peoples guessing, comparing of non similiar situations and give something to base the future on. Steve The Tree Team ---------- Post added 12-04-2014 at 14:39 ---------- Can you get a tree preservation order put on them all, with them being 100 years old and such? Placing a TPO on trees that are affecting a residential building is no answer to the problem. This will & would be over ridden if it came to the line. If there is a real problem, not just that the insurance company likes the idea of reducing risk, then it requires a arb survey. As already put, felling maybe counter productive and give the building more issues. Steve The Tree Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_g Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I wouldn't go down the TPO route as, if it is deemed that the trees are causing an issue and are causing subsidence in dry conditions, it is one more item to have to deal with should the trees have to come out. With regards to insurance, have a play around with an insurance comparison website. We have trees close to our house. When shopping for building's insurance, one of the questions was, "Are there any trees over 10 metres tall closer than 5 metres from your property?" I couldn't be bothered measuring how far from the house and how tall the tree was so I got quotes based on a 'No' to the above question and quotes based on 'Yes'. When we ticked 'yes' and said that the tree hadn't been pruned recently, our quotes went from a cheapest quote of just over £100 to only one insurer willing to insure us at extortionate cost. That reminds me, still need to get one of the trees hard pruned. Need to find a decent arborist as it's a really nice copper beech and we really don't want it killing by somebody that doesn't know what they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.