Re: Removal of trees and possible damage to property?

Treelady wrote:

On Apr 15, 8:56 am, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Good morning

My attached (semi) neighbour has had permission from the local
Council to fell 3 x very high/large mature (high as in about 20ft
above the property's)treesthat are in close proxiomity to his
property (they are literally a few feet from the side) -
thetrees(beech, chestnut) had TPO's on them thus the need for
permission, and was granted due to proof that thetreeswere causing
subsidence damage to his property (he had a struct. survey)

Thetreesare also about 15-20ft from my property and I am concerned
that by simply killing/felling in one go (which is the plan) the
roots will rot, and could cause damage to foundations under my
property (presumingtreesof this size would have roots extending
under my property also?)

Ive spoken to the neighbour and council about this and the neighbour
says that if he doesnt take them down thetreesmay cause damage in
the future anyway...the council just say its the neighbours
repsonsibility.

The council approval states thetreesmust be felled to BS standards,
so hopefully he will use a reputable 'feller' - but if the roots rot
(which may take months/years?) and do cause damage to my property,
how could this be proved that the felling of thetreescould have
been the cause? - Ive asked the neighbour if he has any evidence
that steps have been taken to ensure damage doesnt happen...but all
he has is the struct.survey that tells him the tress ARE causing
damage to his own property.

Is it worth taking any photos of thetreesas they are now, then after
they are felled?? I can understand the neighbours predicament also,
but obviously need to try to protect my own property also.

Any advice would be greatly received

Regards

GG

That is a good question.

Your question is two fold, firstly, the rot itself: The rot is
unlikely to affect the foundations as the micro organisms that are
part of the workings of rot/decay are unlikely to be interested in
concrete- they tend to be specific for wood, types of wood etc.

Secondly: the decrease in mass of the roots as they rot/decay may
adversely affect the foundations in terms of movement (if I understand
correctly). The roots will not rot overnight, they will take some
time, it may be that the duration will allow a gentle settling of the
foundations- anything dramatic is where the upset will lie- ie. the
sudden removal of trees that draw large quantities of water in certain
conditions (such as heavy clay soil) can significantly and suddnely
increase the amount of water hanging around, (if you like) and cause
problems. Often large water drawing trees within close proximity of
buildings are removed in stages to allow for adjustment in the
increased availability of water.

I would find out the removal plan- are they to be removed in one
stage, or more. You could probably use statistics of average water
consumption of said trees (mature specimens), consider the total
quantity of water that will suddenly be available to/ on the property.
If said consumption is large, then you have an argument for the
removal of the trees in planned stages. The neighbour's and your
insurance company will probably be interested in this if in the future
it is likely to present a problem that will allow a claim to be made
on your behalf. The structural engineer probably leaves off having
said the trees are responsible for the damage, which brings the tree
care company into the equation. They may be worth liasing with, what
their plan is in approaching removal, will they guarantee that a
single removal will not incur damage at a later stage to either
properties. It will be important that your neighbour uses a company
insured for the works and public/ professional indemnity.

If the structural engineer (who know about buildings) and the tree
people (who should know about trees) are willing to be held
responsible for the diagnosis and the remedy, you have, at the least,
their assurance or the insurance company's if the survey was on their
authorisation. If, after the fact, your foundations are directly
affected by the removal of the trees, you have a trail to follow.

If you take photos, clearly show proximity and many angles, before and
after; speak with the insurance company in regards to neighbouring
action that may occur that can jeopardise the status of your
foundations. They may, in a pleasant world, speak with your
neighbour's insurers and argue about it amongst themselves.
Ultimately, if the work is shoddy in respect of best practice of
removal of trees causing subsidence, especially mature specimens
(water consumtion levels) the insurers risk a claim. If they recommend
work to one party which results in damage to another parties
foundations, in this instance, do they not have a share of the
responsibilities?

You can log the events, but you may find that, if any damage does
occur to your property in the future as a result of the removal of
these trees, you have to spend a small fortune trying to find a
culprit, as it were, from whom to seek compensation.

The converse of subsidence is heave, it is a possibility especially
within certain parameters etc. It is a complex arrangement of factors
that go into heave, and subsidence. Insurers tend to err on the side
of caution. Their recommendations are not infallible nor always
accurate.

I, personally, think you should endeavour to have the trees removed in
stages, if only to lesson the risk of excess water. Log everything in
case you need to pursue a course for recompense or the validity of a
claim in the future.

Good luck.


Not much the op can do about it , the neigbours removing trees because
of an iminent ssue with his property , any heave s not the neigbours
problem its the ops , its highly unlikely the tree fellers will offer
any warranty to the op as he is not paying the bill , nor is it likely
that the op neibour is likely to incur additonal costs of multi visits


The only way the neigbour could be held responsible is if he failed to
do anything after he had recieved a report from the engineers he
clearly is acting upon the engimeers advice


--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Removal of trees and possible damage to property?
    ... My attached neighbour has had permission from the local Council ... proof that thetreeswere causing subsidence damage to his property ... sudden removal of trees that draw large quantities of water in certain ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Removal of trees and possible damage to property?
    ... My attached neighbour has had permission from the local Council ... are literally a few feet from the side) - the trees ... proof that the trees were causing subsidence damage to his property ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Removal of trees and possible damage to property?
    ... My attached neighbour has had permission from the local Council ... are literally a few feet from the side) - the trees ... proof that the trees were causing subsidence damage to his property ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: OT - Update from The Valley
    ... All of the water has gone down with the exception of where the water meter is because that is below grade. ... AS for the rest of the area, from what we saw coming in on US 281 then from US 83/77, there is still some wind damage around and water in low-lying places. ... I think you were very lucky with that fence being a full closed panel. ... "THE BIG QUESTION" tell me there are still a lot of beautiful ripe oranges still on the trees. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Thanks, Peter - was: Argh - does somebody want this rain?
    ... but no damage. ... You can keep the post holes for later. ... I'll go water my new trees in a minute. ...
    (misc.rural)
Loading