Oak tree felling & heave

[The Natural Philosopher]

And that, in a nutshell, says it all.

(i) the tree was there before he erected the foundatins of hs extension.

(ii) It is therefore his problem alone to make sure that the foundations were suitable for local conditions. He could resonably excpect that teh tree would not be cut down, indeed might well grow. Its not on his property, and if he has built too close to it, it is his problem and his insurers to underpin his foundations.

Having built to withing 3 meters of substantial trees, and having had to take execcssive precausitions by way of foundation deopth only two years ago, I can assure you that if the founations had been properly dug, he would not now have a problem. If you go deep enough you cut the roots, and there is no more subsidence. Indeed, he may even get heave instead as the dead tree roots no longer drain the soil under his floor.

It should have been up too teh BCo to ensure adequate foundations. If anyone is to blame, it is his architect, builder and the BCO.

That is teh legal position I think.

The tree is in the corner of my property so has

A position with which I wholeheartedly agree by the way. They made ME do

2.5 meters deep foundations, lay compressible sheets alongside it and put a suspended concrete floor in. After considerable bore testing to see how deep the roots went, and what the subsoil was.

It sonds like pressure has been applied at council level.

Firstly, its entirely probable that removal of the tree will indeed make matters as bad, if not worse. Repalcing a net suck with increased water content will shift shallow foundations in the reverse direction.

Secondly, I do not see that it is your probelem to pay for this. Its his insurers problem.

Thirdly, the correct way to stabilise is not to remove the tree, but curtail grwoth by pollarding - that way its root system will stabilise.

Get some expert legal advice, and start writing legal letters.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its only your problem because you haven't made enough fuss and caused it to be someone elses.

They HAVE. Their insures won't pay up, want the thing taken down, and blaming you is the cheapest way to get it done.

The LA is at fault for not standing by their position.

That's cos they want an easy life.

I suspect they have only said 'we have no objection to it coming down' -

they have not ordered you to TAKE it down have they?

Write a 'robust' letter and send it by registered post to the insurers and your neighbour,

sympathising deeply with his problem, but maintaining that you cannot be

held financially responsible for the failure of his foundations to cope

with a tree (assuming but by no means admitting that it IS the tree) that

predates the construction of his extension, and which could reasonably be supposed would not be removed in the timescale that currently exists.

Add furthermore that you have (if this is the case) no objection to the removal of the tree, provided the cost of this, AND any cosequential damage to your house and garden (and indeed his extension) by way of heave and general damage caused by the removal process, up to and including structural damage caused by heave in the next 15 years, be underwritten by his insurance company....

My guess is that will frighten them silly, because instead of saving money, they are now not only having to spend it, but committing themselves to spending it on a process that may actually incur more costs and potentially make their clients problems worse.

[BillR]

The ins coy could be right. They have clauses excluding "gradual" causes . If the tree falls on your house then your ins coy will pay, but if it falls on or damages the neighbour's then their ins coy will pay. I suspect yr neighbour did not tell his ins coy about the potential problem when he first took out the policy... This happened to neighbours of mine who both have big oak trees close to their newish houses. They are finding it difficult to get ins cover at all now. The LA slapped TPOs on the trees but has allowed some crown trimming. Everyone involved believes the trees are eventually doomed but the cost of removal will be high. These houses were built with substantial foundations though.

[Tony Bryer]

Things tightened up a lot after the drought of 1976 - IIRC it was soon after that that the NHBC published their paper which set out tree height/distance ratios and required foundation depths.

There are rafts and rafts: a lot of the 1930's Wates houses in New Malden are on RC rafts and movement is very rare. The problem in the situation you describe is that more often than not the existing house has substandard (by modern standards) foundations and probably moves a bit over the seasons. If you put the extension on rock solid guaranteed not to move footings you'll probably get differential movement between it and the house, so it may more economical to use a raft. Either way you do need movement joints between extension and house

[Rick Dipper]

I think you may find a rather old law which controls the felling of Oak. The reason for the law is that we need the oak for the battle ships.

Rather like whey we don't eat horse meat in England.

If you want the keep the tree (I would) then the neighbours can get stuffed. If they want it removed, at the very least, they should pay for it, and underwrite any damage that the extra water may do to your house, and clear up the mess, and compensate you for the loss of such a bueatifl object.

Rick

[M. Damerell]

I think it is obvious that you need expert advice, but who from?

The trouble with legal advice is that lawyers tend to adopt an aggressive and confrontational approach which gives you your full legal rights and an unfortunate residue of bad feeling, and huge fees.

I would venture to suggest that you ask a firm of tree surgeons: can you save your neighbour's house without killing the tree?