Whatever else happens you are almost certainly going to have to underpin.
My niece had this problem in a commercial building she bought: The choices were underpin and pollard, or underpin and cut down.
The tree was a weeping willow, and because it looked nice, and was cheaper to pollard, that's what she did.
IIRC underpinning is about 1000 quid a meter and probably something your insurance company will both fund and insist upon.
The issue here when I built the house was that provided I dug the footings below tree root hair level the BCO and structural boys were happy. The footings had poly slabs either side in case of heave. In that case the trees were left alone and are still fine
If the tree is healthy, and the engineers agree, (and you like it) it may be possible to simply underpin a bit deeper.
In my experience most insurers will try and avoid paying for underpinning these days. It will probably be necessary to continue with the existing insurers because it will be difficult to get insurance with anyone else in the future.
Mine too. And we have a history of subsidence here. :o(
No "probably" about it.
A while back I was looking at possibly buying a property locally which had had a small amount of underpinning done (properly, with all the right guarantees etc). Mindful of the insurance issues I obtained the name of the existing insurers to get a quote off them - they simply refused me, point blank, no comeback or explanation. Needless to say, I walked away...
In defence of the authorities, though; if you're going to have TPOs then the penalty for infringement has got to be substantial for the TPO to have any teeth. There have been plenty of cases where trees deemed worthy of protection have stood in the way of some developer's zillion pound project, and said developer was perfectly prepared to accept the fine for chopping them down. And at that point, it's too late to replace them, as has been said.
Whether particular trees (or any at all? - discuss!) should have TPOs is a whole different matter.
As I think I've mentioned here before: my parents were particularly aggrieved some years ago when selling off the bottom of their garden for a building plot; the selling price of the plot was dramatically reduced by the existence of a TPO on a very ordinary weeping willow which they themselves had planted about 20 years previously. All protestations to 'them' were to no avail.
(The TPO was lifted and the tree was removed a few weeks after the sale went through. Go figure.)
David
In that case, I would be tempted to go to the local newspaper with a potential story of corruption, and try to sue the council for the loss of the potential value due to the TPO being improperly imposed and then lifted. Anything is worth a shot.
I think if it had been me, the tree would have mysteriously died. No point in a TPO on a dead tree, eh?
Just been a case about that at Sandbanks, near Poole:
But not too late to stop that part of the development the tree was blocking. Which would be more effective than a fine.
Mm. As I said to my Dad at the time (must be about ~15 years ago now?) but I think he didn't want the aggro
David
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.