OT: Horse chestnut trees

Those in the London area may have seen a piece on the BBC TV local news yesterday about Wandsworth council wanting to replace diseased horse chestnut trees on Tooting Common. There is a footpath lined with lots of them. Some have already been blown over etc and replaced with younger ones, so it's not just a recent thing. Council are saying they are dangerous. 'Friends' of the common say they just want to save money as replacing them with new semi-mature trees would cost less in maintenance.

All very interesting.

At the foot of my garden - but not in it - there's a larger horse chestnut than any of those. At least 60 ft high - but dwarfed by the sycamore next to it. And its leaves are more brown (diseased) than the ones on the common.

I'm told both those trees date back to before this house was built in the

1880s. If it came down in this direction, it would clobber this house in a big way.

So is a diseased chestnut a safety hazard? Or can I sleep safely tonight?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)
Loading thread data ...

It's yet another parasite from the EUSSR

formatting link

My trees are affected too.

Reply to
harry

It was first identified in Macedonia, which is not in the EU.

Reply to
Nightjar

Well using the danger logic any large tree which is in a position to fall on anyone if it was uprooted or blown over would have to go and that is hardly what we want It really depends on whether the tree is unstable or not. In the old days they used to make damn sure trees never grew high or lop sided enough to have problems. Rot of course does happen so what is needed is an expert and plenty of money! It always amazes me that the authorities always want to remove trees that may or may not be diseased, yt they continue to build on flood plains and wonder why places get flooded.

Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

I presume that you have made sure to declare this to your insurance company?

Chris

Reply to
Chris J Dixon

A wannabe begging bowl.

That doesn't mean the parasite didn't come from the EUSSR.

Reply to
harry

It means there is absolutely no evidence to support your assertion.

Reply to
Nightjar

So they can pre-emptively deny responsibility?

Reply to
Huge

At this time of year, leaves of trees start to turn brown as they go into Autumn. Do you know that the horse chestnut in question is actually diseased, and if so, that it's the disease that's been affecting horse chestnuts generally in the last 15 years or so? Is the bark deeply fissured or are there bleeding lesions on the branches and trunk? If it is that disease, how advanced is it? These comments, from

formatting link

"Trees with bleeding cankers on the trunk can still have healthy-looking crowns and may not pose an immediate safety risk.

Some trees may survive for many years as disease progression can be very slow or even show signs of recovery (vigorous callus development at the margins of cankers when bark has been killed by the disease).

Removing affected trees can be unnecessary. Significant numbers of trees do recover."

Until a tree, any tree, becomes seriously weakened or killed by a disease, any disease, it's unlikely to blow down except in exceptional circumstances. Think of all the elms that were killed by DED circa

1970 that stood dead and skeletal for many years before they eventually disappeared from the landscape.
Reply to
Chris Hogg

I don't remember their being a box to fill in on the application form asking for details of trees not on my land.

If they consider such things material to the risk it's up to them to make sure they ask you about them, before accepting your money.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Isn't this a problem for the insurers of the (owners of) the land on which the trees sit? Not for the insurers of the house that might be damaged.

Reply to
mechanic

It will be the other party's problem if something goes wrong.

However, I seem to recall having to answer the question on my last building insurance quote. I don't think that they specifically asked about trees "on my land", just whether there were trees within a certain distance from the house.

Reply to
JoeJoe

There's a whole host of tree diseases from the EUSSR.

formatting link

Reply to
harry

Surely only if they've been negligent? One is not automatically responsible for everything one's tree does, if reasonable care has been taken to keep an eye on it. There is not always somenone to sue.

Reply to
Roger Hayter

As usual, having been proven wrong, you try to divert attention away from your original claim.

Reply to
Nightjar

Really what I was asking. This tree is obviously diseased by the leaves. Does this disease make the tree more likely to be blown down in a high wind? Since WW council said they wished to replace theirs due to safety reasons. But didn't say what sort of safety.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

The trouble is that any attempt to find out is likely to lead ultimately to the removal of the tree. Which might be a shame.

I've got an oak tree about twice the height of the house but half that distance away, up a forty-five degree slope on thin soil over rock. I prefer the looming risk to the alternative.

Reply to
Roger Hayter

The disease IS from the EUSSR. Along with many others.

Reply to
harry

And if we'd not been part of the EU, it wouldn't have come here, harry? Our tight border controls would have stopped it?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Probably.

Reply to
harry

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.