Chopping down a Protected Tree

[Nigel Watts]

I want to chop down a protected tree and would like to know the best way to persude the Council to let me.

Before you all polish off your best insults let me try to explain the circs.

The garden of my 4 storey Grade 2 1840 semi in a North London conservation area is no more than about 20 feet long and beyond the end wall is the next street. On my side of this wall is a giant Eucalyptus tree which, until I got it pruned last year (with the Council's consent) was as tall as the house and had spread its branches right across the next street.

My house was originally built with a small rear extension (basement and ground floor only) which we extended out (but not up) by no more than about five feet some six years ago, with all the correct permissions. This extension, including the old bit, has now parted company with the main house and is doing a leaning-tower-of-Pisa act. The gap at parapet level is now about two inches.

I have had an engineer's opinion and a soil survey. The finger very much points at the tree as the culprit. London is built on clay which shrinks if it dries. The survey showed that the clay had dried out significantly and there was ample evidence of Eucalyptus roots under the foundations.

Having come to love this tree I am now starting to see it as a destructive alien invader which needs to be put down and replaced with something more benign and perhaps of a more native origin.

Any advice on how to proceed with the Council, or what species to plant instead if I am allowed to chop it down, would be much appreciated.

 

[Jon Maine]

I cant help with the council advice much other than I would suggest you talked about your concerns with the building with your Conservation Officer before talking to the tree conservation people.I would get your engineer to be very firm in his blame to the tree. It should not harm your position and may indeed give you valuable support when you talk to the tree officer. Sadly some of the rulings over non native fast growing trees in conservation areas seem to be based more on the traffic warden mentality rather than hard obvious fact and common sense.

We also have a 25 year old Eucalyptus which is huge and I will have to deal with the same problem soon too. The previous owner planted it and it soon reached 40 to 50 feet, we topped it say 10 years ago but its back with a vengeance. They are very prolific in growth.

I will get rid of mine and replace in a more appropriate position with a native species chosen for manageability and looks.

 

[Penners]

London is built on clay which shrinks if it dries. The survey showed that the clay had dried out significantly

The corollary of that is, of course, that if a long-established tree is suddenly removed, it is possible for the clay to heave. Did your engineer say anything about the extent of that risk?

 

[ljn]

I understand your Eucalyptus concerns.
I agree that talking to the Conservation Officer is a good idea. The opinion of the engineer and soil survey are good supporting evidence.

Could offering to replace the eucalyptus with a more appropriate tree help your argument?

In a similar situation (historic building, London clay and big eucalyptus), I was advised not to remove the tree in one go, as this could have even more serious consequences to the building, but to reduce the tree gradually. It was something about "roots going into shock" and "sudden changes in the ground humidity levels".

 

[Jon Maine]

Yes, heave is a real issue in this sort of instance, it could be possible for the extension to end up touching at the top again and come adrift at the bottom. I think you need to put a considered package together and have the correct advice from the right professionals regarding heave and how to remove the problem tree. Good luck

 

[Nigel Watts]

Thanks for the advice. I am aware that we might get some heave as the clay becomes damper again, but had rather naively thought the cracks would just heal again. I guess it's unlikely to be as simple as that.

The extension is relatively small (below is a photo taken as it neared completion). The join between the extension and house has completely broken on both sides so the extension is now floating round independently, leaving the main house uneffected. Most of the subidence is on the front right corner as you look at the photo, but the side extension is also being dragged down a bit. The side extension was designed to flex up and down so is not so badly effected.

A contributing factor may have been my garden landscaping. Most of the garden was a concrete slab when I bought the house and investigations showed that it was between two and three feet thick with builders' rubble underneath of an unknown depth (perhaps the remains of an earlier outbuilding? - the whole area was a slum not that many decades ago, with mixed small buisness and residential use). I built raised beds and a raised lawn on top rather than dig it all up, and laid slate slabs over most of the non-concrete part. In retrospect I now see that this can only have made the soil between the house any the tree much drier, probably encouraging the roots to travel further towards and under the house.

 

[Lime]

My feelings are that it has little to do with the tree.
Before anyone assumes I love trees I don't care what happens to this tree but I do not believe it would only affect the new extension while leaving the house untouched.
It doesn't make sense particularly as the foundations for the extension are almost certainly much deeper than the older property.
Clay is notorious for shrinking and in flood plains the foundations often have to go several metres deep.
I would be examining the structure and depth of the foundations rather than looking for culprits for drying out the clay.
Wasn't last year one of the wettest?
I'd also be looking at the possibility of having to sue the builder.

 

[Pford75]

Couple of thoughts:

1. You might want to consider getting something from your insurers...if they consider the tree an uninsurable risk, then this will strenghten your case with the tree officer. Caution though - he may still not agree to have it removed and then you could find yourself uninsured.

2. Be aware that whilst the Cons. area stops you removing the tree...a TPO could prove even more restrictive and onerous. For example, a TPO can require you to have an annual survey conducted by an aboriculturalist and have recommended works conducted. This could land you with an annual bill of several hundred pounds.

3. As others have suggested, offering to plant replacement trees (somewhere more suitable) is often considered a good alternative. Especially if you are prepared to bear the cost of planting mature specimens.

4. Don't want to be a bore...but consider that the tree officer's first duty is to the tree and not your house (similar situation to the discussions we often have re: CO's). After our beech tree coming down, we were faced with our insurers threatening to withdraw cover for a 90ft monster beech which is 5ft from and exterior wall. This has no TPO and we are not in a conservation area.....we so very nearly had it removed. Luckily, the costs to do so at the time meant we had to delay....and now time has passed, we are less concerned about the prospect of this one falling down and are glad we didn't have it removed.

As Lime says...you can't be sure that the tree is the cause of the movement and I would want to be completely sure before removing such a piece of history

 

[biffvernon]

I want to chop down a protected tree and ...Before you all polish off your best insults let me try to explain the circs.

That's all right, just pay me lots of money to plant trees on my land to offset your guilt

 

[Penners]

Damn! Why didn't I think of that?

 

[Nigel Watts]

Thanks - plenty of good advice to digest, as always.

My foundations are shallow. The 1840 part, like most houses of that era, have vitually none. The foundations for the very small amount of new extension we added to the old where pretty much matched to the old, and kept quite shallow (the engineer feared too much differential movement otherwise). In retrospect both my engineer and architect believe we were too careful in trying to preserve the fabric of the original extension and that we would have been better off knocking it down and rebuilding the whole thing with chunkier foundations and expansion joints connecting it to the house proper.

I was sceptical for a long time about the tree explanation. We first tested the drains (a leak could have caused heave) but they were sound, and we have since proved it is subsidence not heave which is the problem. Soil samples taken from next to the foundations have shown the presence of Eucalyptus roots well below the foundation level. They have also confirmed that the foundations are resting on solid, undisturbed clay, not made ground, ruling out the possibility that the soil under the foundation was not sufficiently compacted.

A neighbour of mine across the street well away from my tree also faced major subsidence problems last year, in their main house, but there is no obvious link. We are not on a slope and there was no WWII bomb damage in the immediate vicinity. I have speculated about whether there could have been some underground stream, pipe or watercourse which was keeping the clay damp but which has now dried out or been diverted. Does this kind of thing happen in clay? Several years ago the paving slabs near my front door seemed perpetually damp and encrusted with limescale but the cause was never found, even though I had people in to test the water main for leaks. In the last few few years they have been dry.

All in all, the tree does seem to be the most plausible explanation, and Eucalyptus does have a reputation for this kind of thing.

My builder has long since retired to his Spanish villa, so the chances of redress from him are slight I fear.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I want to chop down a protected tree and ...Before you all polish off your best insults let me try to explain the circs.

That's all right, just pay me lots of money to plant trees on my land to offset your guilt

Wosthis? S Biff trying to mscle in on my manor?

http://periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9721&p=111010&hilit=FAMILYWIGGS+TREES#p111004

He'll wake up with a hosre's head in his bed if he ain't more careful. 8)

 

[Lime]

I have speculated about whether there could have been some underground stream, pipe or watercourse which was keeping the clay damp but which has now dried out or been diverted. Does this kind of thing happen in clay?

It certainly does.
Clay channels exist that run through clay layers and these change direction as the clay shrinks and expands.

I lived in London on clay for many years.
The cellar had a history of being dry but one 60's winter that all changed.
The cellar filled up to 3" every time the rain was heavy and prolonged.
This state of affairs lasted 4 years then it all stopped and the cellar became completely dry once again.
Shortly after all this the house next to mine started to have problems.
Their cellar was filling up 30" :shock: although mine remained completely dry, was on the same level but separated by a driveway between the houses of about 20 ft.
When they had it pumped out the pump would run for several hours before the water level began to move.

 

[MdB]

I remember reading somewhere that a some of the drinking water in London runs through a tube of clay as the iron pipe that once contained it has rusted completely away.

 

[Nigel Watts]

I have just received confirmation from Islington Council that I can cut down my Eucalyptus tree (it is not itself a protected tree but is covered by conservation area rules).

When I applied for permission I sent lots of photos of the subsidence cracks in my extension, the engineer's report, the soil survey proving that the roots had penetrated under the foundations etc. However the reason given for the granting of permission had nothing to do with the fact that my house might fall down. Rather it was on the grounds that the Eucalyptus might damage other trees in the area, but I guess to a tree officer that must seem a much more important issue.

I have a year after felling to replant a new tree that complies with some low water requirement standard. In the adjacent street are a couple of what look like mountain ashes and in my garden I have a short row of pleached hornbeams and a loquat. I guess a modest sized native species would be best. Any suggestions?

 

[JoceAndChris]

You have to think about what you really want from that tree and how quickly you want it! Fruit, blossom only, all year round colour, berries for birds? You obviously live with some grandeur so you may want to reflect that in your choice. I planted weeping cherry in Highgate clay, 3 years later and it's an appropriate size for a London garden, weeping it's pretty pink blossom melancholically around the pond.

But my neighbour was very cross I didn't plant a fruit tree so he could make us all jam. He wanted me to plant a medlar, of which there is a nice example in Pond Square just behind the Prince of Wales. The French call it "cul de chien" -dog's a***e- , not only does the fruit have the most intriguing of appearances but also it is curiously only palatable after it has begun to decay.

Magnolia gets on nicely in clay but it's a bit common in N London isn't it? Ornamental quince is lovely and does well in clay and partial sun too. Whatever you do please please stay away from conifers of all kinds, they give nothing except quick growth.

I think my next tree is going to have to be the mulberry. You can't buy these delicious fruits (except dried in Borough Market) because they don't travel at all well. I also love the association with silk.

It's interesting to read about your council's response to this tree. Haringey was very reasonable about me getting rid of the 120 foot sycamore which abutted my neighbour's house. The tree surgeon dealt with them and it took 6 weeks for his permission to come through. It's also a conservation area and whilst they seem keen to protect the trees, that surgeon told me they have to protect the houses more. That tree was chopped down about 2 years ago and there has been no "heave".

 

[Nigel Watts]

Thanks - some great ideas. I agree about not having a conifer; magnolias are great when they flower but this is only in a small window and, as you say, they are quite plentiful in north London. Flowering cherries are a nice idea but several of our neighbours already have them.

The fruit tree idea is quite appealing, especially a more obscure one. Given the very small size of my garden it will need to look good all year, so shape and foliage will be a more important factor than the more transitory flowers or fruits.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Silver birch stays a nice slim shape and doesn't block much sun. Not sure what the roots do.

 

[biffvernon]

Something useful for a future of food scarcity, apple, pear, plum, quince, walnut :wink:

 

[Lime]

If you really believe the tree caused the subsidence the idea of planting another of any variety amazes me.
Either you believe the tree in it's position caused the subsidence or not.
Any tree planted in the same soil will cause some ground disturbance and the roots are very likely to follow exactly the same route as the eucalyptus roots.

As said

A neighbour of mine across the street well away from my tree also faced major subsidence problems last year, in their main house, but there is no obvious link.

That suggests that it is much more likely to be a combination of circumstances (weather, drainage, soil type) favouring ground movement in your area than the tree.

However if you are convinced (albeit your neighbour had exactly the same problem without a tree) what are you planting another tree for?

If this problem was mine, I'd concentrate on the new-build and monitor it closely.
I suspect your problems may be far from over.