Horse Chestnut

[Anonymous]

My local council have submitted a planning application to remove a Horse Chestnut tree that stands in front of my property. We have been told that the tree is rotting inside and has come to the end of it's natural life and if left it will become increasingly dangerous. The tree must be about 150 years old growing in a light good draining soil, not clay,and is about 25 feet away from my front door. The property is stone built, 300 years old and thatched. While we will be sorry to see the tree go we understand the councils point of view. My main concern now is what effect the removal may have on the cottage paticularly" Heave" and at time of removal the hazards caused by dust and splinters etc. If anyone has any experience of this kind can l have your views before writting to the council.If Heave does occur l am insured but have to pay the first £1000 should l inform my insurers now before the tree is removed?

 

[Anonymous]

Not really my area of expertise (what is?) but I'd think that 25 feet is a fair distance. There won't be any very big roots that far so I don't think your house is going to be affected.

 

[Anonymous]

Well - things may be OK of course and you may have no problems - but it also could be worth alerting your council to the fact that compensation would be nice from them if their action causes difficulties! I doubt you will get much joy but worth a try.

Also yes worth contacting your insurers - who may contact the council...

I wonder actually if there is anything wrong with the tree.

Removal of trees is happening under any pretext just in case anything happens and a council is sued.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't forget that you may experience an increase in ground water content - the amount of water a fully grown tree like yours takes from the ground is phenomenal!

 

[Anonymous]

It is quite likely that you will suffer no adverse effects, but this will depend on many factors. If the tree is downhill from the house the likelihood of a problem is reduced (moisture runs down and the roots, etc will tend to follow water down the slope rather than up to the house. Of course, if the house is downhill from the tree the risk of problems might be higher.

Other factors will include the nature of the sub-soils, etc. One would hope that your Council have considered the likelihood of adverse effects.

Once the tree has been removed the ground will take up moisture that the tree previously took up. In some soils (particularly clay) the volume of the soil will increase. If the house is built over an area of soil that increases volume heave will occur.

I am told by engineers that heave can affect soils (and therefore houses on those soils) for up to 30 years. I certainly know of areas where trees were removed for housing development and the heave took several years to manifest itself.

In my opinion I would prefer subsidence to heave. It is easier/quicker to re-support a subsiding building than to try to prevent a heaving building from continuing movement. In fact attitudes to tree removal in the private sector have changed in the past decade or more. It used to be the case that trees were removed quite regularly, until they then found that this caused heave problems.

Where a building is subsiding the removal of a tree can result in the ground re-covering, but it is a fine judgement that needs input from arboriculturalists and engineers.

Where heave occurs it is more difficult to control and restrict.

Returning to your situation, I suggest you seek assurance from the Council that they have properly considered the risk of heave affecting your property once the tree has been removed.

I suggest you keep detailed records of the tree being removed - diary info on when work starts/finishes and take some photos. I also suggest you take photos and record the general condition of the building (make a note of distortions, cracks etc) before the tree is removed. These measures should then all help you if you do suffer a problem in future and need evidence to support a claim that the tree removal was the cause.

Sorry for the long-winded reply. I on't mean to scare you, as I suspect the risk of a problem are slim. However, you should take all precautions against future problems, or at least gather the information in case you ever have to pursue the Council.

 

[Anonymous]

Before anything get an independant tree man out to survey the tree with the view to having it pollarded, this type of heavy prunning will work very well on a horse chestnut, it would remove the top weight thus removeing the danger of it blowing over, it will also probably rejuvinate the tree. I would hope your council tree officer would prefer pollarding to felling, it will probably save the tree and certainly avert any risk to your property.

 

[Anonymous]

What is the normal life-span of a horse-chestnut? At 150 years old, it would be interesting to know how much longer it would last if in good health.

 

[Anonymous]

Apparently " AESCULUS HIPPOCASTANUM "
(horse chestnut to you and me) , can live for 300years +

The oldest surviving tree in this country, was planted in 1664

 

[Anonymous]

As a PS to Stephen's good advice, I think if I were in your shoes I would write to the council and ask them to confirm that they will hold you indemnified against the risk of heave if they remove the tree.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks david,my solicitor is writing to the council on my behalf, we need to know that they have properly considered the risk of heave. I am trying to be pragmatic in the end if it has to go so be it. We are going to suggest to the council that they send around a building officer so if there is an adverse effect they can't say it existed prior to removal.I also found an article in an old magazine that made reference to plans to remove the tree some years ago but because of public outcry they pollarded it instead.

 

[Anonymous]

It's possibly too late as you have already involved a solicitor, but worth checking with your insurance if you have legal costs cover.

I would also ask the council for a copy of the report on the tree and why they consider it is past its useful life.

 

[Anonymous]

Is a tree officer involved here? planning dont make tree decisions do they! this tree is obviously valued by residents, you say it has been pollarded in the past so it is very likely that this will work again, Pollarding is an ancient way to manage trees formerly depending on species for fire wood, for fencing or laths, walk into any ancient woodland and you will see the evidence. The tree has a mature root system reduce the canopy and it has less body to feed, thus it can rejuvinate, and the supposed rot is mute without the canopy weight, this tree need not die. Its not up to the council planning office, its down to the tree officer and if you all really like the tree then appeal, kick up a fuss and then you need not worry yourself about heave. Or will I be ignored like Silas?

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, planning do make tree decisions - if the tree is in a Conservation Area, and in certain other circumstances. An application has to be made to fell a tree in a CA or one with a TPO.

The Arboricultural Officer should have made report to be submitted with any application by a council (is this District or Parish however?). If this was a private application then a tree report should accompany the application.

You could apply for a TPO if there isn't one already but that doesn't cover all eventualities - especially if the tree is considered dangerous.

But back to what I said earlier - councils are removing trees no under any pretext in the interest of 'public safety' and fear of being sued.

It's a similar problem to the loose gravestones one.