Garden inspirationÌý permalink
Tree Abuse
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Goldilocks (U2296284) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
I often see plantings close to houses of young trees that will eventually grow far too big, so that light is blocked and structural damage is done. the cost of removing the trees gets more expensive by the year, which I guess is why people keep putting off the inevitable call to the tree surgeon. Usually it is a replanted Christmas tree, or small conifers grown as a hedge to screen from a busy road, that are now as big as the house. In most cases it is the owner that has planted the wrong tree unwittingly, which is understandable, but yesterday OH pointed out new plantings in a garden two doors away from us. the houses are in the final stages of building, and the builders have just planted several 8 foot tall Pinus Nigra (aka Corsican Pine, or Austrian Pine), right next to the pavement which is only 10 ft from the front of the house. These are forest / shelter trees, and cannot be trimmed as a hedge without disfiguring the trees. Given the size of the trees they can't have cost less than £40 - £50 eachThe builder is part of a big national company, and all plantings have to be approved by the local council. I feel sorry for the trees - they look so healthy and will probably never see adulthood.
-
Message 2
Posted by Rhoda Dendron (U2176380) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Hi Goldilocks
I live in a terraced tree-lined road. When I first moved here 16 years ago we had a small tree on the pavement outside our house. Over the years the tree has grown considerably taller than the house cracking the garden walls at the front of mine and my neighbours house and bringing up the pavement and road. It's the same all the way up the road with very unlucky people getting their drains damaged by the roots. After a huge amount of correspondence the council admitted responsibility in my case and eventually dug up the pavement and chopped off the tree roots. They then re-filled the trench they had dug on the pavement with loose shingle (which of course the roots will have no problem growing straight back through) and topped the whole thing off with tarmac - the pavement is now at least 9" higher in places than it used to be and is now nearly as high as my low front wall. The council also paid for the reconstruction of my and neighbours front walls but I had to reconstruct my tiny front garden myself. Nothing compensated me for the time and effort and misery of having to deal with all the labourers. A person from the council told me that the "wrong type of trees" had been planted!!! The tarmac'd part of the pavement is already cracked by the tree roots and they are making their way towards my wall again. I am probably going to have to demand that they remove the tree entirely and put the pavement back down to its proper level but I just can't face the hassle. -
Message 3
Posted by Goldilocks (U2296284) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Hi Rhoda
Sounds grim!
Think I'll have a word with the new owners - they have exchanged but not moved in yet. -
Message 4
Posted by Plocket (U684859) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
It's particularly scary when the houses are close together and it doesn't just affect the person who planted the trees - providing they weren't put in by thoughtless builders. I think it's a great worry these days, that trees can be sold without warnings about how high they can ultimately grow, and also without people knowing that they are going to be liable if damage is done to another person's house.
Stay positive Rhoda - and when you are up to it make a fuss. It's usually worth the effort in the long run. -
Message 5
Posted by majesticfirekat (U2887744) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
i posted a message on other clinic board about a cherry blossom tree that is in my garden, was well established when we bought the house and is sited about 2-3m away from my house, i am really worried about the damage it may cause to my house etc as there is a crack appearing on my rendering but this may be due the natural land movement?
-
Message 6
Posted by Toadspawn (U2334298) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
What I find sad is the thoughtlessness of planning in hospitals and other public sites. At my local community hospital built before I moved back into the area the 'landscaper' or 'whoever' planted a Monkey Puzzle Tree in an enclosed courtyard and only about 10 ft from the buildings. It seems that at the time many objections were made. I wrote to the appropriate person pointing out the potential problem and suggesting that the tree should be moved. It is still small enough to move to a more appropriate site.
Regrettably no answer to my letter so I guess the tree will remain only to be destroyed when it gets too big for the site. Such a waste of a beautiful tree. -
Message 7
Posted by Plocket (U684859) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
It's very thoughtless isn't it, but unfortunately I think it's "Council Mentality" - they seem to work that way. I used to have a friend who did student work for the local Parks Department. They were given a plan of some new planting which had been approved by the Council, time had been booked, ground prepared etc. But no body ordered the plants! Apparently it wasn't "whoevers" department!
-
Message 8
Posted by Rhoda Dendron (U2176380) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Ha ha - I was just typing a reply to this when I realised I had gone into a two page rant about council officials!!!! So to save you all from reading it I will just say I agree with Plocket and you can imagine the rest.
Rhoda -
Message 9
Posted by William (U2169036) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Hi Goldilocks,
I suppose it has to do with the 'consuming' culture... Looking for instant effect just right now. Not many people seem to have the patience or enough foresight to plant trees in the right place to be enjoyed in a (far distant) future, they might not even live to enjoy themselves.
Instant makeovers not only wet the appetite for what you might get if you're patient enough. More and more trees and big shrubs seem to be regarded as garden furniture, to be enjoyed instantly end to be binned and replaced at regular intervals. -
Message 10
Posted by LondonPlane (U2356735) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Evening all,
In response to the first point about the planting distance of the Corsican pine from the new builds. In order for the Builders NHBC certificate to be valid they should follow the advise in NHBC Chapter 4.2 building near trees (2003). This would suggest that on clay the pines should be planted at least 20m away from any new builder. The NHBC guidelines are for trench foundations, you could plant and maintain trees much closer to buildings with the appropriate design and construction methods. However these cost too much money in the opinion of the UK mass builders.
In regards to liability when vegetation induced clay shrinkage subsidence occurs it is all about forseeability. The courts (England and Wales) regard that Council have forseeability because they do or should employ experts (arboriculturalist), therefore it is straight to recovery when damage occurs due to public vegetation.
When a member of the public owns the vegetation. The courts consider that Laypeople do have the duty of forseeability and are not libel for the damage that occurs on the first occasion. Therefore you cannot go straight to recovery against a Layperson. However if the damage is brought to their notice and they take no action you could go for recovery on the second occasion.
In regards to providing members of the public with good arboricultural advice it can be very difficult. Due to the demands of different user groups and lack of basic plant biology.
Yours LondonPlane -
Message 11
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
I'd like to make a few points:
1. Councils. I disagree with the comment about 'council mentality'. In my experience, most LA arb/tree officers are very knowledgeable and professional (no, I'm not one myself!). And don't forget that a planting scheme is approved by the planning authority on the basis of whether or not it conforms to local planning guidelines - NOT whether the trees will possibly cause damage in the future. That responsibility lies with whoever designed the planting.
2. It does not automatically follow that a tree will cause damage or nuisance if planted close to a house. Most tree related damage (with a few exceptions) is subsidence caused by water extraction on a shrinkable clay. This will only occur if the house is built on shrinkable clay on inadequate foundations. Most new buildings on clay are built on adequate foundations despite what LondonPlane says - building control requires this because subsidence can happen anyway on clay, regardless of whether or not a tree is involved. 'Adequate' does not always mean 'deep'! New technologies are being developed that do away with the need for deep strip foundations or even piled foundations.
In many cases NHBC 4.2 is quite simplistic in its approach and is interpreted as guidance rather than definitive rules.
3. As for the examples quoted of pine and Araucaria, both these trees can be crown lifted such that they will have a clear stem to whatever height is required. Indeed, this will happen naturally with most pines anyway, no need to get the saw out! This results in a tree with a crown that provides shading but without causing excessive light blockage. Many clients I have worked for actually desire a tall evergreen tree (but not Leylandii) for the year round privacy they can bring.
4. Root pruning - the gravel filled trench referred to can actually be quite an effective barrier to roots, as long as the gravel is of the right grade and is preferably placed in a geotextile lined trench to avoid silting up. If done correctly, the gravel will be very free draining and well aerated - when the roots grow into the gravel the root hairs become desiccated resulting in the root tips dying back to the edge of the trench. The same principle ('air pruning' is used by many tree nurseries. The trees are grown in 'spring rings' - pots with small holes in the sides that small diameter roots can emerge from. When this happens the root tips desiccate and die, resulting in branching further back which helps form a good fibrous root system.
5. LondonPlane - I am not aware of any legal basis for the 'foreseeability' you mention. Is this case law? Do you have the details of the case as I'd like to look into this further. -
Message 12
Posted by Plocket (U684859) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Pete I note your points, but I was referring more to the people in the Councils who work in offices, make the decisions, decide whether money can be spent. NOT the very knowledgeable, professional and hard working gardeners, arborists etc.
-
Message 13
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
The arb officers ARE the ones in the offices! There's not many councils left with their own gang of 'tree surgeons' or even gardeners for that matter. Local authority grounds maintenance is nearly always put out to tender. Treework tends to be a bit different - I'd say most arb contractors are knowledgeable and professional (although I've worked with plenty of people who think holding a chainsaw certficate makes them an expert on trees!) - but as far as 'parks' maintenance goes, unfortunately there is something of a 'race to the bottom' with each company tendering trying to undercut the next. How? By employing unskilled, often temporary staff, who know next to nothing about horticulture. Trust me, I've been there and got out when I couldn't stand the frustration of working with people who couldn't care less and had no desire to learn/do any more than the absolute bare minimum!. But then there is not much of an incentive to do anything else when all you're being paid minimum wage.
A shame really, years ago many LAs had good parks depts with apprenticeship schemes but these have mostly gone by the wayside now in the interests of 'cost cutting'.
-
Message 14
Posted by grammarnatsi (U2379487) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Pete and LondonPlane,
you both seem to know your stuff.I, like Manuel, "know nothing". My question is, does a lilac have a reputation for a destructive root system?
A short (hopefully)explanation.I live in the last house of a terrace of six,let's say number 6, The sewer of no.s 1-6 flows at the back of our houses and cuts out to the city council main sewer between no.s 6 and 7,My lilac grows between our two houses and recently-the last few years-the guys in 3 and 4 have suffered blocked drains. There's a manhole between us and 7, the neighbour in 7 tells me that he suspects that it's the lilac which is on my side of a 4' railing.He suggests I get it down pronto before residents in 3 and 4 finally figure out it's "my" tree that's causing the probs on the soil pipe. Do either of you think the lilac is the root (!) of the problems?
Thanks in advance.
I do have another lilac in my back garden much further away from the house and it has on occasion thrown up several suckers, but far enough away from anything for any damage. I just snip them off.
C. -
Message 15
Posted by William (U2169036) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
I'd like to make a few points: Ìý
I think these are points well made..
But still I would like people putting more thought into the planting of trees, but I suppose that a matter of taste and preferences...
My neighbours try to prune their acer palmatum into a more staightforeward upright attitude
And regarding the people working in local government offices, most of their silly decisions are rooted in the inability of those outside these offices to get along with each other on a common sense base.
To amend this, laws, rules and regulations have been made. And those in local government have to apply what's there, to the best of their abilities, but still within the confines of "the book" -
Message 16
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Pete and LondonPlane,
you both seem to know your stuff.I, like Manuel, "know nothing". My question is, does a lilac have a reputation for a destructive root system?
A short (hopefully)explanation.I live in the last house of a terrace of six,let's say number 6, The sewer of no.s 1-6 flows at the back of our houses and cuts out to the city council main sewer between no.s 6 and 7,My lilac grows between our two houses and recently-the last few years-the guys in 3 and 4 have suffered blocked drains. There's a manhole between us and 7, the neighbour in 7 tells me that he suspects that it's the lilac which is on my side of a 4' railing.He suggests I get it down pronto before residents in 3 and 4 finally figure out it's "my" tree that's causing the probs on the soil pipe. Do either of you think the lilac is the root (!) of the problems?
Thanks in advance.
I do have another lilac in my back garden much further away from the house and it has on occasion thrown up several suckers, but far enough away from anything for any damage. I just snip them off.
°ä.Ìý
Possibly. Lilac doesn't have a reputation for drain damage (not like Salix for example) but any tree/shrub roots will grow like stink (geddit?) using the more than adequate supply of water and, erm, 'fertiliser' present if they get into a drain. Usually this will only happen if the drain is damaged rather than the root forcing it's way in. How old are your drains? If they're old clay pipes, butt-jointed, rather than new PVC/polyethylene then the drain could well be damaged (ground movement over time for example can open the joints of a clay drain allowing roots to enter) -
Message 17
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
But still I would like people putting more thought into the planting of trees, but I suppose that a matter of taste and preferences...
Ìý
Don't get me wrong, I quite agree with you on that point! (I was once involved with a site with VERY heavy clay soil, on the top of a VERY windy hill, where the landscape architect had specified Beech for an avenue through the middle of a housing development. I wasn't concerned with subsidence, more the fact that the ground conditions would restrict the rooting of the beech to such an extent they would blow over on someone's house!
Luckily I persuaded the planners to agree to Hornbeam instead 
)
But I also think that tree+house does not always = massive problems. Each case should be considered on its merits. -
Message 18
Posted by LondonPlane (U2356735) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Hi pete35
Try this one for a start:
Solloway v Hampshire County Council. Court of Appeal, 26/2/1981. Detailed report of proceedings, Estates Gazette May 30th 1981 Vol 258.
Than this one:
Delaware Mansions Ltd and another v. Westminster City Council. Court of Appeal, July 1999. Beldam, Thorpe and Pill LJJ.
and finally:
Loftus-Brigham and another v. London Borough of Ealing at the Royal Courts of Justice, 28th Oct 2003.
Note how alll of the above were against Councils.
You can have very large trees on clay soils in very close proximity to buldings IF the foundations are designed with this in mind. I remember visting a London Plane that had a DBH of >1000m top height 18m and spread of 10m. It was located only 5m away from a two level extension on London clay. The house was owned by an Enginner and designed to retain the London Plane that has a TPO on it. So it can be done it is just a question of cost.
Yours in the legal know LondonPlane -
Message 19
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
And regarding the people working in local government offices, most of their silly decisions are rooted in the inability of those outside these offices to get along with each other on a common sense base.
To amend this, laws, rules and regulations have been made. And those in local government have to apply what's there, to the best of their abilities, but still within the confines of "the book"Ìý
I agree with that too. Also, there is sometimes the problem of the elected councillors trying to tell professionally qualified council tree officers how to do their job! -
Message 20
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Hi pete35
Try this one for a start:
Solloway v Hampshire County Council. Court of Appeal, 26/2/1981. Detailed report of proceedings, Estates Gazette May 30th 1981 Vol 258.
Than this one:
Delaware Mansions Ltd and another v. Westminster City Council. Court of Appeal, July 1999. Beldam, Thorpe and Pill LJJ.
and finally:
Loftus-Brigham and another v. London Borough of Ealing at the Royal Courts of Justice, 28th Oct 2003.
Note how alll of the above were against Councils.
You can have very large trees on clay soils in very close proximity to buldings IF the foundations are designed with this in mind. I remember visting a London Plane that had a DBH of >1000m top height 18m and spread of 10m. It was located only 5m away from a two level extension on London clay. The house was owned by an Enginner and designed to retain the London Plane that has a TPO on it. So it can be done it is just a question of cost.
Yours in the legal know LondonPlane
Ìý
Excellent! Thanks LondonPlane, I'll look into those.
Have you heard of 'Housedeck'? I think it's quite a new(ish) system that allows you to build close to existing trees. Details at: -
Message 21
Posted by William (U2169036) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
But still I would like people putting more thought into the planting of trees, but I suppose that a matter of taste and preferences...
Ìý
Don't get me wrong, I quite agree with you on that point! (I was once involved with a site with VERY heavy clay soil, on the top of a VERY windy hill, where the landscape architect had specified Beech for an avenue through the middle of a housing development. I wasn't concerned with subsidence, more the fact that the ground conditions would restrict the rooting of the beech to such an extent they would blow over on someone's house! Luckily I persuaded the planners to agree to Hornbeam instead )
But I also think that tree+house does not always = massive problems. Each case should be considered on its merits.Ìý
You're quite right trees can cause problems, but like you stated in your other post bad building or decay in structures more often 'let the tree in'
Over here on Dutch TV people were arguing about the root damage of a tree to a building (A garage turned into an extension of a living room)....
There clearly were cracks in the walls and the floor of this building and the tree was less than a foot from the wall.... so our TV judge was called to the site of the crime ....
Bottom line was the tree hadn't grown under the structure (nothing there - no food, no water) but the foundation simply wasn't strong enough .. ok for a garage but not for propper housing....
Bottom line....
Put some thought in before passing judgement or "you can't judge a book by looking at the cover"
Cheers
-
Message 22
Posted by LondonPlane (U2356735) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Dear pete35,
When I was a Tree Officer (The Councils I have worked for could not spell the word Arboriculturalist or knew the meaning of the word), I use to suggest the following site for infromation on trees:
www.aie.org.uk
The above had something on there about the house deck system (this is not within the current NHBC).
I can not give a professional comment on foundation design, but I know a man who can!
I sort of known where the person was coming from with regards to Councils.
Did you known that a lot of the Buliding Regulation staff in Councils are not eningeers. Therefore they just follow NHBC guidelines like sheep. They do not recall any of the BRE work, who suggest that all foundations on clay are pile driven. You can sustain large and tall trees in close proximity to buildings on clay. When you design for them and the affects of climate change.
The whole subsidnace thing in the UK is not helped by our past and current building methods.
Yours against brick sh*t house any where
LondonPlane
PS ROots HAVE NOT evolved the ability to bore into any type of drains! However they will grow towards any source of mositure within the soil and make hay when the sun is hot! I would not worry about any alledge damage until give notice in writing. -
Message 23
Posted by Goldilocks (U2296284) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Getting back to teh start of this thread:
1. The house is of traditional trench construction
2. The trees were planted by the builder, in the gardens, 2 feet from the pavement.The trees are also only 10 feet from the house walls.
3. I know from discussions I had with the planning officer ref my own house that they insisted on seeing and approving the planting scheme house by house, plant by plant, and teh builder would not budge from this, even though I told him not to do the planting as I would just rip them all out (so boring and mass planting of the same stuff like Kerria japonica - not even an interesting cultivar of it!
4. There is not a natural tree to be seen for miles, we live in Lincolnshire, and how Corsican pine can be seen to be desirable either from a general site aestetic view or in this specific spot is beyond me.
5. I have lots of Scots Pine in my woodland garden in Wales and I know that taking the tops off makes them look really ugly. When mature they do flatten out and look totally different but I cannot imagine how they could ever look right kept to a height of between 6 and 10 feet, the only conceivable height for a tree in this situation.
In this situation neither the person at the builder's responsible for choosing the tree nor the person at the council approving it have a clue what they are doing. This is not an attack in builders or council staff in general, I will leave others to make their own case. But in my council area, it seems like a case of 'caveat emptor'. -
Message 24
Posted by Goldilocks (U2296284) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Incidentally, the council planner did tell me that once I had bought the house I could dig up and plant what I liked, which was a great relief to me, but it does make you wonder!
-
Message 25
Posted by William (U2169036) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Incidentally, the council planner did tell me that once I had bought the house I could dig up and plant what I liked, which was a great relief to me, but it does make you wonder!Ìý
Hi Goldilocks
I can see a parallel with new housing developments. Each house has to be delivered with a functioning kitchen unit bath room et cetera. If you don't like the standard one you can upgrade but only from a specific contracted supplier. If you want to be able to DIY or get a different supplier in you have to opt for the standard unit, wait untill the propperty has become yours, rip out the standard kitchen / bathroom and replace it with something of your own choise.
Over here it has to do with a legally set minimum standard for new houses to be handed over from builder to owner. If they don't comply I suppose bonusses, grants et cetera will be withheld and maybe they could even be fined or excluded from new building contracts. -
Message 26
Posted by LondonPlane (U2356735) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Afternoon all,
The joys of planning law and practice!
The development of the new properties were probably grant on condition of a suitable landscaping scheme being submitted and agreed by the Council Planning Department.
It is normal practice for these plans to be submitted after the planning consent has been granted. Therefore any negotiating power that a Landscape or Tree Officer on the quality of these are minimal.
It is normal pratice for Landscape conditions to be enforceable for ten years. Therefore any change to the agreed Landscape plan will require consent from the local Planning Authority. To ensure you are not breaking a planning condition you should write to the Council requesting consent to alter the Landscape plan.
In regards to the quality of Landscape plans and planting on new builds not surprise really!
The developers will often say that they are supplying what the market wants. That in the recent booming property market landscaping is not a dealing breaking for the buyer. When it comes on deciding what home to buy its location, location, location and price.
In summary you should ask the Planning Officer to agree in writing to this change in the Landscape plan before buying the property.
Yours
LondonPlane -
Message 27
Posted by LondonPlane (U2356735) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Afternoon all,
The joys of planning law and practice!
The development of the new properties were probably grant on condition of a suitable landscaping scheme being submitted and agreed by the Council Planning Department.
It is normal practice for these plans to be submitted after the planning consent has been granted. Therefore any negotiating power that a Landscape or Tree Officer on the quality of these are minimal.
It is normal pratice for Landscape conditions to be enforceable for ten years. Therefore any change to the agreed Landscape plan will require consent from the local Planning Authority. To ensure you are not breaking a planning condition you should write to the Council requesting consent to alter the Landscape plan.
In regards to the quality of Landscape plans and planting on new builds not surprise really!
The developers will often say that they are supplying what the market wants. That in the recent booming property market landscaping is not a dealing breaker for the buyer. When it comes on deciding what home to buy its location, location, location and price.
In summary you should ask the Planning Officer to agree in writing to this change in the Landscape plan before buying the property.
Yours
LondonPlane -
Message 28
Posted by grammarnatsi (U2379487) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Pete and LondonPlane,
.
°ä.Ìý
Possibly. Lilac doesn't have a reputation for drain damage (not like Salix for example) but any tree/shrub roots will grow like stink (geddit?) using the more than adequate supply of water and, erm, 'fertiliser' present if they get into a drain. Usually this will only happen if the drain is damaged rather than the root forcing it's way in. How old are your drains? If they're old clay pipes, butt-jointed, rather than new PVC/polyethylene then the drain could well be damaged (ground movement over time for example can open the joints of a clay drain allowing roots to enter)Ìý
Thanks for your reply.The house was built in 1940. There's deffo some subsidence. The fella next door (#7) has a half inch crack running down from his bathroom window lintel. There are also some hairline cracks in my house.
I'd be sad to see it go, as 1.Many small birds hide in it while I'm dishing out bread crumbs/scraps and/or a larger bird is about. 2. the fella in 7's house looks like Steptoe and Son's yard, and it at least hides it. I've been trying to think what I can replace it with. I think I'll go for a bamboo or two in an old style plastic bin.
thanks again. -
Message 29
Posted by Goldilocks (U2296284) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Hi LondonPlane,
I hope I am misunderstanding what you are saying. My concern in renging the Planning officer was to find out just what I could and could not do in my garden, which was made up of lawns and masses of the same variety of box hedging, pyracantha along a fence (around 30 of one variety) and about two dozen bog standard kerria japonica. I have hundeeds of young shrubs and about 20 young trees that I can't wait to plant and was concerned about the builder's rigidity - they had to plant what it said on the plans or they would be in trouble with the council. I asked the planning officer whether I had to stick with the current plan for X years or could I change it. He was quite clear - the planning approval is for the builder, I can do what i want and provided it does not break any byelaws (hedge heights etc) they will not get involved. Now, reading your message, do I take it that technically i should get council approval every time I want to remove someting that was on the original plan, or add something that was not on the plan? There are miniature conifer trees and massive shrubs, and little tree seedlings gradually grow into big trees. Please tell me I have misunderstood you? If you are right then....... ((speechless!!)
In summary you should ask the Planning Officer to agree in writing to this change in the Landscape plan before buying the property.
Yours
LondonPlane
Ìý -
Message 30
Posted by LondonPlane (U2356735) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
The planning consent is in regards to the land it is not spent upon the change of ownership. Consent and conditions are normally valid for 5 years in England and Wales.
In my experience it is very common for Councils to use a cut and paste condition on landscaping and tree issues. That requires any works or removal of trees within five years of completion of the development to require consent from the Council in writing.
Another favourite for conditions are boundary hedge’s to be maintain for x number of years. When this condition is lapsed you can do what you wish to them in terms of planning legislation.
You should ask for a copy of the planning conditions and check these for yourself. Given that the Councils Planning Officer (they have a habit of changing post frequently) said she/he considers it is not a problem. Than there will be no issue with the Council providing you with a letter to confirm this opinion in writing. You should check for any Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) at the same time.
It should not be a problem to vary the landscape plans if you are improving the site.
Yours LondonPlane
PS Find the website for the Council and check their planning pages. -
Message 31
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Getting back to teh start of this thread:
1. The house is of traditional trench construction
2. The trees were planted by the builder, in the gardens, 2 feet from the pavement.The trees are also only 10 feet from the house walls.
3. I know from discussions I had with the planning officer ref my own house that they insisted on seeing and approving the planting scheme house by house, plant by plant, and teh builder would not budge from this, even though I told him not to do the planting as I would just rip them all out (so boring and mass planting of the same stuff like Kerria japonica - not even an interesting cultivar of it!
4. There is not a natural tree to be seen for miles, we live in Lincolnshire, and how Corsican pine can be seen to be desirable either from a general site aestetic view or in this specific spot is beyond me.
5. I have lots of Scots Pine in my woodland garden in Wales and I know that taking the tops off makes them look really ugly. When mature they do flatten out and look totally different but I cannot imagine how they could ever look right kept to a height of between 6 and 10 feet, the only conceivable height for a tree in this situation.
In this situation neither the person at the builder's responsible for choosing the tree nor the person at the council approving it have a clue what they are doing. This is not an attack in builders or council staff in general, I will leave others to make their own case. But in my council area, it seems like a case of 'caveat emptor'. Ìý
1&2: I can't really see anything inherently wrong with this if you're not on shrinkable clay. In any case Pines are low water demand and are not especially known for causing DIRECT physical damage to structures/hard surfaces. Perhaps a bit too close to the pavement maybe, but not completely ridiculous. One possible cause for concern might be that the building works have compacted the soil which would restrict the rooting depth of the trees, leaving them possibly vulnerable to windthrow in the future. But this is a site-related issue rather than one of species.
3. Of course the builder won't deviate from the approved landscape scheme! He'll be in contravention of the planning conditions if he does. As for the choice of species, I agree it's hardly inspiring but 'amenity' nurseries (those growing plants for this type of commercial landscaping) can only really afford what they know will be cheap and guaranteed to grow. It's a bit chicken and egg - landscape architects won't specify plants that aren't readily available and nurseries won't grow anything that architects aren't specifying. There is a better range available now than a few years ago (particularly from larger wholesale nurseries), but still less variety than you would find in a decent garden centre.
5. Why take the tops off the pines? As I suggested, they would be eminently suitable for crown lifting - removing the side branches progressively as the tree grows as formative pruning. Naturally pines will shed these laterals anyway.
4. Fair point. I have come across 'native' planting schemes in my part of the world that include Scots Pine. Yes, this is a native tree but only really in Scotland, not Cambridgeshire! -
Message 32
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Dear pete35,
When I was a Tree Officer (The Councils I have worked for could not spell the word Arboriculturalist or knew the meaning of the word), I use to suggest the following site for infromation on trees:
www.aie.org.uk
The above had something on there about the house deck system (this is not within the current NHBC).
I can not give a professional comment on foundation design, but I know a man who can!
I sort of known where the person was coming from with regards to Councils.
Did you known that a lot of the Buliding Regulation staff in Councils are not eningeers. Therefore they just follow NHBC guidelines like sheep. They do not recall any of the BRE work, who suggest that all foundations on clay are pile driven. You can sustain large and tall trees in close proximity to buildings on clay. When you design for them and the affects of climate change.
The whole subsidnace thing in the UK is not helped by our past and current building methods.
Yours against brick sh*t house any where
LondonPlane
PS ROots HAVE NOT evolved the ability to bore into any type of drains! However they will grow towards any source of mositure within the soil and make hay when the sun is hot! I would not worry about any alledge damage until give notice in writing. Ìý
I use aie.org.uk quite regularly - in fact it was it was my first port of call regarding the case law examples you quoted! I had already come across them, but I'm not quite sure that your reading of them is quite correct. I don't think there is anything in them that SPECIFICALLY relates to a council having an additional duty (over and above that of a private individual) to foresee damage and thus not have any defence at all against a claim for damages. Of course, there is a legitimate claim if a tree is causing damage - but there have been judements against parties other than just LAs, e.g., McCombe v Read.
I sort of agree with your comments about Council officers (not just Building Control). But I think this problem is more widespread than just LAs - I have worked on schemes designed by Landscape Architects from some of the biggest consultancy firms in the country, and some of them have been appalling!
Also the whole subsidence thing hasn't been helped by the fact we have much greater seasonality in rainfall and hotter summers. Subsidence due to shrinkage was virtually unheard of before the long hot summer of 1976. -
Message 33
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Thanks for your reply.The house was built in 1940. There's deffo some subsidence. The fella next door (#7) has a half inch crack running down from his bathroom window lintel. There are also some hairline cracks in my house.
I'd be sad to see it go, as 1.Many small birds hide in it while I'm dishing out bread crumbs/scraps and/or a larger bird is about. 2. the fella in 7's house looks like Steptoe and Son's yard, and it at least hides it. I've been trying to think what I can replace it with. I think I'll go for a bamboo or two in an old style plastic bin.
thanks again.Ìý
Your lilac may not be the cause of the problem, just one of the symptoms. If there is serious leakage from the drain, it could possibly be washing the fine soil particles through the soil horizon, leading to subsidence of #7's house (I've seen an example of this where trees were blamed for a house sinking, when the real cause was a leaking surface water drain). It might be worthwhile getting a CCTV drain survey done.
If the drain is repaired and made water tight then the lilac roots won't get in and it will cease to be a problem. -
Message 34
Posted by pete35 (U2824498) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Hi LondonPlane,
I hope I am misunderstanding what you are saying. My concern in renging the Planning officer was to find out just what I could and could not do in my garden, which was made up of lawns and masses of the same variety of box hedging, pyracantha along a fence (around 30 of one variety) and about two dozen bog standard kerria japonica. I have hundeeds of young shrubs and about 20 young trees that I can't wait to plant and was concerned about the builder's rigidity - they had to plant what it said on the plans or they would be in trouble with the council. I asked the planning officer whether I had to stick with the current plan for X years or could I change it. He was quite clear - the planning approval is for the builder, I can do what i want and provided it does not break any byelaws (hedge heights etc) they will not get involved. Now, reading your message, do I take it that technically i should get council approval every time I want to remove someting that was on the original plan, or add something that was not on the plan? There are miniature conifer trees and massive shrubs, and little tree seedlings gradually grow into big trees. Please tell me I have misunderstood you? If you are right then....... ((speechless!!)
In summary you should ask the Planning Officer to agree in writing to this change in the Landscape plan before buying the property.
Yours
LondonPlane
Ìý Ìý
I agree with LondonPlane that planning conditions apply for a set period, regardless of a change of ownership. However, they might not be entirely rigid and you may get agreement to change the planting if what you're suggesting doesn't radically change the local aesthetics. But definitely get this in writing. -
Message 35
Posted by LondonPlane (U2356735) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Evening Pete,
If you what to know a about Tree Law I suggest you find a copy of:
Law of Trees, Forests and Hedgerows
by Charles Mynors - 2002 -
The following is stated within the above book:
3.5.4 (p77, 78 & 79)
It must be remember that it was not until the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1981 in Solloway v Hampshire Council that the courts reached the view that harm caused by tree roots must be foreseeable if it is to result in an award of damages...
Where the tree concerned is growing in the highway on the other hand, the owners is in practice presumed to be the highway authority, and it is very difficult for such authorities now to escape liability on the grounds of not knowing about the mechanics of tree root damage...
IF you wish to claim monies against a tree owner for damages to your property. The damage has to be foreseeable by the tree owner.
Some insurance company now ask when subsidance occur if any Tree Reports foresaw the risk of the damage occuring. This is to investagate the possibility of recovery against Laypeople who have been placed upon notice.
Subsidance did occur before 1976 and does occur in other parts of the world. However in the 1970's subsidance damage became covered by house hold insurance policies. Howownership levels, house price have incressed and professionals are more aware of the risk of damage occuring. Therefore people make claim against they household insurance for the damage to be repaired.
IF, I were a Layperson, I would not worry about subs until it occured. Than I would require the following befor taking any action: a letter from an insurance company with PROOF of the damage i.e. enginner report, tree root survey, drain survey, soil survey and labs.
The whole subs thing is really over hyped!!! -
Message 36
Posted by Goldilocks (U2296284) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
I can see that several respondents know their stuff legally, but I am finding it all a bit difficult to relate a lot of this legal and arboricultural argument to the real life situation I have described. The more I read about it, the more I think that all concerned with making these decisions are so wrapped up in technicalities that they can't 'see the wood for the trees'. For example:
1. If I am well advised to get written dispensation from the council to deviate from the ten year plan, does this apply every time I decide on a change, such as planting another young tree? If so then I think its bureaucracy gone mad.
2. I can't imagine how a row of forest trees planted 6 feet apart and less than a car length away from the front of a house and right next to the pavement can be remotely justified, no matter what sort of soil there is. crown lifting will just result in huge trunks practically outside the lounge windows, and a tree canopy overhanging the roof, and the poor occupant regularly having to pay a tree surgeon to do the job. These are not ornamentals, with blossom, attractive fruit or good autumn foliage or interesting bark (well not until massive mature trees). These Corsican pines grow to 35 metres, over 100 ft, in ideal conditions. If the council officer who approved this is the same guy i am advised to write to to get approval for removing the cheap and boring shrubs in my garden and put in some attractive ornamentals, then it is just adding insult to injury. And to think my council tax is paying their salaries! -
Message 37
Posted by William (U2169036) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Hi Goldilocks
I think there is a diffrence between private persons and developpers. The latter are bound by more rules and regulations - getting their paperwork for a complete building development approved.
Regarding your 10 year plan. Over here we've got something similar. But the planning doesn't go into details of specific individual planting. The ten year plan over here states the use of certain areas like: housing, high rise building, non polluting industry, poluting industry, type of agricultural use, et cetera.
I suppose the ten year plan of your plot states it has been reserved for housing and you're free to use your house and garden as anyone else in your country. Being bound by normal laws and regulations regarding fencing, trees under conservation rules et cetera.
I certainly wouldn't apply for a new planning permission when planting pansies next month or so....
-
Message 38
Posted by Goldilocks (U2296284) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
I think (and hope) you are right. that's what my local council planner told me - he said once I had bought the house I could pretty well do what i liked. But I got the impression from reading other postings that i should get written permission for any changes.
-
Message 39
Posted by U2331885 (U2331885) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Hi Goldilocks!
I have been involved with the odd residential and commercial development or two. And amongst others I can choose to put LLB et al after my name (forgive me for admitting this immense sin!).
To be brief - be careful about being "over advised" about stuff that really applies to developers. It is unlikely in the extreme that the local Council will come after you and should you decide to sell within any period specified under the planning permission the reality is that "other side's" solicitor is highly unlikely to ask about it.
Get on with your landscaping and post some piccies of before..... -
Message 40
Posted by Goldilocks (U2296284) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Many thanks Capn'. Sounds very sensible, and reassuring too.
-
Message 41
Posted by Rhoda Dendron (U2176380) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Thank goodness for Captain "Sensible" - I was beginning to feel stressed about this on behalf of Goldilocks. My advice would be if you don't NEED to ask a question that you might not like the answer to, don't ask it". So get on with your planting and in the highly unlikely event anybody in authority questions it we will organise the boarders to campaign on your behalf!!!
Rhoda -
Message 42
Posted by Goldilocks (U2296284) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Just to update you all, I contacted the builders customer service department a week ago and they passed my comments on to the relevant department. Just had this reply:
"Just a quick line to let you know you were quite right about the trees & as such they will be removed & replaced with a more suitable planting. Thank you for helping us with this matter!"
I hope they find them a good home. -
Message 43
Posted by William (U2169036) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Hey
Bonus points and a freeball to Goldilocks
>
-
Message 44
Posted by Rhoda Dendron (U2176380) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Well done Goldilocks - I'm glad it all worked out in the end.
About this Board
Welcome to the new Gardening Board. If this is your first time, then make sure you check out the
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
Weekdays 09:00-00:00
Weekends 10:00-00:00
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹Éç iD
Â鶹Éç navigation
Â鶹Éç links
Â鶹Éç © 2014 The Â鶹Éç is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.