In a message dated 07/01/2005 16:51:29 GMT Standard Time,
CSapcote@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk writes:
Regardiong subsidence: the other aspect of trees close to private
dwellings is of course heave - once you have upset the balance of water
uptake by removing the tree (usually percieved as some kind of intruder
even though it may precede the building) you can then get ground swell
and movement due to heave. Do these recommendations for felling ever
take this into consideration?
Hi Cheryl,
I don't know how long you've been lurking but thought I ought to respond to
your 'Heave' comment.
Yes sometimes the specifiers do make recommendations that purport to take
Heave into account. In my opinion as the movement is rarely anything to do
with
the tree, attempting to control subsequent Heave is therefore a self
fulfilling
objective.
If you read some of the UKTC archive arguments you will find that it is the
opinion of some of us that the Insurance industry has a stable of tame Arbs
who
they can wheel out to condemn whatever tree they fancy. (try
http://lists.tree-care.info/uktc/archive/2004/msg04895.php for a recent
thread, this one
claimed an Oak 25 metres away was guilty)
Some of us will stand up for the tree not particularly because we're of a
tree hugging bent but because we believe that the property owner is not best
served by spurious accusations. Personally I believe that the purpose of a
foundation is to take account of potential changes in soil volume. If a
building
settles all it shows is that the foundation is inadequate. I could go on but
the
other subscribers will start yawning.....
To turn to your recently felled Maple; I often find that highways departments
are exceptionally unhelpful in their dogmatic application of their rules.
Pavements must be 1.8 metres wide (that's sidewalks for the colonials) and no
less; visibility splays must be 60(?) metres from the drivers seat without
the
bonnet sticking out into the road for an average car blah blah. So I suspect
your Maple was sacrificed at the altar of road safety at the instruction of
some
jobsworth highway bod. Still at least it wasn't a more significant tree. In
France, militant road safety campaigners fell trees to stop them causing
accidents: http://forests.org/archive/europe/frtrline.htm I have on more
than one
occasion attempted to persuade highways bods that relocating a boundary wall
further into the pavement will prevent a perfectly reasonable tree being lost
(where the pavement is wide enough) but they are entirely against letting
someone
have an extra foot or so of garden cos it might interfere with underground
services or rights of way or ley lines or anything as long as they don't have
to
think about it. I'd suggest voting somebody out but the others are just as
bad.....
Anyway enjoy the UKTC.
Bill.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
