UKTC Archive

Re: Trees and subsidence

Subject: Re: Trees and subsidence
From: Julian Dunster
Date: Aug 16 2006 15:39:27
Is there any opportunity for remedial pruning to reshape and develop a few stronger new scaffolds? Even habitat trees have some amenity value, albeit as provision of habitat rather than specimen tree qualities.

And, the whole incident yet again shows that as arbs we are not getting the message over to the planners - a global problem.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Wallbank, Alan" <>
To: "UK Tree Care" <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:54 AM
Subject: RE: Trees and subsidence


No - in each case the householders built their own conservatories.

Both enjoy their trees, and have expressed doubts about removal. We
haven't refused consent to work on them before so I don't fear liability
arising over past refusals to remove/reduce.

My personal view is that the trees are only one factor in a complicated
equation - the inappropriate foundations, the marshy substrate, with
spoil used as infill, and the drier weather.  I've expressed that
opinion to both owners and told them that tree removal might offer no
remedy whatever, and I premised that on the even, rather than
differential, pattern of settlement. I also asked them to wait until
autumn/winter and see what happens when the soil swells again.

I suppose my quandary is whether to sanction removal if it's requested
or to go down the usual line of investigations - soil plasticity, trial
pits, monitoring and so on, especially as the trees are not visible to
many people, and do not possess much visual amenity now - well not to
the trained eye anyhow, though the locals think they're nice.

Potentially, this could become a request to fell a lot of trees, as this
development backs on to an L-shaped bank with quite high tree density.
You make a good point about TPO-ing them in the first place, and my
guess is that a predecessor did this as a knee-jerk reaction to what the
developers did to the trees, which was just terrible.


-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: 16 August 2006 09:00
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Trees and subsidence

In a message dated 16/08/2006 08:42:57 GMT Standard Time, writes:


Lee Wright

Calm down now,
if the tag-on bits have moved and the main bits haven't then a clearer
indication of inadequate construction could not be conceived. By the
sound of things removal of the trees isn't going to make a blind bit of
difference so  just ignore them. Obviously you're an Arb so you'll need
to get a structural engineer to point that out.

If the trees have been butchered, treat that as a separate issue, why
did anyone bother TPOing such things in a rear garden in the first
place? Obviously I don't know the history but it sounds a bit thin in my

But don't allow anyone to make the connection between tree and building,
it just leads to confusion all round and from the householder's point of
view it won't solve their problem. Sounds like their beef might be with
the conservatory  constructors; probably a right gang of fly-by-nights
who'll've gone out of  business by now.

Oh and I believe that permitted development rights don't count as
exemptions against TPOs do they?


The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify the originator of the message.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
states them to be the views of the Borough of Telford & Wrekin

The content of this email has been automatically checked in
conjunction with the relevant policies of the Borough of Telford & Wrekin.

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre