UKTC Archive

RE: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

Subject: RE: Water Demand of Cotoneaster
From: Mark
Date: Sep 08 2017 11:17:17
I remember when I was a  TO many years ago having a row with our Building 
Control Manager because he would not insist on modified foundations on a clay 
site that had no existing trees but had new tree planting conditioned all 
over it as part of the developers submitted landscape plan.  Not sure I would 
want to be the owner of one of those now 30 years on.....

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Howe, Ron
Sent: 08 September 2017 11:55
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

Okay, Bill and Jon, I know where you are coming from. However, and I am 
sorry, that would be crystal ball gazing. You can only protect against what 
is present at the time and not what might come to pass. The law quite clearly 
says that if you as a neighbour plant a tree that is outside the scope of 
your neighbour's foundations then you are to blame if damage occurs ... if 
you allow it to escape. Reasonables and all that. What you seek is simply a 
little bit of spare capacity, just in case. However, the additional cost is 
probably unreasonable based on just an assumption because your crystal ball 
doesn't seem to be seeing all the possible scenarios including the one that 
says the neighbour actually never plants a tree.

Ron Howe
Tree Officer (Planning)
Mole Valley District Council

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 07 September 2017 15:36
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

Somewhere near the point where we can say "it's nothing to do with the tree; 
it's entirely your building that's at fault" Ron. And as I see it, if you 
design a foundation that only considers trees that are already present, 
rather than trees that might be planted (and grown, and removed) in the 
future, then it's not really an adequate foundation. Getting these things 
right at an early stage is likely to be a relatively minor cost in comparison 
to future rectification. Innit? Especially when our current rate of 
house-building seems to suggest houses have got to last a couple of millennia.

Bill.





On 7 September 2017 at 14:39, Howe, Ron <Ron.Howe@xxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk> wrote:

You're right Jim ... there's no golden rule in real life.

As for the Local Authority Building Control 10 year guarantee that was 
also recently (now maybe 5 years ago) reinforced through a court case 
which held the LPA responsible for unforeseen damage to a building 
somewhere and it also dictated how long the LPA should keep their 
files. It caused a bit of a dilemma here which is why I got involved.
Fortunately, heave assessments are the responsibility of the customer 
and their engineer, and LABC would require engineer design foundations 
for heave risk. So that 10 years has a far more reaching impact on 
LABCs ... as always, it's the Council's fault as they can afford to 
throw away 'your' money on self underwritten insurance and 
compensation claims. We even have people who used NHBC building control 
services come after our teams!

Bill, where do you want to draw the line in the sand?

Ron Howe
Tree Officer (Planning)
Mole Valley District Council
Tel. 01306 XXX XXX


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Jim Quaife
Sent: 06 September 2017 16:09
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

The 10 years is merely the guarantee period of NHBC (despite the 
foundation design being based on the eventual mature height of a 
tree), and when the LA Guarantee scheme came in in 2007 they went for
10 years as well so as to match the schemes.  This decade has nothing 
to do with any specification, it is the guarantee period.
Persistent moisture deficiency can take anything up to ten years or 
more to correct, dependent upon site and meteorological conditions.
Biddle cites an exceptional case when the recovery period was 25 years 
and counting!(page 92).
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Howe, Ron
Sent: 06 September 2017 12:23
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

Mmmm, the ground tends to recover at a consistent rate Bill because of 
equilibrium and the rate at which clay can respond, regardless of 
extreme weather patterns and because average annual rainfall is pretty 
consistent in good old Blighty. That’s why they say allow three years for 
recovery ...
just in case something really unusual happens. Usually, the worst 
effects of soil recovery are within the next season from what I can 
remember from Biddle and Dowson et.al.

Ron Howe
Tree Officer (Planning)
Mole Valley District Council
Tel. 01306 XXX XXX


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 05 September 2017 18:07
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

The heave risk ought to take account of future drought events and 
subsequent rainfall oughtn't it? Whether the soil is currently 
desiccated or not is not really a consideration. (I don't consider 
this to be shooting your hat off Andrew....) Bill.

On 5 September 2017 at 17:22, "Andrew Belson" 
<uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
wrote:

Dear Will and Collective,

I rarely put my head above the parapets as when I do, I usually get 
my hat shot off....

That said, here's my opinion.

You say the site is cleared.  In that case, all you need to know for 
the heave risk is: 'is the soil desiccated? (at or below foundation
depth)'
Soil testing will tell you that.  The vegetation present is 
irrelevant (so far as heave calculation is concerned).

Heave = recovery; therefore, no desiccation = no volume to recover.

In relation to foundation design, if pushed for a 'water demand' for 
a Cotoneaster then I'd say 'medium' based on the fact that the NHBC 
have put most of the Rosaceae trees in that part of Table 12.

I'd put Pittosporum in 'Low' because of the (relatively) slow growth 
and hard leaves.  However, as others have pointed out, if you don’t 
know, you have to assume worst case for the NHBC to be happy.

The final point I want to make is that I think we should 
collectively avoid referring to roots 'below foundations'.  My 
preference being 'at foundation depth'.  This is because I think it 
perpetuates the layman's understanding of how trees cause damage.

Regards,

Andrew




-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of will ross
Sent: 05 September 2017 10:59
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

I agree with both answers in this case the site has been cleared and 
the engineer is trying to work out the so called water demand of the 
trees/shrubs that were there to design for potential  heave, in 
reality I agree with Jim as far as rooting depth and also general 
conditions including vitality of particular specimens.
Again many thanks , any further thoughts would be welcome.

Will

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Liam McKarry
Sent: 05 September 2017 10:46
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

I've always thought 'Water Demand' was a silly term.

Plants remove water from the soil, anything that can root under 
foundations can therefore remove water from clay causing it to 
reduce in size meaning that foundations will move downward. Whether 
it's high demand or low demand seems a bit arbitrary.

If differential movement has occurred where the plant is and there 
are roots beneath the foundations it's a good bet that it's either 
the sole cause or a contributing factor (in combination with other 
trees/shrubs
nearby) to the clay shrinkage.



Liam McKarry
Arboricultural Officer (Planning) • Corporate and Place Services   •
Colchester Borough Council • www.colchester.gov.uk


Speaking with Planning about building works or new development? Have 
you spoken with our Building Control Service too? Our team can help 
you meet Government-set Building Regulations for the safe design and 
construction of buildings (including energy efficiency and access 
requirements). Email them on building.control@xxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk or 
telephone 01206 XXXXXX, or look at our website 
www.colchester.gov.uk/
buildingcontrol for more information.

Please note that the informal views expressed herein are not binding 
in any way and the Council will not accept any liability in respect 
of such communication. Any opinions expressed are solely those of 
the author and do not represent those of Colchester Borough Council.
The content is for informal purposes only and is based exclusively 
on the information that has been provided to the author at the time 
of writing. Thus, any views expressed should not be interpreted as 
fact, nor should they be passed on to third parties on such a basis.
All communications are meant for the intended recipients only. 
Please check that there is no private and confidential information 
enclosed and seek the author's permission before sharing this 
communication with
others.

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Jim Quaife
Sent: 05 September 2017 10:23
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

Water demand is a term that is understood and in common usage, but 
the trees with the higher WD are generally those better able to root 
deeply - coincidence eh??
I doubt that there are any data so if you need to be definite it 
would have to be a trial hole to discover the rooting depth profile.
I know that pyracantha is a bad boy in subs, but usually when grown 
against the wall.  I have no idea about cotoneaster.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:uktc-request@lists.
tree-care.info] On Behalf Of will ross
Sent: 05 September 2017 10:06
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Water Demand of Cotoneaster

Hi,

    Does anyone have an idea of water demand for a cotoneaster, I am 
working from a third party report and the engineer is requesting 
further detail, the estimated height was 8m so I presume it was one 
of the large shrub/tree type such as waterii, also they have asked 
for the water demand of Pittosporum which I can't find. Any help 
would be
welcome.



Will




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/ The information in this email, and any 
attachments to it, is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s).
If you should not have received it you must not take any action 
based upon it, or forward, copy or show it to anyone; please tell 
the sender you have received the email in error, then permanently 
delete it and any attachments. Any views or opinions expressed are 
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of 
Colchester Borough Council and/or Colchester Borough Homes. Although 
the Council has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses 
are present in this email, the Council cannot accept responsibility 
for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/

________________________
This email was scanned by our anti-virus solution.



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/

________________________
This email was scanned by our anti-virus solution.



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/

________________________
This email was scanned by our anti-virus solution.



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/