UKTC Archive

RE: Heave Risk Assessment

Subject: RE: Heave Risk Assessment
From: Jim Quaife
Date: Jan 21 2021 14:18:18
Very very rare to have subsequent feedback.
I suspect that it is down to fees - more precisely, unwillingness to cough up 
for them!
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Brewster, Ian
Sent: 21 January 2021 13:32
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Heave Risk Assessment

Concern here also is after felling do any of us receive further reports from 
the insurers consultants suggesting the ‘cracks’ have close.
This information would at least provide the arboriculture industry confidence 
in that the removal was the right action to take.
If this is a ploy to have trees removed for other reasons than implied for 
tree related subsidence for example then it needs to be addressed.
Perhaps having a data base set up with such reports and follow up 
investigations would help and possibly towards retaining more trees which 
have been unnecessarily removed.



From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> 
On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 21 January 2021 13:10
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Heave Risk Assessment

I posited the question mischievously, obvs, but I've always, at least since I 
was ever called upon to consider such things, struggled to understand why the 
conclusion was invariably "it's a tree problem" rather than a foundation 
problem. I accept that sometimes the simplest, least disruptive solution is 
to remove a tree, but this may just be kicking the problem down the street. 
I've had a case where trees were removed in the 90s to solve a problem, only 
for a new claim to arise in the 2010s, with exactly the same proposed 
solution: That is, fell more trees.

Bill.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 18:32, Jim Quaife 
<jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk<mailto:jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>> wrote:

I'm not a specialist in subs, but over the years I've done quite a few.
In all that tine I have dealt with just two genuine heave cases - and 
they went to court. Jon is absolutely right in that the whole subject 
is mystery. We may understand the principles but every case is 
different in one or more ways, usually the latter.
Tree-related subs is usually to do with differential soil movement, 
aggravated by variations in foundation type. "My" heave cases seemed 
to affect the entire building, and had the classic non-tapering 
cracks, and one had floorboards which had pulled out from under the 
skirting boards.
Rather than causing repairable damage, both buildings were in effect 
write-offs.
I can't say that my contributions as an arb were sparkling, but the 
other experts were struggling a bit as well! In both cases the past 
presence of trees was the only rational cause of influence.
The notion that staged removal of a tree might alleviate damage is 
interesting. In theory it shouldn't work because if soil is going to 
reach an end volume, the magnitude of movement would be the same 
however long it took - wouldn't it? Hmmm The thing is, as Jon says, 
no-one really knows with any clinical certainty.
Enough already, supper awaits!
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: 
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info<mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
 [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info<mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.
info>] On Behalf Of Jon Heuch
Sent: 20 January 2021 17:55
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Heave Risk Assessment

Bill



It's an interesting question. Similarly, one engineer who I have 
worked with for some years, asks the question why didn't they have 
lots of heave claims after the 1987 storm? (they didn't)



Heave is a comparative rarity; there is very little data on it. A few 
NHBC claims for new houses. And of course once a tree has been removed 
there is no need to involve an arborist so routinely a claim for heave 
does not require an arb to do anything with trees. We may not hear 
about such claims.



It's the rarity that causes the mystery. A few famous documented cases.
Next
time you go to Windsor Great Park you need to pick up the case 
documenting movement in one of the buildings there.



Cutting a tree down in stages means that no-one has any idea of the 
history as the whole process lasts years rather than months, making 
life even more complex. It sounds good but we have no evidence it makes any 
difference.



Jon






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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
and Stockholm Tree Pits 
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk<https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.u
k>



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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
and Stockholm Tree Pits 
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk<https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.u
k>




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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and 
Stockholm Tree Pits 
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk<https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk>
Concern here also is after felling do any of us receive further reports from 
the insurers consultants suggesting the ‘cracks’ have close.
This information would at least provide the arboriculture industry confidence 
in that the removal was the right action to take.
If this is a ploy to have trees removed for other reasons than implied for 
tree related subsidence for example then it needs to be addressed.
Perhaps having a data base set up with such reports and follow up 
investigations would help and possibly towards retaining more trees which 
have been unnecessarily removed.



From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> 
On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 21 January 2021 13:10
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Heave Risk Assessment

I posited the question mischievously, obvs, but I've always, at least since I 
was ever called upon to consider such things, struggled to understand why the 
conclusion was invariably "it's a tree problem" rather than a foundation 
problem. I accept that sometimes the simplest, least disruptive solution is 
to remove a tree, but this may just be kicking the problem down the street. 
I've had a case where trees were removed in the 90s to solve a problem, only 
for a new claim to arise in the 2010s, with exactly the same proposed 
solution: That is, fell more trees.

Bill.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 18:32, Jim Quaife 
<jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk<mailto:jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>> wrote:

I'm not a specialist in subs, but over the years I've done quite a few.
In all that tine I have dealt with just two genuine heave cases - and 
they went to court. Jon is absolutely right in that the whole subject 
is mystery. We may understand the principles but every case is 
different in one or more ways, usually the latter.
Tree-related subs is usually to do with differential soil movement, 
aggravated by variations in foundation type. "My" heave cases seemed 
to affect the entire building, and had the classic non-tapering 
cracks, and one had floorboards which had pulled out from under the 
skirting boards.
Rather than causing repairable damage, both buildings were in effect 
write-offs.
I can't say that my contributions as an arb were sparkling, but the 
other experts were struggling a bit as well! In both cases the past 
presence of trees was the only rational cause of influence.
The notion that staged removal of a tree might alleviate damage is 
interesting. In theory it shouldn't work because if soil is going to 
reach an end volume, the magnitude of movement would be the same 
however long it took - wouldn't it? Hmmm The thing is, as Jon says, 
no-one really knows with any clinical certainty.
Enough already, supper awaits!
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: 
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info<mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
 [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info<mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.
info>] On Behalf Of Jon Heuch
Sent: 20 January 2021 17:55
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Heave Risk Assessment

Bill



It's an interesting question. Similarly, one engineer who I have 
worked with for some years, asks the question why didn't they have 
lots of heave claims after the 1987 storm? (they didn't)



Heave is a comparative rarity; there is very little data on it. A few 
NHBC claims for new houses. And of course once a tree has been removed 
there is no need to involve an arborist so routinely a claim for heave 
does not require an arb to do anything with trees. We may not hear 
about such claims.



It's the rarity that causes the mystery. A few famous documented cases.
Next
time you go to Windsor Great Park you need to pick up the case 
documenting movement in one of the buildings there.



Cutting a tree down in stages means that no-one has any idea of the 
history as the whole process lasts years rather than months, making 
life even more complex. It sounds good but we have no evidence it makes any 
difference.



Jon






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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
and Stockholm Tree Pits 
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk<https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.u
k>



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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
and Stockholm Tree Pits 
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk<https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.u
k>




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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and 
Stockholm Tree Pits 
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk<https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk>
NPS
 



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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and 
Stockholm Tree Pits https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk