There is a Silver Birch tree 3 metres from my house on suspected shrinkabkle sub-soil. The tree is appox 12m high and is on Coucil property. I am concerned that the tree could cause damage to the house. I have written to the Council asking them to inspect it and possibly replace it with a smaller tree. They have written back advising they will reduce the crown in June next year and then inspect it every 3 years. Is this satisfactory or should I still be concerned? Any advise would be most welcome!

"bilbo-bj" wrote in message
s.com...
There is a Silver Birch tree 3 metres from my house on suspected
shrinkabkle sub-soil. The tree is appox 12m high and is on Coucil
property. I am concerned that the tree could cause damage to the
house. I have written to the Council asking them to inspect it and
possibly replace it with a smaller tree. They have written back
advising they will reduce the crown in June next year and then inspect
it every 3 years. Is this satisfactory or should I still be concerned?
Any advise would be most welcome!
--
bilbo-bj
------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted via www.GardenBanter.co.uk

I think you will get different opinions here - it sounds a bit close, but
much depends on the location and type of soil, and your house/foundation
construction. To be sure, you would need a site survey from a surveyor with
experience of trees.

Irrespective of any such opinions, I would do one thing first:

Write back to the Council, tell them again of your concern about *their*
tree.
You are formally advising them of the possible harm that it may cause to
your house. Now that you have informed them, and they have agreed to
inspect the tree, you will of course be holding them liable for any damage
it causes in the future.
Send it by recorded delivery to the person you are dealing with at the
Council, with their name and official title.

It will make them take the matter seriously - Councils don't like their
staff to lumber them with legal responsibilities and they will probably give
it a more thorough survey.

Send a copy to your insurance company for information, so they can't accuse
you of withholding material information. It shouldn't affect your
premium - they will see that you are a responsible customer.

If it *is* safe, then of course you will be reassured, and can enjoy a
fine-looking tree maintained by someone else..

- Arthur

snip They have written back
advising they will reduce the crown in June next year and then inspect
it every 3 years. Is this satisfactory or should I still be concerned?
Any advise would be most welcome!
--
bilbo-bj
Snip
Send a copy to your insurance company for information, so they can't
accuse
you of withholding material information. It shouldn't affect your
premium - they will see that you are a responsible customer.

If it *is* safe, then of course you will be reassured, and can enjoy a
fine-looking tree maintained by someone else..

- Arthur
Be aware that many insurance companies will not insure you if trees are
within, in some cases, up to 14 meters from your property. Though if you
are already insured and they have not appraised you of that fact then you
should be covered, until your insurance is due for renewal, and then they
may well decline. This happened to me.
Cheers
John T

The message m
from bilbo-bj contains these words:

There is a Silver Birch tree 3 metres from my house on suspected
shrinkabkle sub-soil. The tree is appox 12m high and is on Coucil
property. I am concerned that the tree could cause damage to the
house. I have written to the Council asking them to inspect it and
possibly replace it with a smaller tree. They have written back
advising they will reduce the crown in June next year and then inspect
it every 3 years. Is this satisfactory or should I still be concerned?

Is the house yours, or the council's?

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

In article m,
(bilbo-bj) wrote:

They have written back
advising they will reduce the crown in June next year and then inspect
it every 3 years.

I suppose if you say nothing and later you have cause to claim, they
might argue that you accepted their plan as reasonable ...

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

bilbo-bj wrote:
There is a Silver Birch tree 3 metres from my house on suspected
shrinkabkle sub-soil. The tree is appox 12m high and is on Coucil
property. I am concerned that the tree could cause damage to the
house. I have written to the Council asking them to inspect it and
possibly replace it with a smaller tree. They have written back
advising they will reduce the crown in June next year and then
inspect
it every 3 years. Is this satisfactory or should I still be
concerned? Any advise would be most welcome!

Its not the crown I would be worried about - although at 12m tall
there is a risk of it wiping tiles off the roof, I would be more
concerned about possible root damage. A 12m tree only 3m from the
house does not sound good to me.
But, it does pose all sorts of questions. Like, which was there first?
Tree or house? If it was the house, then planting 'any' tree that
close, 'verges' on the irresponsible. If the tree was there first then
how did the house get past the planning and the building regulations?

--
ned

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:48:07 +0100, "ned" wrote:

bilbo-bj wrote:
There is a Silver Birch tree 3 metres from my house on suspected
shrinkabkle sub-soil. The tree is appox 12m high and is on Coucil
property. I am concerned that the tree could cause damage to the
house. I have written to the Council asking them to inspect it and
possibly replace it with a smaller tree. They have written back
advising they will reduce the crown in June next year and then
inspect
it every 3 years. Is this satisfactory or should I still be
concerned? Any advise would be most welcome!

Its not the crown I would be worried about - although at 12m tall
there is a risk of it wiping tiles off the roof, I would be more
concerned about possible root damage. A 12m tree only 3m from the
house does not sound good to me.

They tend to fall over in gales. We got rid of ours when it was about
15 years old.
--
Martin

In article ,
martin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:48:07 +0100, "ned" wrote:
bilbo-bj wrote:
There is a Silver Birch tree 3 metres from my house on suspected
shrinkabkle sub-soil. The tree is appox 12m high and is on Coucil
property. I am concerned that the tree could cause damage to the
house. I have written to the Council asking them to inspect it and
possibly replace it with a smaller tree. They have written back
advising they will reduce the crown in June next year and then
inspect
it every 3 years. Is this satisfactory or should I still be
concerned? Any advise would be most welcome!

Its not the crown I would be worried about - although at 12m tall
there is a risk of it wiping tiles off the roof, I would be more
concerned about possible root damage. A 12m tree only 3m from the
house does not sound good to me.

They tend to fall over in gales. We got rid of ours when it was about
15 years old.

Not quite. One of the reasons that they are popular with planners
is that healthy ones DON'T blow over! They have extremely strong and
tenacious roots that get everywhere, and don't catch the wind much.
They are one of the few trees that will grow in really windswept
locations, though perhaps not as windswept as ordinary birch.

However, they aren't phenomenally long-lived trees and attract fungi
(mycorrhizal and parasitic), especially when grown on fertile soils
or when pollarded. And then they DO blow over! Which is why the
council's management strategy is completely cuckoo.

Even in the most fertile soils, they should remain healthy for a lot
longer than 15 years. There are a good many around here that must
be 50.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 8 Oct 2003 19:03:46 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
martin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:48:07 +0100, "ned" wrote:
bilbo-bj wrote:
There is a Silver Birch tree 3 metres from my house on suspected
shrinkabkle sub-soil. The tree is appox 12m high and is on Coucil
property. I am concerned that the tree could cause damage to the
house. I have written to the Council asking them to inspect it and
possibly replace it with a smaller tree. They have written back
advising they will reduce the crown in June next year and then
inspect
it every 3 years. Is this satisfactory or should I still be
concerned? Any advise would be most welcome!

Its not the crown I would be worried about - although at 12m tall
there is a risk of it wiping tiles off the roof, I would be more
concerned about possible root damage. A 12m tree only 3m from the
house does not sound good to me.

They tend to fall over in gales. We got rid of ours when it was about
15 years old.

Not quite. One of the reasons that they are popular with planners
is that healthy ones DON'T blow over!

They do. Unhealthy ones break.

Actually because they grow quick and look nice on architects drawings.

They have extremely strong and
tenacious roots that get everywhere, and don't catch the wind much.
They are one of the few trees that will grow in really windswept
locations, though perhaps not as windswept as ordinary birch.

We got rid of our tree because 95% of the silver birch planted at the
same time as our tree, in our part of the town, had already blown over
in autumn gales.
--
Martin

Not quite. One of the reasons that they are popular with planners
is that healthy ones DON'T blow over!

Quite.

They have extremely strong and
tenacious roots that get everywhere, and don't catch the wind much.

That's because of their delicate branch and leaf structure.

They are one of the few trees that will grow in really windswept
locations, though perhaps not as windswept as ordinary birch.

However, they aren't phenomenally long-lived trees and attract fungi
(mycorrhizal and parasitic), especially when grown on fertile soils
or when pollarded. And then they DO blow over! Which is why the
council's management strategy is completely cuckoo.

Agreed.

Even in the most fertile soils, they should remain healthy for a lot
longer than 15 years. There are a good many around here that must
be 50.

We have some opposite our houses which were planted in the late 1930s.

Mary


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:27:27 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:




Not quite. One of the reasons that they are popular with planners
is that healthy ones DON'T blow over!

Quite.

They have extremely strong and
tenacious roots that get everywhere, and don't catch the wind much.

That's because of their delicate branch and leaf structure.

They are one of the few trees that will grow in really windswept
locations, though perhaps not as windswept as ordinary birch.

However, they aren't phenomenally long-lived trees and attract fungi
(mycorrhizal and parasitic), especially when grown on fertile soils
or when pollarded. And then they DO blow over! Which is why the
council's management strategy is completely cuckoo.

Agreed.

Even in the most fertile soils, they should remain healthy for a lot
longer than 15 years. There are a good many around here that must
be 50.

We have some opposite our houses which were planted in the late 1930s.

but then again you don't live 5 miles from the North Sea coast in a
flat landscape, the ground is sand not soil, with frequent force 8 and
9 gales in autumn and winter.
--
Martin

In article ,
martin wrote:

They tend to fall over in gales. We got rid of ours when it was about
15 years old.

Not quite. One of the reasons that they are popular with planners
is that healthy ones DON'T blow over!

They do. Unhealthy ones break.

Er, we seem to be agreeing vehemently :-)

Actually because they grow quick and look nice on architects drawings.

Yes, there is that, too.

They have extremely strong and
tenacious roots that get everywhere, and don't catch the wind much.
They are one of the few trees that will grow in really windswept
locations, though perhaps not as windswept as ordinary birch.

We got rid of our tree because 95% of the silver birch planted at the
same time as our tree, in our part of the town, had already blown over
in autumn gales.

I would bet good odds on an inspection showing parasitic fungal
infection. From your other posting, it isn't the wind that will
worry them (a MERE force 9 is a trifle!) but is more likely to be
wet, salt and perhaps the sand. They have thin roots that grip
like anything in stony soil, but I don't know what they do in
pure sand, nor do I know what salt does to their mycorrhiza.

It sounds as if a common birch would have been a better choice,
on the grounds that it handles wet better. But I don't know how
birches handle salt in any detail. Trees vary a lot.

Plant a silver birch on the terrain it is adapted for - a stony
hillside - and it will live for ages and laugh off much stronger
winds. But they aren't naturally a lowland plant.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 8 Oct 2003 20:31:24 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
martin wrote:

They tend to fall over in gales. We got rid of ours when it was about
15 years old.

We got rid of our tree because 95% of the silver birch planted at the
same time as our tree, in our part of the town, had already blown over
in autumn gales.

I would bet good odds on an inspection showing parasitic fungal
infection.

You would lose your bet.

From your other posting, it isn't the wind that will
worry them (a MERE force 9 is a trifle!

Force 9 is about as strong as it gets in UK most of the time, Force 10
is rare.

Its a wind of 47-54 mph. An average force 9 will include gusts of 10.
Gusts of Force 10 cause structural damage. Where there are buildings
the wind will be accelerated to way over the average nominal wind
speed in places.
Yesterday there was a storm of force 8-9, trees were uprooted and
there was structural damage locally.

) but is more likely to be
wet, salt and perhaps the sand.

So they just fall over?

A force 9 gusting 10 rips them out of sandy soil roots and all.

They have thin roots that grip
like anything in stony soil, but I don't know what they do in
pure sand,

they grip the sand, when they fall a big lump of sand is lifted too.

nor do I know what salt does to their mycorrhiza.

It sounds as if a common birch would have been a better choice,
on the grounds that it handles wet better. But I don't know how
birches handle salt in any detail. Trees vary a lot.

the ground water does not contain salt.


Plant a silver birch on the terrain it is adapted for - a stony
hillside - and it will live for ages and laugh off much stronger
winds. But they aren't naturally a lowland plant.

That's why we had ours removed.


--
Martin

In article ,
martin wrote:

I would bet good odds on an inspection showing parasitic fungal
infection.

You would lose your bet.

Hmm. How thoroughly did you inspect them?

From your other posting, it isn't the wind that will
worry them (a MERE force 9 is a trifle!

Force 9 is about as strong as it gets in UK most of the time, Force 10
is rare.

Er, no it isn't. That is true in the relatively calm east, but it
regularly gets to force 10 and above in the north west, and on high
ground in the far north. And silver birch grows in places where that
is common.

Yesterday there was a storm of force 8-9, trees were uprooted and
there was structural damage locally.

Because it is unusual for YOU. In the Western Isles, a wind of that
speed is just what they expect. Seriously.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from martin contains these words:

We have some opposite our houses which were planted in the late 1930s.

but then again you don't live 5 miles from the North Sea coast in a
flat landscape, the ground is sand not soil, with frequent force 8 and
9 gales in autumn and winter.

Nor does Bilbo, I'd warrant.

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm