The large ivy all over the wall of a friends house came down in a
recent storm. I have cut it back to about 6 ft from the ground and
noticed that the trunk is about 6 - 8 ins.diameter. My friend wants to
keep it and not let it grow so rampant in the future ......... however
is concerned that as the roots are so near and in fact must be going
under the house would they be likely to cause any structual damage
etc.
Not sure of name but it is the large leafed green & white varigated
leaf type.

Thanks for any help

In article ,
Will wrote:
The large ivy all over the wall of a friends house came down in a
recent storm. I have cut it back to about 6 ft from the ground and
noticed that the trunk is about 6 - 8 ins.diameter. My friend wants to
keep it and not let it grow so rampant in the future ......... however
is concerned that as the roots are so near and in fact must be going
under the house would they be likely to cause any structual damage
etc.
Not sure of name but it is the large leafed green & white varigated
leaf type.

It doesn't have a reputation for doing that. And, if it has got to
that size without doing so, it probably won't. But, as always,
free advice is worth what you pay for it, and you should get in a
professional if seriously concerned.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Will wrote:
The large ivy all over the wall of a friends house came down in a
recent storm. I have cut it back to about 6 ft from the ground and
noticed that the trunk is about 6 - 8 ins.diameter. My friend
wants
to keep it and not let it grow so rampant in the future .........
however is concerned that as the roots are so near and in fact
must
be going under the house would they be likely to cause any
structual
damage etc.
Not sure of name but it is the large leafed green & white
varigated
leaf type.

It doesn't have a reputation for doing that. And, if it has got to
that size without doing so, it probably won't. But, as always,
free advice is worth what you pay for it, and you should get in a
professional if seriously concerned.

I wouldn't recommend ivy on a house wall, even on a wall without
windows. If you don't cut it back religiously twice a year it gets
into cracks or joins between wall and woodwork, widens them, and also
prevents air circulation and so may encourage timber decay. Once it
gets to the eaves, it can play the Devil -- even breaking slates by
growing between them. Like Nick, I've never heard of its roots doing
any structural damage, though. I'd say kill it off and replace with
Virginia creeper, wistaria, hydrangea petiolaris, vitis Brandt, or
something.

Mike.

"Will" wrote
The large ivy all over the wall of a friends house came down in a
recent storm. I have cut it back to about 6 ft from the ground and
noticed that the trunk is about 6 - 8 ins.diameter. My friend wants to
keep it and not let it grow so rampant in the future ......... however
is concerned that as the roots are so near and in fact must be going
under the house would they be likely to cause any structual damage
etc.

The advice to take professional advice is a good one as the situation can
be complicated and it also depends on the type of soil:

IME, structural damage is just as likely to occur from the dewatering of
the ground by trees and shrubs located close to foundations, whatever the
nature of the root system: Certain subsoils (particularly "shrinkable
clays") need a good supply of moisture if they are not to contract and
cause subsidence. This contrasts with the tree damage and accompanying
soil "heave" that most people are familiar with, caused by invasive roots
from larger trees etc. which can physically disrupt the foundations

In the mid-90s, prolonged drought was a problem in (for example) some
soils in London, where reduced moisture in shrinkable clay caused some
Victorian houses to move which had never moved before. In these cases,
any plants that exacerbate the moisture loss can add to the problem and
some large flats have watering systems around their foundations which keep
the subsoil moist and stable when droughts occur.

However, I've also known of cases where movement of soil *after* a large
well-established tree/shrub has been removed (and the soil then suddenly
becomes more saturated where it has previously been largely dry) has
caused expansion and movement of the foundations, where none had occurred
when the tree was still there.


- Tom.

Tom Bennett wrote:
snip
:: However, I've also known of cases where movement of soil *after* a
:: large well-established tree/shrub has been removed (and the soil
:: then suddenly becomes more saturated where it has previously been
:: largely dry) has caused expansion and movement of the foundations,
:: where none had occurred when the tree was still there.

This is more likely to be the roots rotting away and leaving voids IME.

Phil L wrote:
Tom Bennett wrote:
snip
However, I've also known of cases where movement of soil *after*
a
large well-established tree/shrub has been removed (and the soil
then suddenly becomes more saturated where it has previously been
largely dry) has caused expansion and movement of the
foundations,
where none had occurred when the tree was still there.

This is more likely to be the roots rotting away and leaving voids
IME.

Does ivy have a root system likely to get underneath the footings?
(Genuine not rhetorical question; but expecting probable answer
"No".)

Mike.

Mike Lyle wrote:
:: Phil L wrote:
::: Tom Bennett wrote:
::: snip
::::: However, I've also known of cases where movement of soil
::::: *after* a large well-established tree/shrub has been removed
::::: (and the soil then suddenly becomes more saturated where it has
::::: previously been largely dry) has caused expansion and movement
::::: of the foundations, where none had occurred when the tree was
::::: still there.
:::
::: This is more likely to be the roots rotting away and leaving voids
::: IME.
::
:: Does ivy have a root system likely to get underneath the footings?
:: (Genuine not rhetorical question; but expecting probable answer
:: "No".)

That all depends upon the footings...I once worked on some houses in
Manchester and the entire street's footings were less than a foot
underground! - four courses of bricks beneath the pavement, and they were
built up off the sand...they /were/ over a hundred yrs old, but
surprisingly, there was no subsidence at all.

Most modern footings (within the last 50 yrs or so) tend to be at least
12 -24 inches of brickwork on a strip of concrete at least 5 inches in
thickness...whether their tap roots go down so far I don't know but
certainly trees' roots will.

Phil L wrote:
[...]
That all depends upon the footings...I once worked on some houses
in
Manchester and the entire street's footings were less than a foot
underground! - four courses of bricks beneath the pavement, and
they
were built up off the sand...they /were/ over a hundred yrs old,
but
surprisingly, there was no subsidence at all.
[...]

Which puts me in mind of something I read in ?_New Scientist_ several
years ago to the effect that, despite what it says in the Bible, sand
is a good thing to build on. I can't remember why; but wonder if it
has anything to do with the trick of pouring half a pint of water
into a pint glass of sand.

Mike.

Mike Lyle wrote:
:: Phil L wrote:
:: [...]
::: That all depends upon the footings...I once worked on some houses
::: in Manchester and the entire street's footings were less than a
::: foot underground! - four courses of bricks beneath the pavement,
::: and they were built up off the sand...they /were/ over a hundred
::: yrs old, but surprisingly, there was no subsidence at all.
:: [...]
::
:: Which puts me in mind of something I read in ?_New Scientist_
:: several years ago to the effect that, despite what it says in the
:: Bible, sand is a good thing to build on. I can't remember why; but
:: wonder if it has anything to do with the trick of pouring half a
:: pint of water into a pint glass of sand.
::
You're probably correct - we had to build extensions to each house and went
down over three feet - they were still built on the same sand as the
houses..

"Will" wrote in message
news
The large ivy all over the wall of a friends house came down in a
recent storm. I have cut it back to about 6 ft from the ground and
noticed that the trunk is about 6 - 8 ins.diameter. My friend wants to
keep it and not let it grow so rampant in the future ......... however
is concerned that as the roots are so near and in fact must be going
under the house would they be likely to cause any structual damage
etc.

It is evil. Kill it before the mouths open.

--
Brian
Henry Fielding: "All Nature wears one universal grin"

In article ,
"Phil L" writes:
| Mike Lyle wrote:
| :: Phil L wrote:
| :: [...]
| ::: That all depends upon the footings...I once worked on some houses
| ::: in Manchester and the entire street's footings were less than a
| ::: foot underground! - four courses of bricks beneath the pavement,
| ::: and they were built up off the sand...they /were/ over a hundred
| ::: yrs old, but surprisingly, there was no subsidence at all.

Only surprising to non-experts :-)

| :: Which puts me in mind of something I read in ?_New Scientist_
| :: several years ago to the effect that, despite what it says in the
| :: Bible, sand is a good thing to build on. I can't remember why; but
| :: wonder if it has anything to do with the trick of pouring half a
| :: pint of water into a pint glass of sand.
| ::
| You're probably correct - we had to build extensions to each house and went
| down over three feet - they were still built on the same sand as the
| houses..

We have an extension that goes down a foot further, and reaches a
higher clay content layer, so is LESS stable!

The background of the biblical reference is that sand is excellent
when it is below a stable surface layer, but an absolute disaster
when the surface is loose and the area is prone to flash floods.
I.e. roughly the difference between the UK and the near east,
though it does apply here on sand dunes near the sea.

The same thing applies to sowing fields with salt. This poisons
them indefinitely when all of the precipitation evaporates or is
transpired, but has only a little and very temporary effect when
most of it percolates down to ground water. Even in East Anglia,
there is 10" of rain per annum that percolates down, and that can
remove a LOT of salt.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:38:41 GMT, Will wrote:

The large ivy all over the wall of a friends house came down in a
recent storm. I have cut it back to about 6 ft from the ground and
noticed that the trunk is about 6 - 8 ins.diameter. My friend wants to
keep it and not let it grow so rampant in the future ......... however
is concerned that as the roots are so near and in fact must be going
under the house would they be likely to cause any structual damage
etc.
Not sure of name but it is the large leafed green & white varigated
leaf type.

Thanks for any help

Many thanks for all your replies .... if it were me I would cut the
trunk to ground level & try to kill it off - but not sure about the
hole it would leave as the roots rot down etc.

Will wrote in message
news
The large ivy all over the wall of a friends house came down in a
recent storm. I have cut it back to about 6 ft from the ground and
noticed that the trunk is about 6 - 8 ins.diameter. My friend wants to
keep it and not let it grow so rampant in the future ......... however
is concerned that as the roots are so near and in fact must be going
under the house would they be likely to cause any structual damage
etc.
Not sure of name but it is the large leafed green & white varigated
leaf type.

Thanks for any help

Hi Will,

I'm far from being an expert on ivy roots and, therefore, cannot tell you
what they are doing or will do. However, my best advice to your friend
would be to contact his building insurers for their opinion. If the insurer
feels that the fabric of the building is threatened, they will not mince
about with horticultural niceties! They may tell your friend to uproot the
ivy, or they may call a surveyor in (not a bad idea, anyway). In the worst
case, they may decline to insure the building. Surely, this is more
important than the future of the ivy?

Spider

Will wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:38:41 GMT, Will wrote:

The large ivy all over the wall of a friends house came down in a
recent storm. I have cut it back to about 6 ft from the ground and
noticed that the trunk is about 6 - 8 ins.diameter. My friend
wants
to keep it and not let it grow so rampant in the future .........
however is concerned that as the roots are so near and in fact
must
be going under the house would they be likely to cause any
structual
damage etc.
Not sure of name but it is the large leafed green & white
varigated
leaf type.

Thanks for any help

Many thanks for all your replies .... if it were me I would cut
the
trunk to ground level & try to kill it off - but not sure about the
hole it would leave as the roots rot down etc.

In this thread I hear the thud of sledgehammers cracking nuts. Yes,
it's a big ivy, and so it'll have a good root system. But why would
even a big ivy go down to the footings of the building? AFAIK, and
subject to correction by others who know better, they're pretty much
shallow rooters: as climbers, they don't need a "structural" root
system for support, but only a good feeding system.

Of course, as Nick says, free advice, like Outlook Express, is worth
precisely what you paid for it; but what's a surveyor going to say if
you call him in? He'll cover himself, because he's legally liable.
Surely he'll have to say he can't guarantee that the roots, or the
consequences of their removal, _won't_ cause structural damage, and
he'll charge you for the privilege.

But then what? You still either take the ivy out or leave it in. And
if you leave it in, one of these decades it'll die anyway.

It does occur to me, though, that there is one way of getting some
degree of reassurance free of charge. Estate agents are run by
chartered surveyors and the like: so pop into an estate agent's
office and ask what he or she thinks of it all in principle.

Mike.