It may give coverage in certain cases, but it excludes numerous types of tree damage. Read your insurance policy carefully to find out the specific answer to the question “Does homeowners insurance cover tree damage?” That way, you may acquire a better understanding of your coverage and exclusions by getting a homes insurance policy review.
Does homeowners insurance cover tree root damage?
Tree root damage is usually not covered by homeowner’s insurance. Insurance protects unexpected losses, but tree root damage normally occurs over time. Because there is time to avoid it, coverage is frequently omitted. (It is called negligence if the problem is not handled.)
By shifting dirt or causing soil to dry out, tree roots can cause damage. While this can have an impact on a home’s foundation, it is frequently excluded from insurance coverage.
Does homeowners insurance cover fallen tree damage?
In some cases, homeowner’s insurance will cover tree damage when a tree falls. The damage caused by a tree falling due to a covered cause, such as wind or ice, may be covered.
This is only true if the tree causes harm to a covered structure. If a tree falls on a lawn and no damage is done, the insurer will not pay anything. If it falls on a house, a fence, or another structure, however, insurance will cover the costs. Roof coverage, for example, in homeowners insurance would cover the cost of repairing a roof that had been damaged by a tree falling on it.
Does homeowners insurance cover my tree’s damage to a neighbor’s property?
Tree damage to a neighbor’s property should be covered by homeowners insurance. Liability insurance will cover this type of loss.
Does homeowners insurance cover tree damage from a neighbor’s tree?
No, tree damage caused by a neighbor’s tree is not covered by a property owner’s insurance. If a neighbor’s tree causes property damage, the neighbor’s homeowner’s insurance should pay the damage. This should be covered by your homeowner’s liability policy.
Does homeowners insurance cover tree damage to my car?
Tree damage to a vehicle is usually not covered by homeowner’s insurance. If a tree falls on the vehicle, though, auto insurance may provide coverage. Only if the automobile owner has comprehensive coverage is this covered.
Can you claim tree root damage on insurance?
If tree roots cause damage to your home, your homeowners insurance coverage should protect you in the event that you need to file a claim. If they advise you to remove a tree as a precaution and you refuse, you could be held liable for any subsequent harm.
Broken branches and fallen trees
Your house insurance will normally cover natural falling branches or trees that damage your roof, windows, or other components of your property.
In some cases, the insurance will cover the reasonable costs of removing the branch or tree, but not the stump or underlying roots.
Tree roots
Tree roots and shrubs have the potential to grow through, under, or against the foundations and external walls of your home.
Roots must be extremely close to a house’s foundations to exert physical pressure on it, therefore this is something your insurance will want to know when you get your policy.
If you have roots in your home or experience subsidence or heave, your home buildings policy should protect you if you need to file a claim.
Subsidence
It’s possible that the damage caused by trees growing near your home isn’t due to the tree itself.
Subsidence is more likely to be caused by clay soil shrinking as it dries, causing the foundations to sink.
Because tree roots take water from the soil, the earth dries out more quickly, causing subsidence.
Because subsidence claims can be costly, a loss adjuster is frequently dispatched to analyze the claim and determine the source of the difficulties.
If your insurer approves a claim for subsidence caused by your tree, it will pay for the property damage it has caused.
Heave
Removing a mature tree from dry ground can cause more damage than leaving it alone because ‘heave’ can occur.
When the water balance in the soil becomes reliant on moisture being removed by the tree’s roots, the soil will bulge with excess moisture if the tree is removed.
If you’re concerned about a tree causing subsidence or are thinking about removing mature trees, consult a competent arborist or surveyor.
There’s no reason to cut down a healthy tree whose roots aren’t causing any issues.
Will home insurance cover root damage?
Simply put, tree roots can wreak havoc on your sewer systems. While you may believe that your homeowners insurance covers all damages, you would be mistaken.
You must consider not only the damage to the pipes, but also the harm to your property. You may get covered and have peace of mind with the correct supplemental insurance coverage from your insurance agent.
What’s a Sewer Line and Why Does It Need Replacing?
A sewage line connects your home’s plumbing to the main sewer line beneath the street. Unless something goes wrong, you’re unlikely to notice it’s there.
Unfortunately, the second is more likely to be the source of any issues you are experiencing or may experience. While certain clogs can be avoided, others cannot be avoided or even predicted. In fact, one of the most prevalent causes of fractured or obstructed pipes is tree roots. While some proactive plumbers may predict backup or leaking and offer a solution before a problem occurs, this does not always happen.
Why Tree Root Damage to Sewer Lines Is a Problem
Other causes of blockages and fissures are not the same as tree root damage. In fact, most typical home insurance policies do not cover the cost of correcting tree root damage. That’s because you’ll have to clean up any damage to the house or contents caused by the roots growing into the pipe, as well as repair any pipes that have been damaged by the roots.
Who is responsible for root damage from a tree?
You have the right to remove tree roots that have grown into your property and caused damage. Depending on local law, your specific rights and remedies may differ. Before you do anything, double-check local laws and ordinances, as well as your homeowner’s insurance policy. The usual rule is that any part of the tree that has encroached on your land is yours to do with as you like. In fact, you may be held accountable for its upkeep. As a result, you can’t charge a neighbor for tree root removal that causes property damage. Your property includes the tree roots.
It is a legitimate course of action to remove the tree roots up to the boundary line. A lawsuit could follow from crossing property lines or removing a portion of a tree that is not on your land. Any doubts about the exact position of the property line should be resolved before digging.
Before you start digging, make a thorough record of the property damage and the circumstances surrounding it. There’s a potential the tree will perish as a result of your actions. If this happens, a neighbor may file a lawsuit against you for the tree’s death. Proof that the tree roots were invading your property and that you chopped exclusively on your property could be used in your legal defense. If you need to file an insurance claim for property damage, documentation may be required. Before, during, and after digging up the tree roots, get estimates for the cost of property damage, take photos, and keep meticulous records of the issue.
Can you claim a fallen tree on home insurance?
A basic homes insurance policy may assist pay to repair damage to your property and remove fallen branches if the tree was healthy and toppled due to wind. The removal of debris is usually not covered by homes insurance if the tree does not cause any harm when it falls.
Introduction
The amenity benefit of trees is only maximized when they are mature. Young trees can be planted, but it will take at least 50 years for them to reach the same level of beauty as the one they are replacing.
Mature trees are extremely important and irreplaceable, especially in urban areas.
We are losing a large number of trees as a result of an alleged link to structural damage or concerns about potential structural harm.
This paper tries to point out some of the faults in these assessments and explore the aspects that should be taken into account when evaluating a tree’s possible role in direct and indirect property damage, with a focus on indirect harm.
While an arboriculturist is the best prepared to make such a selection, other property professionals can make more informed decisions based on some of the issues discussed in this paper.
There are some suggestions for rather significant adjustments in how we approach the whole issue of trees and property.
Summary
It’s usually evident whether a tree is causing direct property damage or not. We’ll go over a few of the ways this can happen.
It’s significantly less apparent whether a tree will bear or have any indirect influence on a property in the future, but it’s based on two fundamentals:
If it is important to determine whether or not a tree poses a hazard to property, a realistic assessment is essential.
In order to assess foundation depth, the NHBC has sought to attribute trees with certain moisture absorbing capacities.
This, as well as the ISE’s and the Loss Prevention Council’s tables of appropriate tree-to-property distances, is based on P.G. Biddle’s water demand classification of tree species. This was based on a combination of his personal case studies, the findings of the Kew Root Survey (substantially updated in 1989), the BRE digest’s experience, and a number of older studies.
All tree species are classified as “high,” “moderate,” or “low” water demanders. The influence of high-group species on soil moisture levels is generally thought to extend across a distance of 125 percent the tree’s height. Low water demanders like holly and beech extend their influence over 50% of their height, whereas moderate water demanders like sycamore and cherry extend their impact over 75% of their height.
- It is far too basic to be an accurate tool for determining the possible impact of a tree on a property.
- There are numerous problems in the data used, all of which are related to the accuracy of the data collected throughout time.
Most importantly, so many other crucial parameters that influence tree root growth and moisture uptake are left out, making it nearly useless in determining a tree’s ability to effect a property.
Because all tree species in a temperate environment exert equal amounts of suction, this potential is mostly influenced by site variables. The length and depth of a root’s spread are determined by:
Before estimating the potential of a tree having an impact on a structure, all of these factors must be examined holistically. These determinants will be investigated, with the goal of highlighting and illustrating the inadequacies in any present assessment methodology.
The accompanying diagram depicts the usual structure of tree roots, which is crucial to understand because it will influence much of the material of this study.
Figure 1: A popular image of tree root systems (a) and a realistic representation of tree root systems (b). (D. R. Helliwell, 1989)
Indirect and Direct Damage or Potential Damage
1) Damage induced by the mechanical action of any portion of a tree in direct touch with a structure is known as direct damage.
- This touch might be permanent, such as a tree stem abutting a wall, or it can be transient, such as a branch striking a structure as it moves in the wind or falls. The latter is uncommon and may typically be avoided by minor trimming. The removal of a tree is rarely justified. The former is uncommon simply because trees in contact with structures are rarely permitted to flourish and mature (other than boundaries walls).
- When roots come into contact with a solid object, they will detour and take the path of least resistance, causing no damage. However, the constant radial growth of trunks and structural roots in contact with a structure and in a constrained space can apply enough pressure to displace massive structures.
2) The influence of a tree on the soil moisture levels of a substrate prone to shrinkage and expansion causes indirect damage. The ground is dehydrated by the transpiration of leaves that absorb moisture from the ground and, to a lesser extent, by the crown’s interception of rainfall. As a result, ground contracts are formed and settlement takes place. Winter rainfall usually results in complete recovery, therefore the process is seasonal. Removing a tree, on the other hand, results in long-term recovery and, in some cases, significant ground expansion.
If structural damage has occurred, you should consider having a Structural Inspection performed by a Chartered Structural Engineer.
Arboricultural Factors that Determine the Likelihood of Tree-Related Damage
1) Differences in Tree Species
The ability to precisely identify a tree is critical to determining its moisture or potential moisture absorbing capability.
Most data and reference tables now refer to a genus, such as “Willow.” This does not take into account the wide range of species within a genus. Within the pine family, for example, there are approximately 2000 species that vary greatly in size and capacity to flourish in a given environment. A white willow can reach a height of 30 meters, whereas an eared willow rarely reaches more than 3-4 meters. The wild cherry tree has the potential to develop to be a massive 25m × 14m tree, however the sour cherry is unlikely to grow much larger than 5m.
Similarly, when a species or genus is mentioned, it is frequently without regard for cultivars within that species. A Lawson cypress cultivar is sometimes known as “the cypress” It fails to account for the fact that there are hundreds of Lawson cypress cultivars with a wide range of sizes, despite the fact that we don’t know what species of cypress it is. “Pembury Blue” may not reach a height of more than 3 meters, although “Triumph of Boskoop” may reach a height of more than 25 meters.
Conclusions regarding one’s suitability should be vastly different from those concerning the other’s suitability. Because the tree may be totally harmless, removal is not recommended simply because it is a cypress.
2) Differences within a certain group
Differences between two species are poorly understood and infrequently explained. A tree species can have a lot of different genetic clones.
Despite the fact that they are ostensibly the same tree, two common horse chestnuts may have very distinct physiological processes and, as a result, moisture uptake rates and patterns. P.G. Biddle demonstrates this in an example reported in his book “There are significant changes in soil moisture deficit at 1m deep across four similarly sized horse chestnuts growing in London clay, according to “Tree Root Damage to Buildings” (1998).
This could explain (among other things) why a mature tree growing close to a clay-based construction has never caused damage (and would suggest that leaving the tree in-situ and not disturbing the equilibrium may be the best course of action).
Figure 2: Seasonal changes in SMD at 1.0m for three horse chestnuts grown on similar soil (PG Biddle) “Buildings Damaged by Tree Roots” (1998)
3) Phenotypic diversity
On various sites, trees of the same clonal origin (i.e. genetically identical) will show very diverse patterns of soil drying. In other words, the location or environmental conditions have a significant impact on a tree’s growth pattern and rate.
In a poorly drained shadier environment, a silver birch may thrive in an open, well-drained site, but the identical clone will struggle and display completely different growth patterns. As a result, a tree that is visibly mature but far smaller than predicted size may not require removal.
4) Graft
Many trees are grafted onto a rootstock, and the rootstock, rather than the scion, determines growth and moisture uptake rates.
This is vividly seen when scions from the same apple tree are grafted onto a variety of rootstocks to assess if the tree will stay a tiny fastigiate tree or develop to a height of 2m0.5m or 9m9m.
Roots of the same species are known to graft together. As a result, if there is a nearby tree of the same species and root graft has occurred, there is a theoretical chance of a property falling inside the root zone of influence of a tree whose roots could not spread as far as the property.
Figure 3: A single lateral root of a 60-year-old red maple, with circles indicating other red maples (Lyford W.H. & Wilson B. F. 1964)
5) Vitality in connection to the ability to absorb moisture.
This word refers to the health of a specific tree rather than the species as a whole. The sycamore, for example, is a vigorous species, yet a specific sycamore specimen may be old, repressed, or diseased, and so lack life.
NHBC or not, trees with inadequate vitality “The “water demand” categorization or the species’ vigour may have very little impact on soil moisture levels.
When determining the health and stage of development of a tree, check for traits such as crown shape, expansion growth of lateral and terminal buds, and apical dominance. Low vitality is likely to be caused by poor health, inadequate tree work, competition, improper ground or climatic circumstances, or senescence.
This could explain why a property near a large old tree shows traces of history cracking yet present movement is either low or non-existent in comparison to the previous cracking. The tree has just gotten old and is in decline, and it is undergoing a slow process of rehydration. Indeed, where historic properties’ cracks have been filled in over many years, any modest heave-related movement caused by removal may be exacerbated by the structure’s incapacity to close the fissures.
As a result, determining the crown of a tree is significantly more crucial than determining its height. Tree height (or ultimate tree height) is a significant component of the equation that is meant to show root zones of impact in current formulations. Because the actual TLA (Total Leaf Area) of a tree is so little, it might have an extraordinarily tall crown yet a low rate of moisture abstraction and root spread.
6) In terms of moisture absorption capacity, there is competition.
Individual trees do not always have a greater impact on a property than groups of trees. When trees grow close together, resources are shared among them depending on physiological capability, and they are more likely to modify their growth rates to live on less resources.
Trees with spindly, etiolated crowns and low moisture absorption ability are common. When attempting to date a tree based on girth, an arboriculturist will take into account the fact that the tree may have been in competition with other trees, resulting in slower development.
This altered growth rate has a demonstrable impact on transpiration and moisture uptake rates. The zone of influence will be localized if four trees grow in a tight group adjacent to a wall, and the wall may be untouched.
Figure 4: Competition has resulted in the classification of different types of tree crowns (Practical Forestry, Hart, 1991)
7) Crown Type’s Importance
Through a process called transpiration, trees extract moisture at a pace that is largely influenced by their TLA. The main process through which trees dehydrate the ground is through this mechanism. The moisture abstraction capacity of a tree is essentially proportional to the size and health of its crown.
Canopies of trees, on the other hand, are important in worsening any ongoing dehydration process by intercepting rainwater. The ground is replenished by rainwater. Binns estimates that the crown intercepts around a quarter of rainfall and a third of that evaporates in the tree (1980).
This could explain why Leyland cypresses are often blamed for subsidence in areas where they are close together. Cypresses have dense evergreen crowns, are widely planted, and are typically used as hedges adjacent to a wall. The earth will be particularly dry within this zone due to this dual process, and the distance is usually within 3-4m. Cypresses are classified as high water-demanding trees because of this high incidence of damage, however I believe that much of the process that resulted in property damage was the de-hydration of ground close to a structure due to rainwater interception.
Figure 5 – Indication of a high likelihood of potential injury by cypresses growing near to the tree. 1989 (Cutler & Richardson)
Shrubs (number 8)
Because shrubs are not trees, they are frequently disregarded. This is incorrect. Despite the somewhat ambiguous distinction between a tree and a shrub (basically, they have similar root development patterns, but not as extensive), many can grow to be formidable plants as large as many small trees. Elderberry, buddleja, cotoneaster, laurel, pyracantha, ivy, and wisteria are just a few examples of regularly grown shrubs that have the potential for large moisture abstraction, however little research appears to have been done on the subject.
They are noteworthy not just because of their potential moisture absorption capacity, but also because of relevant shrub characteristics:
- To soften the structure, they are frequently grown along to walls and structures. Because of the close proximity, severe localized drying can develop, and root trespass on foundations is a possibility.
- Shrubs are frequently grown together or close to one another, forming dense foliage cover clusters. In the middle of winter, investigation of the ground beneath these plants can reveal very dry soils where the surrounding ground may be moist.
- Because shrubs are considered relatively harmless, they are frequently permitted to develop into large specimens. It is not uncommon for mature ivy or wisteria to cover entire walls, if not entire houses.
It may be more reasonable to evaluate the effect of neighboring shrubs before making decisions concerning the presence of a tree. Finally, most shrubs’ effects are likely to be seasonal, and most species can be pruned to the amount that is considered effective and often inappropriate for trees. Transplantation or containerization are frequently used shrub-specific methods.
Relevant Site Factors
1) Type of Soil
This is a complicated issue, but it is really important. Vegetation cannot inflict indirect damage to a property unless there is the potential for volumetric change, hence the construction must rest on a shrinkable substrate. Clay is most commonly used, however peat can also be used.
Photo 2 An example of how trees can grow quite close to a property without causing damage if the soil cannot be shrunk.
Photo 3 An example of how trees can grow quite close to a property without causing damage if the soil cannot be shrunk.
When contemplating tree influence or management, the degree of shrinkability must be taken into account. This was condensed into three categories when the NHBC revised Practise Note 3 in 1985.
In BRE Digest 240 in 1993, this was further enhanced by adding a category of “Very High” for a P.I. greater than 60%. It’s a step forward, but it’s still a little rough. The volume of a foundation clay substrate with a P.I. of 20% is likely to be less affected by a root system extracting large amounts of soil moisture than that of a clay with a P.I. of 40%.
2) Structure of the Soil
This is crucial when attempting to estimate how far a tree’s roots have spread. Root development necessitates oxygen levels greater than 15%. Root initiation necessitates more than 12 percent oxygen, while current root tip growth necessitates more than 5-10 percent. In the field, however, optimal oxygen levels are uncommon. Compaction damages the soil structure, which hinders oxygen diffusion, especially in clay soil. This is frequent near many structures by default.
Because of the effect of mechanically inhibiting penetration, compaction also plays a part in determining root extension. A root tip’s pressure must be less than the impedance. Because course soil particles can be pushed aside by a root tip, this is partly a consequence of soil texture. Bulk density rises in fine soils like clay, where pore size and porosity are much lower, and root extension is restricted. Bulk densities more than 1.2g/cm2 will significantly reduce it, and it will practically stop above 1.8g/cm2. Many clay soils have bulk densities that are higher than this.
A trained eye should be able to tell whether tree roots have gone as far, further, or less than the projected root spread of a given species at a given stage of growth based on a knowledge of the site’s ground conditions.
It is reasonable to anticipate that on locations where bands of a more aerobic substrate, such as cement, stone, sand, gravel, and so on, present inside a clay, root extension along these channels will be facilitated. Roots also follow cracks and crevices in the soil, which include pipelines (though this is also related to them exploiting the condensation on a pipe or additional soil moisture if leaks are presents).
Such opportunism is characteristic of root growth, and it is this trait that must be taken into account when determining the likelihood of root trespass.
Figure 6: Aeration improves the interaction between tree roots and soil water (Manion 1981)
3) Moisture Content of the Soil
The hunt for water is the most important component in establishing the extent of a root system’s scope, and it is also the most important aspect that limits tree growth. Roots develop in quest of water when moisture levels are low.
Roots are thought to find water, according to popular belief. They don’t have any. Roots are opportunistic, and if they come upon something, they will multiply. As a result, leaking drains, condensation along underground pipes, natural aquifers, and other factors may all contribute to a higher root presence in a given location.
The majority of the subsidence investigations I’ve been involved with appear to involve damaged drains, and despite settlement caused by compaction of soil particles, the increased soil moisture content may have encouraged greater, if not entirely new root presence from nearby trees, which would not have been the case otherwise.
Water diffusion rates are even slower than in compacted soils. Root growth is likely to be inhibited more effectively in saturated soils. Long-term leaks in ditches, streams, or drains may result in sufficiently moist ground to impede root growth.
Because impedance is also a function of a soil’s turgor, the resistance faced by root tips increases when clay soils dry up.
Flood tolerance varies greatly across trees. The state of the tree is important, but there are clear variances between species, Thomas says (1980). Some plants, such as Taxodium and Salix, can withstand inundation for months or even years. Although saturated clay soil conditions may be present, there is no reason to rule out the possibility of root intrusion on a property if the tree species is one that thrives in these conditions.
This represents a small percentage of tree species, and in many other circumstances, such a claim might be justified.
Figure 7: An illustration of how ground conditions might affect root spread.
4) The History of the Site
Knowing what has happened in the past might assist understand what is going on at a site.
Sites that have been cleared of vegetation may see gradual rehydration and swelling. This is frequent when vegetation on the site where the structure is being built or extended has been chopped down or severely decreased.
As a result of this awareness, professionals researching movement may be more inclined to view heave rather than subsidence as a source of movement, with clearly distinct solutions.
A misdiagnosed condition may lead to an arboriculturist worsening the problem by recommending further removal.
I observed a place where the garden was practically permanently flooded, and the owners were perplexed because this had never happened before. They had cleared the entire garden of established plants in an area with a high water table, it turned out. Despite the fact that all sources of moisture abstractions had been eliminated in combination with an adjacent development where woods had been cleared for development, this property was the subject of a subsidence investigation.
On another location, an elderly man refused to sell his 1950s cottage, which was surrounded by a big housing development for miles. Cracks had recently appeared everywhere, and he claimed that the brook bordering his property had totally dried out for the first time in the 40 years he had lived there, despite the likely impacts of vibration from the pile drives. It appears that subsurface watercourses and ground levels have been drastically altered, causing this drying out. His garden’s trees were mature and had evidently co-existed with the property for decades, but they were in decline. The trees, on the other hand, were cut down.
Grass (n.d.)
Lawns adjacent to damaged property may be more of a cause of sinking than a distant tree, especially if the lawn is young.
Grass is an evergreen plant that begins to transpire significantly sooner than deciduous trees. By early summer, it can cause soil moisture deficits of up to 0.5m and vigorously competes with trees, creating higher (albeit very localized) soil suctions than most tree species. (Tree root damage to buildings, Biddle, 1998).
According to research, root density in bare soil is 113 percent higher than in grassed areas. Rainfall is captured by a thick network of roots, and considerable amounts of moisture are abstracted, resulting in a twofold dehydration process.
Herbicides are also frequently used on lawns, which, if persistent or residual, will damage and kill tree roots.
Because the depth of drying can reach 1.2 meters by late summer, it’s reasonable to suppose that this procedure could be useful in a variety of scenarios where footings are limited.
6) Tree and structural juxtaposition
I’ve noticed over the years, based on observations and probably common sense, that trees near to corners have a stronger influence on a structure than trees adjacent to the middle of an elevation.
On two fronts, roots breach the property, causing more acute localized desiccation. If either side of the wall is undisturbed by the process and continues to bridge the middle of the wall, dehydration below the center of an elevation may not result in cracking.
Figure 8 – An illustration of how the juxtaposition of tree properties to structure might be useful.
7) Surfaces that are not porous
For two reasons, this can be useful in determining the extent of current damage or attempting to predict it.
- Natural recharging is impeded where there is a large area of impermeable hard-standing. Few surfaces are completely impermeable, reducing or eliminating evaporation from the soil surface. Foundations, on the other hand, are typically much deeper than the evaporation level, and if roots manage to intrude on part of the area, moisture is lost without being restored, resulting in a permanent soil moisture deficit.
- Despite the presence of established trees and plants, I surveyed a site where desiccation shrinkage had just recently afflicted an end-of-terrace home. The recent laying of hard-standing had been the only alteration in circumstances (regardless of any climate effect). The tiny area where natural recharging could occur was gone since the land was surrounded by hard-standing.
- The removal of the trees and shrubs, as well as some of the hardscaping, has sped up the recuperation process. Retaining the trees but removing the closer shrubs and the hard-standing, on the other hand, is likely to have allowed for enough recovery, albeit at a slower pace.
- It hinders gaseous exchange, denying oxygen to roots and trapping carbon dioxide.
- It stops nutrients from entering the ground (through the natural decomposition of organic matter)
Roots will not thrive or survive if the surface is impermeable to them. As a result, large asphalt drives, motorways, and other similar structures are likely to operate as root barriers, preventing root extension.
Porous surfaces, on the other hand, allow rain to penetrate while also lowering surface evaporation. They can represent settings that are favourable to root growth and are particularly helpful in sustaining field capacity.
Figure 9 depicts how impermeable hard-standing can contribute to desiccation shrinkage.
Relevant Structural Factors
1) Start with the basics.
The importance of foundation detail in minimizing root damage cannot be overstated. In terms of clay plasticity (albeit coarsely), species (also crudely), and tree distance, the BRE Guidelines are more advanced than in the past. Unfortunately, I’ve seen a lot of cases where the NHBC hasn’t been followed to the letter. I believe that, flaws and all, if these principles were strictly followed, tree-related damage would be considerably reduced.
Many structures are constructed without the approval of the Building Control Department. The chart below illustrates which structures are free from building control approval, and I believe that, with the exception of properties erected before to the NHBC rules, these typically poorly constructed structures account for a considerable percentage of tree-related damage investigations.
Roots are usually not a problem for structures built on rafts (or with cellars). This, like everything else, is contingent on proper installation.
Regardless of the presence of trees, poorly established constructions will be subject to volumetric changes in the clay. Thus, while chopping down a tree may lower the amplitude of seasonal movement, the movement itself persists. It would be more cost effective in the long run to rebuild or underpin the structure such that it is not susceptible to seasonal drying out and that the new foundations take into account the tree (s).
Photo 4 – A poorly founded addition and the location of very old, dying trees 0314S
2) Drainage systems
The penetration and obstruction of drains and sewers is perhaps the most common problem caused by tree roots. The conditions are ideal inside, and roots thrive, decreasing flow rates and eventually blocking drains.
This, however, must not be used as an excuse to cut down trees. Because of the thick network of subterranean pipes and roots, removing trees whose roots may encircle a pipe is physically impossible and clearly objectionable. In any town or village, there would be no trees left.
Only once roots have gotten access to drains can they pose problems. They can only get inside a pipe if it is already damaged or corroded.
Where trees are present, the recommendation should be to assess sewers for areas where roots have gained access, re-line them, or replace them with UPVC pipes so that roots cannot penetrate in the future.
3) Structural Remedy
Many subsidence claims, as previously stated, are related to poorly designed, frequently DIY structures. Others refer to a segment of a structure that is part of the original construction but is less well-supported, such as bay windows or a section of a home without a cellar beneath it. As a result, there is a difference in movement.
In such cases, a structural solution should be used, especially if an arboricultural solution would necessitate the destruction of a fine tree with high amenity, environmental, and ecological significance. When huge trees need to be removed, the expense isn’t always higher.
There are times when tree removal is not an option because of the risk of heave. If large trees significantly predating and near a property are removed, they may cause more or new damage to the property, depending on species, damage history, soil conditions, and structural type.
Why advocate tree removal when a large mature tree is found near a property and no harm has occurred?
Photo 5 A poorly founded cottage PI in the late 30s/early 40s is surrounded by multiple 100-170 year old trees, including oak. Heave will have occurred as a result of the removals.
Perspective
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, average rainfall levels were around 400mm, allowing seasonal moisture shortages close to trees to be recharged.
Even in a dry year like 1989, the seasonal deficit was less than 200mm below 30cm and less than 50mm closer to the surface. In other words, the overall seasonal deficiency of 250mm was far less than the annual rainfall of 400mm.
The worst that might have happened due to the clay’s shrinking potential was that cracks would emerge in the summer and early autumn, but then shut again.
Figure 11: A mature Poplar causes seasonal changes in SMD from 0-460mm. (PG Biddle, 1998, “Tree Root Damage to Buildings”)
Cracks, on the other hand, have become a cause of concern for homeowners since subsidence became insurable in the early 1970s.
Following a Chartered Surveyor’s Building Survey, they are frequently identified.
As a result, a cultural change has occurred, from one in which seasonal hairline fractures were accepted as normal to one in which they are feared. It also generated the notion that removing the nuisance of wall paper splitting every summer was more important than the existence of a 200-year-old oak tree, dare I say, and provided a means of having a makeover for little more than the excess on the policy.
When I advised a couple in Lincolnshire to remove a knarled, twisted 200-year-old wisteria because they were experiencing seasonal migration to a 17th-century cottage, they were horrified. They reached an agreement with their insurance company to eliminate the insurance coverage from their policy and accept the seasonal migration and wisteria as is.
Discussion
The Arboricultural Association attempted to construct a Subsidence Risk Factor (SRF) few years ago, based on a much more extensive set of criteria than the NHBC’s. It:
- Instead of three moisture need categories, trees were divided into six (See table)
- It considered actual plasticity rather than the P.I. group it belongs to.
- It also took into account the crown shape of a tree rather than just its height. The four potential crown shapes are semi-circular, elliptical, circular, and triangle, and height and spread are applied to the relevant shape.
Despite this substantial modification, it remains unreliable, with “considerable foundation displacement having been demonstrated to occur where the SRF suggested minimal risk” (Biddle, “Tree Root Damage to Buildings”) (1998).
This is primarily due to the large number of variables that each site has. These concern tree species and health, as well as ground conditions and history, climatic circumstances, and structural detail.
So, if a “We don’t know what kind of graft it is when we see “apple tree.” We don’t know what kind of pine is mentioned if it’s a pine. We rarely know much about the ground, other than that it is within a geological area identified by a 1:50,000 geological drift map (is it saturated, compacted, etc. ), that drains leak, that there is a history of mining, that foundation depths vary, that foundation depths vary, that there is sufficient area to allow for natural recharge, that trees have been removed in the past, and so on. Are the fissures you see due to desiccation shrinkage or something else?
The front of my house is seen in the image below. A 50-year-old holly tree can be found about 3 meters from the front elevation. The home is built on a sandy, gravelly soil, so it won’t become much bigger. Holly is a slow-growing tree with a limited moisture abstraction capacity. Despite the fact that this tree poses no harm to the property, the surveyor’s report recommended its removal.
Photo 6 – A holly tree that, due to its species and ground conditions, poses no threat to property but was suggested for removal.
There is a tendency to be too cautious. This is acceptable given that we live in a litigious environment and all of us have P.I. policies to safeguard. The argument is that simple criteria are frequently ignored, let alone the extensive assessment of aspects outlined in this research that would be required to reach a reasonable decision about a tree’s potential harm.
Currently, the data represents cases where trees have caused damage by default. It excludes similar scenarios in which trees have caused no damage. Indeed, according to Dr. Biddle, the few examples in which no damage has happened demonstrate how low the actual risk factor connected with actually appears to be. He estimates that this is less than 1%.
Photo 7 shows a case with a large number of mature plants “high water-demanding” trees on property built on PI 39 percent parched clay, but with no subsidence damage 0314s (See photo in appendices).
Many of the allegations or scenarios in which damage has occurred (and on which much of the existing data is based) are related to structures that were inadequately designed and founded. Extensions, conservatories, bay windows, and other similar features.
- What is the cost of underpinning or, more accurately, re-building these structures?
If trees are thought to be a threat or have caused harm, more thought should be given to the consequences of tree removal. At the moment, judgments are solely focused on monetary considerations. Whether it’s for foundations, structural repairs, or tree removal, a cost-benefit analysis is used. Because these are quantifiable elements, the choice is black and white.
Trees, on the other hand, have a significantly higher intangible value. We all understand how crucial they are in:
- how they give you a “nice feeling” (studies have conclusively shown that patients convalescing in hospital, recover far more quickly in rooms overlooking mature trees than rooms overlooking the back of a building or car park-apply),
- how they provide important shelter and food for wildlife while also promoting biodiversity
- Finally, and maybe most importantly in this case, how mature trees improve property value.
Attempts to value trees have been attempted, but I believe this will remain elusive. Consider whether spending £2000 to underpin (or re-build) a conservatory is a better investment than spending £800 to remove a huge tree, with the potential loss of value to the property (up to 20%) and all of the benefits to the neighborhood.
Conclusions
Because there are so many factors on any site relating to environmental conditions, tree state, and structural traits, forecasting whether a tree is a threat or potential future threat is rarely really attainable without this information.
Noting the presence of a tree(s) is important if there is some ambiguity, but this must always be followed by a clear declaration that certain minimum requirements must be met before taking further action over the tree (s).
In an ideal world, this would include a thorough examination to acquire as much evidence as possible in order to reach a rational decision. Because this is not possible, certain basic criteria should be met, such as foundation depths on all portions of the land, analysis of the founding soils, and an arboriculturist’s survey (not a tree surgeon’s!). As a result, trial pits would be commonplace.
Where there has been movement, the cause must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The minimum that should be expected is the above requirements, as well as level monitoring over a reasonable period of time.
Despite the fact that tree surgery and management are becoming less popular, they should still be considered. It is useful in many situations, but it must be assessed carefully for the site, distance, history (if any) of damage, species, and how it will react to a specific type of tree surgery.
Figure 12 – Measurement of annual radial growth to determine pollarding effectiveness (Tree Root Damage to Buildings, Biddle, 1998)
To sum up, long-term implementation of certain improvements could considerably improve the chance of peaceful coexistence of tree and structure, or remove the uncertainty that currently exists. This could involve the following:
1) For new construction, a new method of estimating foundation depths has been developed. Penetrometers should be used for each site instead of a predetermined formula to determine at what depth the bulk density increases to the point where root growth is impossible or unlikely. If the water level becomes too high, a raft should be built.
2) Planning legislation must be modified so that all brick-built structures, regardless of size, are subject to building control regulations.
3) A cost-benefit analysis is conducted that considers all of the benefits that a tree or trees bring, as well as the costs of structure repair, root barrier installation, and tree surgery.
4) Before granting subsidence coverage, the insurance sector must analyze properties (with the exception of dwellings built prior to the NHBC rules) and how they were built.
Who is liable for tree root damage UK?
In most cases, obtaining a report from an arborist stating that the damage was caused by the tree’s roots is required to succeed in a claim.
A surveyor’s report certifying the degree of the damage, the remedial work required, the expected cost of such remedial work, and any depreciation in the value of the damaged property is normally required.
Who can be liable for damage caused by the roots of a tree?
The owner of the land where the tree is located is normally responsible for any harm caused by the tree’s roots. However, if the occupier of the land in question (for example, a tenant) is in a position to ‘abate’ (put an end to) the nuisance, they may be accountable. Even if they do not own or inhabit the land on which the tree is located, a person who has a sufficient degree of control over the tree may be held accountable.
Who can bring a claim for damage caused by the roots of a tree?
A claim can be filed by the owner or occupant of property that has been harmed by tree roots.
If the damage happened before the property owner purchased it, they may be able to collect the cost of all corrective work required on the basis that the nuisance was a continuous annoyance, and they do not need to prove that the property has sustained further physical damage since they purchased it.
What loss can be claimed?
A claim for damage caused by tree roots will often include the following:
- the expense of removing the nuisance for example, the cost of cutting the tree’s roots if the owner or person in charge of the tree fails to take reasonable steps to remove the annoyance within a reasonable time;
- loss incurred as a result of a decrease in the value of the property in question (subsided properties are generally more difficult to sell and, as a result, it is often difficult to achieve market value when they are sold); loss incurred as a result of a decrease in the value of the property in question (properties that have suffered subsidence are generally more difficult to sell and, as a result, it is often difficult to achieve market value when they are sold);
- the cost of alternative lodging if the owner or occupier of the property is obliged to vacate the premises while the work is being done;
It will be the claimant’s responsibility to demonstrate that any expenditure they made was both reasonably incurred and reasonable in terms of amount.
The claimant may also seek an injunction prohibiting the tree’s owner or whoever has control of it from causing any more damage.
The owner or person in control of the tree, on the other hand, will only be liable for the cost of any remedial works that were’reasonably foreseeable,’ and the claimant will typically be expected to give them a chance to abate the nuisance before incurring such costs.
Foreseeability
It will be necessary to prove that the defendant knew, or should have known, that such damage would occur in order for the damage to be “reasonably foreseeable.”
The defendant will not be liable for any damage caused by a tree if there is only a remote probability of such damage. The fact that a tree is mature, tall, or on clay is unlikely to suffice in demonstrating that any damage it causes was reasonably foreseeable.
Normally, a defendant is only responsible for the expense of any corrective work once the claimant has been notified of the harm and the defendant fails to take reasonable steps to cease the annoyance within a reasonable time. That will not always be the case, however.
If the tree is very close to a property, the genuine risk of harm to the land is usually foreseeable since the defendant must have known, or ought reasonably to have known, that the owner or occupier of the property in question might recover the costs of remediation.
If owners of neighboring properties have notified the owner or person in charge of the tree of damage to their properties, the owner or person in charge of the tree may have been aware that there was a real risk of damage to other properties in the area, even if the owners of those properties have not notified them of such damage.
Can a person be liable for damage resulting from the roots of a tree that was not planted by him?
A nuisance emerges when a person allows a tree to expand from their land into that of their neighbor, regardless of whether the tree was planted by them or by a person from whom they purchased the property, or if the tree was self-sown.
Which trees damage foundations?
Many tree species have root systems that can cause damage to house foundations, but certain varieties are more harmful than others.
Oak, ash, and poplar trees are the trees that cause the most damage to house foundations. The root systems of these trees are the fastest-growing, strongest, and most invasive of all trees grown in residential settings.
The most destructive trees to house foundations are oak trees. Although oak trees are rarely planted in residential areas, they account for more than 10% of foundation damage caused by tree roots.
Who is responsible for roots in pipes?
When the roots of a City tree misalign or wrap around a homeowner’s sewer lateral and break or crush the pipe, the City is accountable. The homeowner, on the other hand, is accountable if the roots entered at the joint because the sewer lateral was misaligned for any other reason.
Can I cut tree roots on my property?
A person may chop back any branch under common law (or root)
from a tree on their neighbor’s property that overhangs or encroaches In
The following must be done after trimming back any overhanging branches (or encroaching roots):
be aware of:
Cutting back branches or roots beyond the boundary is prohibited.
in preparation for them to hang above
Any removed branches, fruit, or roots must be replaced.
Unless the tree owner agrees otherwise, the tree will be gently returned to them.
All work must be done with caution. As an example, suppose you
should avoid causing damage to property or performing work that would cause the tree to die.
To avoid any retaliation against yourself, make yourself unsafe or dangerous.
On this map, you can’t change the height of trees or fences.
neighboring property While it is not required by common law, it would be considerate.
to inform the tree owner of your plans in order to avoid any misunderstandings
Please keep in mind that your common law rights are there to protect you.
enables you to do the bare minimum of effort
if you do a lot of work and make a lot of money in the process
If the tree is dangerous, the tree owner may have a criminal case against you.
damage. If you’re pruning roots, you should be extra cautious. You might think about it.
Before beginning any work, seek qualified arboricultural guidance. In the event that the
If the tree owner agrees to work that isn’t covered by your common law rights, or if the tree owner agrees to work that isn’t covered by your common law rights
It would be great if they allowed you to enter their land to do the work.
It’s a good idea to get their permission in writing. If the trees in question are native to the area,
If a tree is protected by a tree preservation order or is growing in a conservation area,
an application or a ‘Notice of Intent’ (in the case of tree preservation orders).
(in the case of trees in a conservation area) may be necessary, as well as the
The following points will be considered.
If you want to submit an application or a notice, you must first:
Notify the owner of the land where the trees are grown that an application has been submitted.
or a notification must be given
In the case of a tree preservation project, approval is granted.
In the case of trees in a conservation area, an order or a letter of no objection is issued.
area denotes that the tree work requested is permissible from an arboricultural standpoint.
Only in terms of planning. It does not provide the person submitting the application with any information.
Notice that you have an automatic legal right to do the work. The matter of
Ownership is a civil, not a planning, issue, and the landowner’s rights are paramount.
In addition to any planning approval, permission must be acquired.
Any application or notice pertaining to the land and the environment.
If the landowner so desires, they may also carry out the approved works.