Insurer of Chesterfield bungalow is refused permission to fell five trees and advised by council to investigate other likely causes of subsidence

A statement of reasons, which is a requirement when challenging a Tree Preservation Order, was submitted by PRI Insurance Services as part of an application seeking consent to remove the lime trees and treat the stumps with eco plugs.

Reports to Chesterfield Borough Council stated that a detached bungalow at Old Road, Brampton had suffered foundation movement.

An insurance risk assessment advised that felling the five lime trees at Old Road would limit the extent and need for expensive and disruptive engineering repair work. The report from PRI Insurance Services estimated the costs at between £20,000 and £100,000 depending upon whether the trees can be removed or must remain.

The report stated: “It is the case that an alternative to felling such as pruning or significant ‘pollarding’ of the tree would not provide a reliable or sustainable remedy to the subsidence in this case. We do not consider that any other potential means of mitigation, including root barriers, would be effective or appropriate in the circumstances.”

A report from an officer of the council stated that the trees were part of a continuous line of 24 lime trees which runs virtually the full length of the western boundary of the property.

The officer inspected the bungalow and found movement/cracking toward the centre of the rear elevation with internal cracking within the living room and bedroom above, the opening up of a gap to the side of the living room window and the loss of render to the centre of the rear elevation.

A surface water downpipe on the rear elevation and a soil pipe on the side elevation were identified as being damaged and drains within this zone could not be eliminated as a potential cause of movement. The property owner confirmed to the officer that the pipe beneath the decking was completely blocked and the downpipe was therefore changed to a shoe pipe so that rainwater ran onto the timber deck and ground beneath. The officer stated that the decking was now in a serious state of rot and such an amount of surface water being discharged into the area immediately adjacent to where the damage was being caused was a matter which required further investigation and was likely to be the cause of the movement.

In refusing the application, the council stated that the proposed works were considered to be an excessive action when the trees were in good health and with no major defects or evidence of instability. The council said that other likely causes of subsidence to the property existed, such as damaged drainage and adjacent Lawson Cypress trees, which should be investigated and ruled out.