SOMERSET Council recently felled a beech tree in Beechwood Avenue which they say was causing subsidence to a resident’s home but a Somerset councillor says that this is only the “partial truth”.
Michael Dunk, who is a resident of Beechwood Avenue says that Somerset Council could have refused to fell the tree and instead asked for the resident’s housing insurance company to provide an appropriate root barrier to prevent any future subsidence at a cost to the council. Somerset Council removed the tree on Tuesday 17th October.
“The beech trees were planted when the houses were built around 1936,” explained cllr Dunk. “There had been subsidence problems with a house in the avenue and naturally the home owner claimed on their insurance policy. The evidence that a beech tree was to blame were roots of this species found during ground tests adjacent to the house. You might imagine that the insurance company would then undertake the remedial works needed, such as underpinning the foundations and/or creating a root barrier.
“The insurance company takes the view that the tree roots are trespassing on the owner’s property. Since they are originating from a Somerset Council owned tree growing on highways department land it then becomes the liability of Somerset Council. The insurance company then applied for two of the nearest beech trees to be felled.
“The tree over the other side of the road was saved as the (then) Mendip Tree Officer said it couldn’t be proved that this tree was the origin of the roots in the test and refused to fell it. You might ask why did the council agree to fell the remaining tree when it was protected by a tree preservation order (TPO)? Somerset Council gave the following reason, ‘The council has concluded that action is needed to protect somebody’s home.’
“This is only the partial truth, there was an option for the council to keep the tree and refuse the application to fell. The insurance company would then have no choice but to do a proper job and underpin the house or provide an appropriate root barrier to prevent any future subsidence. The problem is that the insurance company would seek to recover its costs from Somerset Council and proper engineered remedial works are not cheap.
“There have been other problems with subsidence at Beechwood Avenue, our houses are built on a layer of clay which shrinks when it loses some moisture content, especially when there is a period of drought combined with high temperatures. Numbers 13 and 15 experienced problems with subsidence but the then council did not fell the tree held responsible and the insurance company did underpin the houses. How much this cost the council I don’t know.
“More recently the council felled two trees near number two because of an insurance company application to fell, again due to subsidence problems. Following these losses it was felt necessary to protect all the trees with a TPO.
“If Somerset Council cannot protect trees it is responsible for, I wish it would tell the whole truth and admit that it cannot afford to do so with cases such as those in Beechwood Avenue where the insurers claim their remedial costs back from the council.
“The subject of what a tree is worth to people has been highlighted recently in the news and residents deserve to be told that in some cases a decision to fell a tree is based mainly on the cost to the council of keeping it. The cost of remedial works for a subsidence claim that include underpinning could, I’m told, exceed £100,000 and any council has to weigh that cost against all the other demands on its funds.
“More openness from Somerset Council about why we cannot protect some protected trees would be helpful as I’m sure some residents of Frome wonder if a TPO is worth the paper it is printed on. By the way, the majestic cedar tree on Wallbridge that was recently felled had been protected by a TPO since 1989, another victim of a subsidence claim.”
A Somerset Council spokesperson said, “The last thing we want to be doing is removing a mature tree, we know that people in the community really value it, but the situation is critical, and this is extremely distressing for the homeowner.”
