Buying house with recently felled tree

[ThreeForTree]

Viewed a house that ticks most of the boxes but the sellers have very recently felled a large tree in the front garden.

The tree was very big - higher than the height of the house - and within 2 meters of the building.

Everything we've read suggests that removing a tree of that size should have been done in stages which hasn't happened - the tree was there a couple of weeks ago.

We are concerned about the risk of heave/subsidence from it being felled and that even if we were to get a specialist survey, the damage caused by removing it wouldn't show right away and we'd be on the hook for any damage it's caused further down the line.

Are we right to be so cautious? Would a survey pick up any potential damage it will cause?

I'd be concerned, it may depend on the species of tree. If you're liking the property I'd do some more research.

You're right to be cautious- I'd also be worried they hadn't got the right permissions which could cause issues with lending on the house.

It depends on how the tree was faring. If the tree was dead then, even with a TPO, they are entitled to remove the tree provided they let the council know 5 days in advance. Coming up to winter you’d generally prefer to take a tree down if it’s dead/dying.

If the tree was in good health and covered by TPO then they should have sought planning permission.

Do you know what kind of tree it was? Has the stump been removed? Heave is possible in clay soil, but equally, leaving the tree there also increases subsidence risk.

It entirely depends on the tree, whether it was there before the house was built or afterwards, how long its roots grow. You could speak to an arboriculturist who would be able to help you.

We had a huge sycamore tree removed - it was probably a tiny bit over 2m away from the house but we didn’t have any issues (we had to have planning permission as it was a conservation area).

A neighbours absolutely massive lime tree fell during high winds and that was well within 2m of our house. I ended up speaking to an arboriculturist as I was worried about heave bur he was sure that the roots wouldn’t have been able to damage the house. Asking people on MN isn’t going to give you the answers or reassurance you need.

Thanks for the responses.

The tree was a horse chestnut and the house is a victorian mid terrace in South London so likely built on clay. The tree doesn't have a TPO and I think the house predates the tree, although I could be wrong. The stump has been removed.

Thanks for the suggestion to speak to an arboriculturist.

Our concern is mostly around whether a survey or expert advice will be able to identify if any issues have been caused given it has been so recently felled.

Why take the risk ?

They felled it for a reason. Probably to make the house look better. But also possibly that it was causing issues that they want to try to cover up.

I would be giving the interior a very careful inspection in that area.

You're right to be cautious. Do you know what type of tree it was?- they have vastly different root systems and consequently will have totally different impacts. An arboriculture professional should be able to advise.

If it was a shallow rooted pine then it'll probably be fine (the root ball might not even extend as far as the house) but if it's a willow with a huge root system it's more likely to be a problem.

I doubt anyone would be able to tell so soon - subsidence takes a while to identify anyway and needs monitoring so I’d imagine it’s the same for heave. An arb might be able to give you an indication of whether it’s a risk.

It could be that they removed the tree because it was causing / was at risk of causing subsidence. The house we are buying had the same issue and caused some damage to a bay window (in SE London so also clay and an area susceptible to subsidence).

Have you asked them why they removed it?

Can you require an indemnity policy as a condition of purchase? Not sure if they exist for this.

Have you asked why they did it? It’s an odd expense if they are about to move. I’d be suspicious they are covering for something.

@ThreeForTree I’m really sorry but a tree surgeon has no idea about foundations, heave or anything else to do with what undermines the foundations of a house! You need to speak to a structural engineer or surveyor with experience of foundations and soil in your area.

You also need to be aware of the difference between heave and subsidence. Heave is caused by clay swelling. This pushes the house outwards because it pushes the foundations upwards. Taking out a huge tree near a house means the water the tree would have drunk remains in the soil. It then causes the soil to swell. Where foundations are shallow, of course this can cause issues! There could be issues with the roots dying off too. They can be a long way from the tree.

Subsidence is essentially the opposite. It’s where soil is desiccated or washed away so the foundations and the house sink down and walls are pulled out of shape and cracks appear. This tree could have desiccated the clay and was subsidence happening? London clay and shallow Victorian footings often lead to issues.

As far as this house is concerned, a local structural engineer or surveyor will have much better knowledge on how this tree and its demise might affect the house. It was clearly the wrong tree for that position though!

My understanding of heave is that if the house was already suffering subsidence, then heave is going to be a problem. If the house was not already suffering subsidence, heave is unlikely.

You will want your surveyor to be eagle eyed for any subsidence concerns.

A structural engineer won’t be able to say anything other than there could be a risk in the absence of any actual damage. An arboriculturist will have an understanding of the risks associated with the particular tree and soil type.

Thanks.

We did ask the seller (via the estate agent) for more information about the felling of the tree. The response was quite terse and stated that they had felled the tree and removed the stump with no further information.

We did have a good look around when we viewed and couldn't see any evidence of cracks but saying that, the house has been newly replastered.

On balance, I think as much as it is a lovely house, we are probably too risk averse to take it on.

If they’re being cagey about why its been removed, I’d also walk away.

Ditto. If the tree was dead, you’d readily share that information. I agree with walking away.

"We did have a good look around when we viewed and couldn't see any evidence of cracks but saying that, the house has been newly replastered."

What a co-incidence?

Id make it obvious to the estate agents and owners why you are concerned and were asking. Not that it will change anything but just to let them know they havent pulled the wool over your eyes and others may also clock it

If the tree and the house had both been there a long time, then any issues would have been slow and developed long-term, like settlement cracks etc.

The big issue now could be heave. When a tree that size is in leaf, it uses a huge quantity of water (maybe around 1,000 litres a day) and will keep the surrounding soil fairly dry. Now the tree has gone, I would expect to see problems appearing about this time next year, once the clay soil has expanded due to the extra water in it.

@kirinm No. not true. Engineers have access to soil data and will know the area and foundations most likely at the house. They are somewhat more qualified to comment. They absolutely do know the characteristics of trees if they do this sort of work. They calculate footings when trees are near - tree surgeons don’t. The issue here is the house. Not the tree - it’s gone!

Felled tree and newly replastered…yeah, I’d walk away and not spend money on surveys etc which might or might not be correct.

@ErrolTheDragon Yes. That points to subsidence caused by the tree and now it’s a bit of a guess what might happen now it’s gone. Depends on whether it’s been underpinned. (A tree surgeon would of course know!)