Tree related subsidence – What it is and why it happens
Tree related subsidence is defined as the gradual caving in or sinking of an area of land and can be caused by a range of different factors. These can include:
Poor ground quality or an inadequate building foundation,
Historical mining,
The erosion of soil which results in an underground opening,
Excessive levels of water washing soil away from the surrounding area,
Clay soil shrinkage and heave due to the changing weather in summer and winter,
Trees being located within the close proximity of the building.
Have You Got Issues With Tree Related Subsidence?
Trees roots can spread by up to three times the height of the tree which means that, whilst a lot of buildings are not affected by the growth of these roots, those built on shrinkable clay soils and located near to a tree are at significant risk of experiencing subsidence.
Clay soil is highly absorbent, allowing it to take in water and expand during wet weather. The soil then dries out in the warmer weather and shrinks, meaning that there is a constant heave and shrink cycle within areas consisting predominantly of a clay soil type. Trees can then exacerbate the shrinkage of clay soil by drawing the water out of the soil, causing the ground underneath buildings to shrink significantly and resulting in movement within the property foundations. This movement then goes on to cause cracks in both external and internal property walls.
When dealing with a tree that is causing subsidence, it is always necessary to consider the risk of soil heave. This can occur as a result of the clay soil returning to its former moisture level and expanding once the tree has been removed, causing any foundations laid over the soil to lift and potentially cause further damage.
In order to cater for this, each individual occurrence of tree subsidence should be considered based upon a variety of factors including the nature of the surrounding ground, the quality of the buildings foundations, the span and depth of the trees roots in comparison to the building and the typical variations in conditions throughout summer and winter. The potential removal of a tree that is causing subsidence should always be considered on a case by case basis and is highly recommended to be carried out by a professional arboriculturist.
Contact Us
At ProHort, our team have over 20 years of arboricultural experience and are experienced in identifying subsidence resulting from the presence of trees. Find out more about our Tree Subsidence Reports service, or why not get in touch for more information?
Japanese Knotweed Damages Allowed Where Use of Land Affected
Landowners including local authorities and other public bodies may be at risk of nuisance claims following the recent ruling of the Court of Appeal in Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v (1) Williams (2) Waistell [2018] EWCA (England Wales Court of Appeal) Civ 1514. This case concerned the liability in nuisance of a landowner where Network Rail had allowed Japanese knotweed to grow in close proximity to its neighbours’ land. This is the case even though no actual damage was caused.
The Court of Appeal found in favour of two homeowners who had sued Network Rail after knotweed from a railway embankment had spread to their properties.
The Court of Appeal went to great lengths to state that the presence of Japanese knotweed was not actionable under a nuisance claim because it had diminished the market value of the respondent’s properties. The decision means that those claiming nuisance will need to demonstrate that the nearby presence of Japanese knotweed interferes with their use and enjoyment of the land.
However, in practice, the presence of Japanese knotweed is always likely to interfere with a property owner’s use of enjoyment of the land. Furthermore, the presence of the Rhizomes, despite not causing any physical damage, was noted by the judge as being a “natural hazard”. The Judge said. “They affect the owner’s ability fully to use and enjoy the land.”
What Is Japanese Knotweed?
Japanese knotweed, which was described by the court as a “pernicious weed”, is a fast-growing plant which is difficult to eradicate and spreads rapidly through an extensive network of underground roots, stems or rhizomes. While the plant itself can quickly grow to a height of over two metres, the roots can extend up to seven meters horizontally and three metres vertically, affecting buildings and construction works.
Because of the potential ramifications of Japanese knotweed on the property, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) has published a policy stating that it might affect the valuation of the property and might be an issue for customers whose property is affected but who cannot afford the treatment costs. The policy requires the valuers who inspect property for mortgage purposes to report on the presence of knotweed within seven meters of the property to lenders, so that they can take account of it as part of the valuation process.
Sir Terence Etherton, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, described a claim of private nuisance as one based on “a violation for real property rights”. This violation need not necessarily take the form of physical damage to property; however, it could not consist of merely pure economic loss.
In view of the above, to minimise risk of liability landowners and public bodies should take steps to identify if any Japanese knotweed is present on their land and then take steps to eradicate it.
Contact Us
If you have issues with Japanese knotweed then please contact us today…
The Landscape Institute and Brexit.
The Landscape Institute believes that a no-deal Brexit could be disastrous for the landscape profession in UK and Europe. This would further exacerbate our current skills shortages.
Talent and recognition
Around 40% of employers in our sector are already suffering skills shortages. The impact on future talent is a major concern. 8% of our Landscape Institute members are citizens of EU countries, outside of the UK and the profession cannot afford to lose them.
One of our major concerns is that we may lose recognition of our professional qualification across Europe with a no-deal Brexit. This would hamper UK professionals’ ability to provide services to European markets.
Graduate retention
Restricted movement limits the number of international graduates who will be able to stay in the UK to meet skills shortages and add value to our country.
Long-term, graduate retention is also a major problem. 30% of students who joined UK-based landscape courses in 2018 were international, with 7% being from the EU. Therefore, restrictions on visas and free movement will limit the number of graduates who will be able to stay in the UK, meet skills shortages, and add value to our country.
Trade restrictions
Any restrictions on trade with Europe would make landscape practice much harder, as many of the materials landscape professionals use are sourced from the EU. For example, live plants or stone products from places like Italy.
Just like food, plants can’t afford to be held up in a lorry park in Kent, France or Belgium for days. It would take many years for British nurseries to grow similar trees, and for British quarries to be re-opened, in order to rebuild an adequate supply chain.
Any extra administrative burdens for the supply of landscape products into the UK will make them much less attractive to both public and private sector investors and developers.
Economic effects
If landscape professionals are forced out of work, the long-term effects could take decades to correct.
Less money in the economy means there will be less development, including housing. This is a current government priority and what development does happen will be cheaper, less well designed, and less green.
If landscape professionals are forced out of work by an economic downturn, the long-term effects on public health, air quality, flood risk, and climate change could take decades to correct.
To find out about how ProHort can help you, get in touch now.
Articles Similar to The Landscape Institute and Brexit:
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out government planning policy for England. It was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)) on 27 March 2012 and can be downloaded from the MHCLG website.
The NPPF followed a commitment made in the 2010 Coalition Agreement to ‘publish and present to Parliament a simple and consolidated national planning framework covering all forms of development and setting out national economic, environmental and social priorities’. The then-Minister for Planning and Decentralisation, Greg Clark MP, suggested it introduced a simpler and more accessible approach to planning policy.
The framework replaces a wide range of previous planning policy statements and planning policy guidance (see Planning policy replaced by the NPPF). It is commonly cited as having reduced planning policy from over 1,000 pages to around 50, but in fact, unless specifically revoked by the framework, existing policies remain effective.
In 2012, the coalition government commissioned the Taylor Report, a further review of the remaining planning policy guidance. A complete set of the legislation, policy and guidance that underpins planning in England can be found on the government’s National Planning Practice Guidance website.
Principles
The NPPF dismantles the regional planning apparatus and introduces neighbourhood planning in order to create ‘ … a framework within which local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities.’The framework states in no uncertain terms that ‘the purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development……Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay.’
It defines three mutually dependent dimensions to sustainable development:
Economic
Social
Environmental
The framework sets out 12 core principles that should underpin plan making and decision taking which are presented in summary below.
Plan making and decision making:
Genuinely plan-led.
Should be a creative exercise, not just one of scrutiny.
Proactive in driving and supporting sustainable development.
Should seek and secure high quality.
Take account of the diverse character of different areas.
Should support the transition to a climate-resilient, low-carbon economy.
Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution.
Should encourage the use of brownfield land.
Encourage mixed-use development.
Should conserve heritage.
Maximise the use of public transport, walking and cycling.
Should support health, social and cultural wellbeing.
The framework then sets out detailed guidance under 13 subheadings that contribute to delivering sustainable development:
Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.
Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.
Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.
Local plans
Local plans should be prepared by each local authority for its area. They should contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and set out over a 15-year time horizon ‘…the opportunities for development and clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where…’
The framework proposes proactive engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses as well as co-operation with neighbouring authorities, public, voluntary and private sector organisations. It also proposes improving the efficiency of the application process through pre-application engagement by the applicant with the local authority, other consenting bodies and the local community. This should include discussing what information should be submitted as part of the application.
The framework sets out strategic priorities that should be included in local plans and makes clear that local plans will be examined by an independent inspector. Proposed developments that are in accordance with an up to date local plan should be approved without delay, whilst those that conflict with an up to date local plan should be refused (unless material considerations indicate otherwise).
This puts an emphasis on the local plan being up to date. The framework states that If a plan is absent, silent or out of date, permission should be granted, unless there are significant and demonstrable reasons not to grant permission.Local authorities were given a 12-month transition period to ensure that existing plans conform with the framework. However, when the transition period came to an end in March 2013, just half of the local authorities had adopted local plans in place and the Planning Inspectorate revealed that only 7% of those local plans complied with the requirements of the NPPF (ref. Planning Resource).
Neighbourhood planning
Parishes and neighbourhood forums are given the power to develop a neighbourhood plan for their neighbourhood. Neighbourhood plans must conform with the strategic policies in the local plan but take precedence over non-strategic policies in the local plan where they are in conflict.
Parishes and neighbourhood forums are given the power to grant planning permission for developments through Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders. Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders require a local referendum. Where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan planning permission will not normally be granted.
Criticisms
A number of significant concerns have been raised about the framework and its implementation:
There may be unintended consequences resulting from such a significant change being made so quickly.
There is ambiguity about the precise meaning of phrases such as ‘sustainability’.
The framework says little about spatial planning or place making.
It is questionable whether there are adequate resources available to implement the changes that the framework brings about.
There is a lack of guidance for local communities.
It is not clear how the framework tackles the lack of housing.
It is not clear whether local plans will be able to retain control over development.
The Taylor Report has come very close on the heels of the National Planning Policy Framework and there are concerns that the planning system could be thrown into disarray. Some campaigners have described the findings of the review as giving the go ahead for a bonfire of planning rules, creating a charter for development and putting the countryside at risk.
In April 2014, the all-party Commons Communities and Local Government Committee launched an inquiry into the operation of the NPPF. The inquiry found weaknesses in the NPPF and proposed a number of changes that could be made to strengthen it. See NPPF inquiry for more information.In March 2015, a survey of residential developers and housing associations by accountancy and business advisory firm BDO found that 52% per cent felt the NPPF had made no difference, 19% per cent said it had inhibited the process and only 29% believed it had been helpful.
Reform
On 7 December 2015, the Department for Communities and Local Government launched a consultation seeking views on changes to the NPPF to support the delivery of new homes, including low cost homes for first time buyers. See Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy for more information.
In April 2016, the Communities & Local Government (CLG) Committee published ‘Department for Communities and Local Government’s consultation on national planning policy’ in which they called for a comprehensive review of the NPPF before the end of the Parliament, pointing out that there had been, ‘…no robust, objective or evidence-based monitoring, evaluation or review’ since it was first published in 2012.On 30 January 2018, in a letter to local authorities, the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that the NPPF was being revised to implement the planning reform package set out in the housing White Paper, the Planning for the right homes in the right places consultation and the announcements made in the 2017 Autumn Budget.
Overhaul announcement
On 5 March 2018, Prime Minister Theresa May launched the overhaul of the NPPF, aiming to maximise the use of land, strengthen Green Belt protections and place a greater emphasis on converting planning permissions into built homes.Mrs May said the cost of housing, both for ownership and rent, was reinforcing economic divisions and leading to growing social immobility, with public sector workers unable to take jobs in certain parts of the country.She said; “The result is a vicious circle from which most people can only escape with help from the bank of mum and dad. Talking to voters during last year’s election campaign, it was clear that many people, particularly younger people, are angry about this … They’re right to be angry.”
Pending a consultation, May said the existing NPPF will be overhauled with up to 80 proposals first put forward in 2017 being implemented. The key measures include:
10% of homes on major sites should be available for affordable home ownership.
Builders should be more open about affordable housing commitments at the planning stage.
Before issuing future planning permission, local authorities will be able to take into account the speed with which a developer builds on a site. Councils will also be able to consider revoking planning permission after two years if the building has not begun.
Councils will have to adopt a new nationwide standard showing housing need in their areas.
Infrastructure will need to be considered at the pre-planning stage.
Ancient woodland and aged trees will get specific protection.
Homeowners will be able to add two storeys to existing properties.
But May’s accusation of obstruction on the part of some councils led to a strong response from the chair of the Local Government Association Gary Porter, who said:“The truth is that councils are currently approving nine in 10 planning applications, which shows that the planning system is working well and is not a barrier to building. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of planning refusals are upheld on appeal, vindicating councils’ original decisions. It is completely wrong, therefore, to suggest the country’s failure to build the housing it desperately needs is down to councils.”
Furthermore, Porter said that the government’s proposal to appoint independent inspectors where councils were considered to be blocking housing development was “unhelpful and misguided.” He also called for councils to be able to borrow to build their own houses, a proposal in line with Labour’s housing policy, and one that has been rejected by government.In response to May’s speech, shadow Housing Minister John Healey said; “This housing crisis is made in Downing Street. It’s time the Tories changed course, and backed Labour’s long-term plan to build the genuinely affordable homes.”
Revised National Planning Policy Framework
In July 2018, following the public consultation, the government published a revised NPPF. The new framework focusses on the following key areas:
Promoting high-quality design for new homes and places.
Offering stronger protection for the environment.
Constructing the right number of homes in the right places.
Focusing on greater responsibility and accountability of councils and developers for housing delivery.
The revised framework will enable councils to refuse planning permission for any development that does not prioritise design quality or adequately complement its surroundings. It will also encourage councils to adopt new visual tools to promote better design and quality.
Councils will be able to use the new ‘rulebook’ to calculate the housing need for their community and deliver more housing when it is most needed. From November 2018, a Housing Delivery Test will be available, helping to drive up the number of homes delivered in an area.In terms of the environment, the framework was updated to further protect biodiversity by more closely aligning the planning system with Defra’s 25-year Environment Plan. Not only does this plan protect habitats, it also emphasises air quality protection in relation to development proposals.
Secretary Of State
Secretary of State for Communities, Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP said; “Fundamental to building the homes our country needs is ensuring that our planning system is fit for the future. This revised planning framework sets out our vision of a planning system that delivers the homes we need. I am clear that quantity must never compromise the quality of what is built, and this is reflected in the new rules.”
However, the revised NPPF received some criticism, with the NFB chief executive Richard Beresford suggesting that; “The government has missed a golden opportunity to put this country on the road to addressing its housing crisis and solving the broken housing market.”John Acres, RTPI President, said; “…we must recognise the significant pressure the new NPPF requirements will put on local authority planning teams. It is imperative that chief executives, council leaders and politicians resource planning departments sufficiently, particularly as they will now be held more accountable for delivery under the housing delivery test and are expected to carry out more regular reviews of their plans.”
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out government planning policy for England. It was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)) on 27 March 2012 and can be downloaded from the MHCLG website.