Family forced to leave their home for a £200k repair (From Echo)

This is not news. As sympathetic as I am to the situation (I too was moved out by insurers for 6 months due to tree root subsidence repairs), there is no quick solution. Even if the trees were felled tomorrow, the shrinkage of the dead roots under the property would cause a secondary set of problems, possibly heave. The damage has been done, they are being moved out to repair it - how would the instant removal of the trees remove the need to repair the damage?

Southend Council would know that to avoid problems with trees they need to be maintained properly. As the house was built after the trees were there why did the council approve the building of the house? Why did the Council not maintain the trees properly.? In a road near where I live they have cut down oak trees and pollarded others. Not replacing them either with anything.Trees have been felled and replaced with new small ones along some roads too.Agreed felling these trees would probably have caused heave but the problem should have been sorted much earlier. In the light of the amount of money that the council are having to pay out it would be common sense to find a solution to this type of problem in the first instance.

I wonder how long Mr Martin has owned the property and whether he had a survey done at time of purchase.

For once i agree with a council...leave the trees be.

Amazing that the trees are to remain, I thought Southend was anti-tree (other than Anna's sick palms on the seafront). Look at how many have been felled and replaced with concrete over the last few years.

saarfender wrote:
Amazing that the trees are to remain, I thought Southend was anti-tree (other than Anna's sick palms on the seafront). Look at how many have been felled and replaced with concrete over the last few years.

If you could be botherd to check you would know that there is a two for one policy, for every one tree cut down two are planted.

jolllyboy wrote:
Southend Council would know that to avoid problems with trees they need to be maintained properly. As the house was built after the trees were there why did the council approve the building of the house? Why did the Council not maintain the trees properly.? In a road near where I live they have cut down oak trees and pollarded others. Not replacing them either with anything.Trees have been felled and replaced with new small ones along some roads too.Agreed felling these trees would probably have caused heave but the problem should have been sorted much earlier. In the light of the amount of money that the council are having to pay out it would be common sense to find a solution to this type of problem in the first instance.

Its NOT the same council there have been dozens of elections since, so how you can level the fault at the Council is crazy.


Currently I am stuck on the road side in a knackerd 7.5ton truck a few miles from Genoa on route to Gioia Tauro.

Been here three hours waiting the pick up truck, no loo out of food and only water to drink.

Max Impact wrote:

jolllyboy wrote:
Southend Council would know that to avoid problems with trees they need to be maintained properly. As the house was built after the trees were there why did the council approve the building of the house? Why did the Council not maintain the trees properly.? In a road near where I live they have cut down oak trees and pollarded others. Not replacing them either with anything.Trees have been felled and replaced with new small ones along some roads too.Agreed felling these trees would probably have caused heave but the problem should have been sorted much earlier. In the light of the amount of money that the council are having to pay out it would be common sense to find a solution to this type of problem in the first instance.

Its NOT the same council there have been dozens of elections since, so how you can level the fault at the Council is crazy.


Currently I am stuck on the road side in a knackerd 7.5ton truck a few miles from Genoa on route to Gioia Tauro.

Been here three hours waiting the pick up truck, no loo out of food and only water to drink.

Tell it to your blog or those who give a....

E-Types... wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

jolllyboy wrote: Southend Council would know that to avoid problems with trees they need to be maintained properly. As the house was built after the trees were there why did the council approve the building of the house? Why did the Council not maintain the trees properly.? In a road near where I live they have cut down oak trees and pollarded others. Not replacing them either with anything.Trees have been felled and replaced with new small ones along some roads too.Agreed felling these trees would probably have caused heave but the problem should have been sorted much earlier. In the light of the amount of money that the council are having to pay out it would be common sense to find a solution to this type of problem in the first instance.

Its NOT the same council there have been dozens of elections since, so how you can level the fault at the Council is crazy. Currently I am stuck on the road side in a knackerd 7.5ton truck a few miles from Genoa on route to Gioia Tauro. Been here three hours waiting the pick up truck, no loo out of food and only water to drink.

Tell it to your blog or those who give a....

Don't run a blog, not enough time, well at present I have as this truck is not going anywhere could you point me to where I could start one please.

and by the way I was stating FACT do you beleve in stating fact or not? or are you one of these people that think you should lay the fault with the current, people who had nothing to do with things that happened in the past, if the latter it's your fault my truck is stuck by the road side, I know you had nothing to do with it but hay lets all blame somrbody that had nothing to do with it, whilst we are at it I blame everyone who reads this for reading it.

Max Impact wrote:

saarfender wrote:
Amazing that the trees are to remain, I thought Southend was anti-tree (other than Anna's sick palms on the seafront). Look at how many have been felled and replaced with concrete over the last few years.

If you could be botherd to check you would know that there is a two for one policy, for every one tree cut down two are planted.

What is preferable? One beautiful mature tree that has taken decades to grow, or two young immature saplings that soon die thanks to lack of care and the transplanting process?

Policy is one thing, reality is another.

Two as they don't all die and when they grow you will ahve two big trees instead of one nearing the end of it's life.

are you a spokes person for the Southend Tree Huggers?

Not a spokesperson at all. Just somebody who's been getting really fed up with how Southend has been turned more and more into a concrete jungle and really gone downhill.

Absolutely amazed recently looking at some "old" photos (if you can call the 1980's old!), searching more off the back of that, and comparing how pleasant Southend looked from the oldest 1800's through to around the '80s. Remember the old raised flower beds in the high street? Everything gone now, and replaced with concrete, paving, and sterile features that's really look dated quickly.

As for the 2-4-1 tree policy, I loved this comparison.

Victoria gateway as per artist impression.
http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/4848786.
__7million_plan_to_c
hange_the_face_of_So
uthend_town_centre/
(count the trees)

Victoria Gateway as per photograph of what got built.
http://www.flickr.co
m/photos/fred_bear/5
591924371/lightbox/

Significantly fewer trees, and constrained in paving so they'll never grow to the size and maturity of the ones they have replaced.

saarfender wrote:
As for the 2-4-1 tree policy, I loved this comparison.

Victoria gateway as per artist impression.
http://www.echo-news

.co.uk/news/4848786.

__7million_plan_to_c

hange_the_face_of_So

uthend_town_centre/
(count the trees)

Victoria Gateway as per photograph of what got built.
http://www.flickr.co

m/photos/fred_bear/5

591924371/lightbox/

Significantly fewer trees, and constrained in paving so they'll never grow to the size and maturity of the ones they have replaced.

If you botherd to check the facts on the 2-4-1 policy you would know that whilst the trees are replaced 2-4-1 they will not always be in the same immediate area.

Finally been recoved from the roadside now in a hotel, that actually let me leave the van in the car park one side of the van is a Maserati GranCabrio Sport, the other side a DB9, wounder if I could wrangle a swap for one of them...

Never said anything about the 2-4-1 policy being on same site, after all aren't there more trees in total at Victoria gateway now than before? Clear opportunity there for me to be shot down ;)

Main gripe is the removal of mature trees & grass in order to replace them with tiny saplings and sterile concrete. It's ruining the town and making it a much less attractive place.


Without wanting to stir up the old Vic Circus debate again, when I recall walking through the grassy banks that were where the cinema is now and looking back at the green roundabout/trees; and compare it to today's paved wind tunnel....

the 2 trees do appear to be spilling onto the boundary of his property and i'm sure the overhang plus light issue and leaf drop is a nightmare. the original architects however were at fault. looks like a '70s chalet monstrosity to me and those trees are clearly much older.

Rich -boy ,big house ,flash car...standard developer.
Get your own company to move the house back a few yards.

Rich -boy ,big house ,flash car...standard developer.
Get your own company to move the house back a few yards.

He should only have a claim against the builders.

No doubt he will come out of this making a profit ?

Hmm. Not a rare situation unfortunately. Speaking more generally, someone builds a house adjacent to ancient trees, that are a feature of and an amenity for the area. They don't build it with adequate foundations (and/or just too close to the trees), then a number of years later they whine that the trees are damaging their house (or their insurers do it for them!) and say (sometimes demand) that the trees should be cut down.
If you don't want to live next to a tree - don't buy a house next to one.
If you really must build close to a tree - build with adequate foundations.
But just leave our trees alone!
It seems that people with more money than sense of social responsibility are ruining our environment.

saarfender wrote:
Never said anything about the 2-4-1 policy being on same site, after all aren't there more trees in total at Victoria gateway now than before? Clear opportunity there for me to be shot down ;)

Main gripe is the removal of mature trees & grass in order to replace them with tiny saplings and sterile concrete. It's ruining the town and making it a much less attractive place.


Without wanting to stir up the old Vic Circus debate again, when I recall walking through the grassy banks that were where the cinema is now and looking back at the green roundabout/trees; and compare it to today's paved wind tunnel....

Yes, I recall how the grassy banks where the cinema now stands being full of office workers and/or shoppers sitting in the sun on summer days. Destroyed now, of course. But I guess that's profit, sorry I meant progress.
Well done southend council.
Regards,
Smiffy22

smiffy22 wrote:

saarfender wrote: Never said anything about the 2-4-1 policy being on same site, after all aren't there more trees in total at Victoria gateway now than before? Clear opportunity there for me to be shot down ;) Main gripe is the removal of mature trees & grass in order to replace them with tiny saplings and sterile concrete. It's ruining the town and making it a much less attractive place. Without wanting to stir up the old Vic Circus debate again, when I recall walking through the grassy banks that were where the cinema is now and looking back at the green roundabout/trees; and compare it to today's paved wind tunnel....

Yes, I recall how the grassy banks where the cinema now stands being full of office workers and/or shoppers sitting in the sun on summer days. Destroyed now, of course. But I guess that's profit, sorry I meant progress. Well done southend council. Regards, Smiffy22

The odeon Multi-plex opened in November 1996 how many of the current council sitting now were sitting then?

Suppose it is the current council's fault for the sky being blue and the grass green...

smiffy22 wrote:
Hmm. Not a rare situation unfortunately. Speaking more generally, someone builds a house adjacent to ancient trees, that are a feature of and an amenity for the area. They don't build it with adequate foundations (and/or just too close to the trees), then a number of years later they whine that the trees are damaging their house (or their insurers do it for them!) and say (sometimes demand) that the trees should be cut down.
If you don't want to live next to a tree - don't buy a house next to one.
If you really must build close to a tree - build with adequate foundations.
But just leave our trees alone!
It seems that people with more money than sense of social responsibility are ruining our environment.

agree somewhat but sbc will fight everything tree related whether they have a leg to stand on or not. i have first hand experience and they had no leg to stand on. funnily enough the amenity value (which is completely unmeasurable) card was used in my case too. in this particular case you will find that sbc settle with the insurer's crack lawyers out of court so amenity is ultimately measured in quantity and value of out of court settlements the council make and you can bet your life it's significant

Max Impact wrote:

smiffy22 wrote:

saarfender wrote: Never said anything about the 2-4-1 policy being on same site, after all aren't there more trees in total at Victoria gateway now than before? Clear opportunity there for me to be shot down ;) Main gripe is the removal of mature trees & grass in order to replace them with tiny saplings and sterile concrete. It's ruining the town and making it a much less attractive place. Without wanting to stir up the old Vic Circus debate again, when I recall walking through the grassy banks that were where the cinema is now and looking back at the green roundabout/trees; and compare it to today's paved wind tunnel....

Yes, I recall how the grassy banks where the cinema now stands being full of office workers and/or shoppers sitting in the sun on summer days. Destroyed now, of course. But I guess that's profit, sorry I meant progress. Well done southend council. Regards, Smiffy22

The odeon Multi-plex opened in November 1996 how many of the current council sitting now were sitting then?

Suppose it is the current council's fault for the sky being blue and the grass green...

What a bizarre and pointless comment! I don't really care who worked in Southend council then or now, I was of course whingeing about the council in general, not the specific people involved. I expect the same decisions would be made anyway if the matter arose now.
Regards,
Smiffy22

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

smiffy22 wrote:
Hmm. Not a rare situation unfortunately. Speaking more generally, someone builds a house adjacent to ancient trees, that are a feature of and an amenity for the area. They don't build it with adequate foundations (and/or just too close to the trees), then a number of years later they whine that the trees are damaging their house (or their insurers do it for them!) and say (sometimes demand) that the trees should be cut down.
If you don't want to live next to a tree - don't buy a house next to one.
If you really must build close to a tree - build with adequate foundations.
But just leave our trees alone!
It seems that people with more money than sense of social responsibility are ruining our environment.

agree somewhat but sbc will fight everything tree related whether they have a leg to stand on or not. i have first hand experience and they had no leg to stand on. funnily enough the amenity value (which is completely unmeasurable) card was used in my case too. in this particular case you will find that sbc settle with the insurer's crack lawyers out of court so amenity is ultimately measured in quantity and value of out of court settlements the council make and you can bet your life it's significant

I expect you are right. It's all rather sad really. Certain individuals, and lots of law firms, make pots of money or get unwarranted advantage, and it's the poor taxpayers and local residents that foot the bill or simply lose part of the environment. The legal system definitely needs a shake-up in favour of other than those with the deepest pockets or with "friends" in the right lodge.
Regards,
Smiffy22