I wonder if this article (published in a number of places last week) throws any light on what is really happening? QUOTEFor the chop Insurance claims against councils because of subsidence caused by trees is leading to a root and branch clearout. Jack Shamash reports on the threatened demise of our leafy streets Wednesday June 22, 2005The Guardian Outside Ron Tabor's house in Palmers Green, north London, there is a long line of leafy plane trees, most of which date back 100 years. But a strategy laid out by Enfield council means all could be removed.Because of problems with insurance, trees in urban areas are under threat as never before. According to insurers, those close to buildings must be removed to avoid claims for subsidence. As a result, some councils are considering cutting down thousands of mature trees.It is a prospect that has enraged local people. Tabor, who helped form a forum to save the trees, explains: "I moved here because I like living in a treelined road with two parks close by. The council wanted to destroy these beautiful trees as if they were pests."Two years ago, Enfield issued a tree strategy - under which all mature trees would be removed over a 15-year period - because the council objected to paying £200,000 a year in subsidence claims. It was only after public protest that it agreed to reconsider and draw up a new strategy, under which any large trees that appear to be causing problems, or that have "reached the end of their useful life", will be cut down and replaced by smaller, ornamental trees. Many people believe that, under this strategy, local streets can expect eventually to lose many of their distinctive lime and plane trees.Other councils are following suit. In March, Ealing council, in west London, proposed to remove up to 4,500 lime trees because they cost some £400,000 annually to maintain and insure.Havering council, east London, is also proposing to remove trees. As well as trees that might lead to subsidence, it wants to remove trees whose fruit could make footpaths slippery and lead to potential accident claims.Many councils are self-insuring, paying claims from a special fund reserved for this purpose. Others are insured through major firms, of which Zurich claims to be the largest. As well as providing municipal insurance to local authorities, Zurich is also a major homes insurer.In May, Zurich highlighted the problem of subsidence. It said trees were one of the main causes of subsidence, because they draw water out of the soil and advised that oaks and elms should not be placed closer than 30 metres from any property.This sort of advice adds to the pressure on local authorities to fell. In addition to insurance costs, there are other expenses: fallen leaves have to be swept; the canopy has to be trimmed to avoid interference with vehicles and to prevent excessive spread of the roots; and paving stones have to be replaced as roots shift.Many councils feel it is cheaper simply to remove the large trees and replace them with smaller, ornamental trees. Removing a tree from a suburban location costs around £2,500. The cost of planting a replacement ornamental tree and maintaining it for three years is around £500. This means that, for a one-off cost of around £3,000, councils believe they can save a small fortune in ongoing maintenance and insurance.Steve Fuller, chair of the London Tree Officers Association (LTOA), whose members are predominately council employees, says: "Before the drought of 1976, we never had a claim against a tree. Now they are common." He points out that many cases of subsidence have nothing to do with trees and are simply the result of periodic drought, global warming, the collapse of ageing sewers and the shallow foundations of most of Britain's Victorian and Edwardian homes.In 2001, Westminster council was forced to pay out because of subsidence caused by a single tree. After 14 years of legal wrangling, the case cost Westminster more than £1m. According to the LTOA, the legal complexity of cases has led to councils capitulating to insurance companies.Insurers usually dig a hole next to the site of any subsidence, explains Fuller. If the roots of a tree can be found under the area, insurers will often seek damages from the council that owns an adjacent tree. "Some local authorities are paying out and removing a tree because it's cheaper than fighting a claim."Nick Eden, director of the Arboricultural Association for tree surgeons, says that guidance given by firms such as Zurich is too general. "If you want to assess whether a tree is a potential problem, you have to look at the type of soil and the depth of foundations."He says insurers often threaten to remove cover if property owners fail to remove trees that are close to buildings. A Zurich spokesperson says that the company would not necessarily insist that trees should be removed, and that each case would be dealt with on its merits.Public pressure may yet save larger and more attractive trees. After vociferous protests, Ealing has decided to retain its lime trees. Several major organisations have come to the defence of trees. The publication, Trees Matter, which is supported by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, suggests that mature trees improve the climate, give people healthier lives, increase property values, promote wildlife and create a sense of local identity.In September, the Arboricultural Association will spend a day of its annual conference discussing subsidence. Representatives of the insurance industry will be in attendance. The LTOA is producing a report on subsidence, and the National Urban Forestry - a charitable organisation "to raise awareness of the positive contribution that trees make to the quality of life in towns" - will be holding a conference on the value of trees in July.For councils, squeezed between public demands and budgetary constraints, these issues will not go away.QUOTE
David Johnson ● 7244d