Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Not oak, no. Main problems I have seen are willows and ash.
Oak trees are nearly as bad as willows when it comes to subsidence caused by the
water they transpire.
Really? I didn;t know that...

S'what the arborist said. Willows no closer than 2x the drip line and oaks no
closer than 1.5x.

Although the figure I've seen for willows is that if you can see them from the
house, they're too close. )

The nearest an oak should be to your house is 1.5 times
the drip line (IOW, 1.5 times the radius of the canopy).

Well lets see. the tree is 15 meters away and the foundations t th
nearest point were dug 2.5 meters deep on account of the ash and maple
trees 3 meters away..

So 10 meters is as high as it should go..and its about 3 now..and lets
say no more than 50cm a year..

so 14 years on it MAY be an issue.

Sod it. ;-)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Oak and house co-existed quite happily here
for 80 years. I was upset to have it cut down, though. I liked it a lot.


Oh dear..its gone?

Te alternative solution would have bee to go really deep and underpin.

I got an estimate of £1000 a meter for that for a project a friend was
involved in.

Its a lot, but whats a mature oak worth? Priceless if it adds character.

I used to think that underpinning was a really expensive waste of time,
but in the context of preserving old houses and trees, I rather think
that is a Damn Good Thing, and sometimes its not such a huge proportion
of the refurb cost of an old property.