Root of the problem

Published: 28 April, 2011

• I AM puzzled by the suggestion that Islington Council is somehow liable for movement damage to a house in Richmond Avenue, Barnsbury, which may have been caused by plane trees growing in the pavement near the house (Street fights to save its ‘wonderful’ trees, April 22).

It is by no means certain the trees are the cause of damage. Presumably, these trees are in the same relationship to houses as all the other trees in the street, and presumably the tree was there when the house was bought, so its presence and continued growing activity should not therefore have come as too much of a surprise.  

Even if the trees are the cause of damage, the damage is now done and there is a good possibility that chopping down the trees will not stop movement in the house, almost certainly built on clay which is liable to heave. The owners will almost certainly end up having to underpin their house anyway. 

Whether or not the trees are the cause of the damage, to argue that the council is liable for this damage implies that it has somehow been negligent. 

I cannot see in what way the council could have been negligent, since it is very diligent and professional in maintaining its very valuable stock of street trees. If we were to chop down every tree that might possibly one day cause damage to someone’s house there would be no trees left in any of our streets.

This dispute is not about trees: it’s about risk, and it’s about money – the cost to the homeowner of underpinning the house, which is what they are trying to avoid. 

At the end of the day, if you choose to live near a beautiful big tree there is a risk it will cause damage to your house, but whose risk should that be? I would suggest that the risk is the home-owner’s, along with all the other risks that one considers when deciding to buy a house.

CLLR MARTIN KLUTE
Labour, St Peters ward