Browse Forums Building Standards; Getting It Right! 1 Apr 25, 2015 12:38 pm ..prior to a build commencing. When I was in the final plans stage, the csc at Clarendon advised that a tree on one side of us would have to be removed by the other lot owner before they could build but our trees would be ok. They also mentioned that there was another tree on the other side of us that would most likely need removing by the other lot owner prior to their building commencement. The lot owner on the first side has done the removal but still no slab poured but the second lot owner has not removed the tree and had slab poured. Would this be because an engineer determined the tree would be safe to leave? The tree in question is younger than all other trees in the area but still around 15 to 20 metres high. It leans over the top of our land, ending up completely over our roof by the top of the tree. It's concerning because the tree is leaning over from the ground level. The other thing is that it is less than 2m from the edge of their slab. I was under the impression that if the tree was within a certain distance of the slab, it needed to be removed prior to build commencement..? I tried googling to try and find council rules on this kind of thing but all I could find was stuff about applying for tree removal in a vegetation protection area. I've included some pictures to show how much it leans and how close it is to the other owner's slab. Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ Paddington 29 @ Blue Horizon Estate (Lot 105, Wattleridge Crescent, North Kellyville) Our Build Progress Blog: http://light487.wordpress.com/ Re: Tree Required to be removed... 2Apr 25, 2015 3:47 pm Wow that is a very leaning tree. Yes we were told that tree roots can spread as long as they are tall so if it was 15metres tall it needed to be at least 15 metres from the house and if it wasn't then it needed to be removed. But I'm not sure if this is a council rule or just a building rule to build a good house. viewtopic.php?t=76386 Re: Tree Required to be removed... 3Apr 25, 2015 4:04 pm Well I've sent the same questions and pictures to Clarendon to clarify with them.. but if someone does know either where I might find (or search term for google/council website) to build code requirements for this stuff, or is knowledgeable of the requirements etc I'd appreciate it. Shanniidc - this was what I thought too... but there is the tree.. the trees at the back of our lot are 10m away, which is apparently ok.. but the one on that owner's lot is less than 2m from their slab.. but simply looks unsafe too. Paddington 29 @ Blue Horizon Estate (Lot 105, Wattleridge Crescent, North Kellyville) Our Build Progress Blog: http://light487.wordpress.com/ Re: Tree Required to be removed... 4Apr 26, 2015 12:52 am I would be interested to know your answers when you get some as our neighbour has a tall tree as well with a slight lean towards our place which has always made me nervous since removing all the trees from our block and I've been waiting for our builder to say something about it needing to be removed but nothing has been said. And I find myself noticing it all the time now with people's houses having large trees so near them. A friend of mine who lives in a townhouse recently had a lot of trees removed from near their places as the roots were causing damage to the foundations. These trees were right next to their buildings though. viewtopic.php?t=76386 Re: Tree Required to be removed... 5Apr 27, 2015 9:33 am Building issues aside, The neighbour is obligated to remove the tree at his cost becuase of the encroachment onto your land for starters. Yes trees are not allowed within a certain distance of a slab. If that is a house slab a few metres next to tree in your last pic, someone has not done their job properly. It's utter stupidity to leave it there. Re: Tree Required to be removed... 6Apr 28, 2015 11:09 am Good luck with that qebtel. It comes down to the council in question. Some are very hands on and have a good commonsense approach but others like ours will only let you remove a tree after a comprehensive arborists report and/or Geotech report as well. No matter how much it looks to have a good lean on or otherwise. I've seen some trees that owners have applied to have removed that have been knocked back and they have been really big gums only a few metres from a house. The main stipulation seems to be whether they are causing structural problems or not. I'd get an arborist in for a quick chat and see what they'd recommend. Stewie Re: Tree Required to be removed... 7Apr 28, 2015 11:38 am Thanks.. Clarendon is looking into it.. there were other similar trees removed by other nearby lot owners for the reason of "closeness" to slab.. and my Clarendon CSC is looking into it.. I'll wait to see what they say first.. and then determine my next course of action. Paddington 29 @ Blue Horizon Estate (Lot 105, Wattleridge Crescent, North Kellyville) Our Build Progress Blog: http://light487.wordpress.com/ Re: Tree Required to be removed... 8Apr 29, 2015 11:11 am Stewie D Good luck with that qebtel. It comes down to the council in question. Some are very hands on and have a good commonsense approach but others like ours will only let you remove a tree after a comprehensive arborists report and/or Geotech report as well. No matter how much it looks to have a good lean on or otherwise. I've seen some trees that owners have applied to have removed that have been knocked back and they have been really big gums only a few metres from a house. The main stipulation seems to be whether they are causing structural problems or not. I'd get an arborist in for a quick chat and see what they'd recommend. Stewie Things must be grim in NSW . the Dividing Fences Act in Qld specifically caters for this, ie you must remove overhang. Dont wish to comply? Lop it off anyway, throw it back over neighbours place. Done. Building rules her disallow large trees within a certain distance of a new build. And not every council has an interest in trees. Re: Tree Required to be removed... 9Apr 29, 2015 9:31 pm Kind of. On one hand they are keeping our suburbs around here a lot greener than a lot of other places I see hence the moniker that crops up every now and again " The Leafy North Shore " and the councils are to be commended for it. On the other hand the councils make it extremely hard to remove a tree unless you go through all the right channels and even then it is usually AFTER the tree has caused big problems either by invasion by roots that lift slabs and footings or dropping a massive branch straight through your house/garage/deck etc. In this case I think as you say a bit of commonsense would go a long way. Stewie Re: Tree Required to be removed... 10May 01, 2015 2:45 pm Stewie D In this case I think as you say a bit of commonsense would go a long way. Stewie Wel common sense would be to limit the height of trees in dense suburbs, to avoid all these issues, as I recall we have clashed over this before though. I live on acreage and even out here, tall trees (gums) are nothing but a flipping nuisance. 4 metre high shrubs everywhere would be just fine. Re: Tree Required to be removed... 11May 08, 2015 12:46 pm So the tree is being removed. From the information I got from my SS, the tree should never have been allowed to pass final plans and CDC approval stage. There's just no way the tree was safe enough to have been allowed to stay etc. They got a tree person out to look at it and they agreed with everyone else's assessment that it had to go. As it's on the neighbour's land, it will be at their expense to remove it. A good result. Glad I said something. Paddington 29 @ Blue Horizon Estate (Lot 105, Wattleridge Crescent, North Kellyville) Our Build Progress Blog: http://light487.wordpress.com/ Re: Tree Required to be removed... 12May 27, 2015 6:01 pm Hi light487, Make certain your soil report writer knows about this and also your structural engineer. Most people think of potential settlement, but there is something called heave also which must be considered... at least according to the Building Code of Australia. Good luck. As trees go it does not look as significant as many I've come across. Hi , I'm currently going through this now within the Whitehorse council which has a similar set of restrictions. We're having to make compromises with our floor plan due… 3 30576 I know foam has been around since the 90's and CSR started manufacturing Hebel in 1989, so it's definitely possible 5 5405 |