Creating Harmony Between the Built and Natural Environments When Solving Subsidence

It is estimated that domestic subsidence claims over the last decade have cost the insurance industry between £140-400 million annually, with many of these claims resulting from tree-related subsidence caused when tree roots and vegetation extract moisture from shrinkable clay soils, leading to structural damage.

In these situations, removing the tree can often appear to be the simplest solution, but this should be avoided, and insurers can play a key part in ensuring that this isn’t the first option. Freya Chapman, Residential Lead at ground engineering specialist Mainmark, explains how insurers can triage tree-related subsidence in a low impact way.

An insurer’s role

When it comes to creating harmony between the built and natural environments, treating tree-related subsidence without harming the tree must be a priority for insurers. People value trees for their emotive nature and crucial role in factors like environmental health and social well-being. Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) can be put on trees due to their ecological or historical value, meaning they are protected by law.

Additionally, under Section 115 of the Environmental Act 2021, local authorities are required to consult members of the public before felling a tree on an urban street. The duty aims to address the public’s concern about tree removals and reduce the cases where they are uprooted.

Social media is also helping to preserve trees, providing a platform for many to share information around protests, enabling many to be more aware of the situation outside of their local area.

Environmental considerations

Insurers play an instrumental role in balancing environmental concerns with property needs by encouraging best practices. Once a claim is made, insurers typically work with arborists and structural engineers to assess the extent of the damage and prescribe necessary remedial action. During this process a trial pit and borehole with root analysis is conducted. If roots are found under a building’s foundation, monitoring of the structure will be needed to apply to the local authority for tree removal or reduction.

They can also contribute to preventative measures to limit claim frequency through public education by informing property owners about the risk and encouraging them to manage trees responsibly – including selection of appropriate tree species and location in relation to the building.

What needs to change?

Mainmark believes that in order to actively reduce the number of cases where trees are uprooted and removed, insurers need to speed up the claims process.

The standard claims process is to monitor the subsidence over a period of time through a series of visual inspections, crack and level monitoring, site surveys and, in some cases, in-situ assessments to test soil samples. However, conditions can change quickly when vegetation is involved, and the monitoring process can take upwards of 12 months. The longer the issue is left untreated the more the roots continue to grow and cause further damage to the building, creating a potentially stronger case for tree removal.

Under the Financial Conduct Authority guidelines insurers must provide a response within a reasonable time frame, typically 8 weeks. To comply with or exceed such regulations, Mainmark recommends eliminating the need for multiple site visits and prolonging the monitoring process by specifying the issue and solution at the initial site inspection. Remote sensing technology can be used to quickly assess potential subsidence risks and detect early signs of soil movement or structural changes, allowing for a quicker response and mitigation of the issue before the subsidence becomes severe.

As an insurer or loss adjuster, having a ‘go-to’ set of approved suppliers who are familiar with your procedures could really help speed things along too – ensuring that repairs and mitigation efforts are completed at a consistent and high standard. This in turn can help residents and building owners obtain a resolution to their subsidence efficiently, assisting in evaluating the severity of the problem and limiting the costs of ongoing claims.

Adopting a customer-centric, long-term perspective for subsidence claims is also important for not only creating harmony but also reducing the likelihood of future claims. Mainmark recommend insurers look beyond the idea of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution, instead providing case specific, long-lasting resolutions such as soil moisture management to address the underlying causes of subsidence. In most cases removing the tree is a short-term solution that not only potentially destabilises the affected building further but can also impact the surrounding eco system too.