In a recent feature with Construction News, Sarah Dodd, founder of Tree Law, shares her perspective on the realities of subsidence cases, exploring the legal context that sits alongside structural solutions once liability has been accepted and remediation is underway.
Sarah Dodd is the founder and chief executive of legal firm Tree Law
Subsidence work rarely arrives clean. By the time a contractor is involved, the argument has usually been half-fought already. The insurer has accepted liability; the tree is staying; and a substructure solution is needed. The question is no longer whether the building needs stabilising, but how.
This is the point where construction decisions quietly lock in long-term consequences that shape the future in many ways. Yet too often, the choice of solution is driven less by evidence than by familiarity. Underpinning feels safe – it is known, insurable and easy to explain. Resin injection and root barriers are treated as secondary options, even when they may be quicker, less disruptive and more appropriate to the site.
Contractors recognise this pattern. They’re working in a situation where programmes are tight and margins are thinner than ever. Nobody wants a method statement challenged halfway through a job. So the default option wins, even when it is not the best one.
What is changing is the context around these decisions. Subsidence is no longer an occasional technical problem; it is increasing in frequency and severity in parts of the UK, driven by hotter, drier conditions as a result of climate change. At the same time, insurers are under pressure to demonstrate that claims are being resolved in a way that is proportionate and defensible. Councils are under pressure to retain trees in their local area. Clued-up neighbours are quicker to object. And disruption is less tolerated. Every intervention now carries more scrutiny.
For contractors, this matters because the work sits at the faultline between engineering judgement and legal accountability. Once a scheme is on site, the contractor becomes the visible decision-maker, even if the choice was shaped elsewhere. When something is challenged later, it is the construction solution that is examined first.
The uncomfortable truth is that we still lack a consistent way to compare substructure options beyond cost and programme. Carbon is talked about widely in construction but rarely applied to subsidence repairs in a meaningful and measurable way. When it is mentioned, it is often used loosely, with sweeping statements about engineering being carbon-heavy and tree removal being greener. Those statements are rarely backed by figures, and contractors are expected to work within them regardless.
That is a problem. No two subsidence jobs are the same. Ground conditions, buildings and trees all vary. The carbon impact of underpinning a small section of foundation is not the same as underpinning an entire elevation. Resin injection is not carbon neutral, but it is also not automatically worse. Root barriers sit somewhere else again. Without a way to compare them properly, decisions default to habit.
Evidence to underpin choice
This is where carbon becomes a practical tool, not a moral one. When the carbon footprint of different repair options can be measured and set out alongside cost, disruption and risk, contractors gain something they rarely have in these jobs: evidence they can use when reporting to insurers, engineers or clients. It’s a way to explain why a less intrusive solution is not a gamble, but a reasoned choice.
You can view the Construction News article here:
