The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.

[Myster]

I was under the impression that two previous tree root-barriers had been constructed at the front and side of 2 Prospect Close as in the photos below...

[Myster]

But apparently the application was to cut three lime trees 4, 5,and 6 down on the opposite side of the house as in the submitted plan below...

[Myster]

Trees A, B, C, D and E were planted after 1986 and nothing to do do with any requirement for tree-root barriers.

Application and consent given to remove Lime tree(s) submitted in 2003.  Click on Documents (4)...

https://publicaccess.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=HMT0YFCLP3000&activeTab=summary

[Nicholas]

Knowlege doesn't equate to practical experience. Mark had been present during previous construction work at the house, even acting as a hod-carrier for his dad on occassion, but had never actually taken the lead before. His lack of practical experience is evident in the amateur workmanship evidenced in the layer of concrete. Remember that this was very different from the professional layers underneath.

When Mark arrived in November, the site appeared to have been prepared with a professional foundation, but it was clearly incomplete and remain far too deep to simply backfill. The previous two sites had been filled up to a particular height in the brickwork, and although he lacked the practical experience, he knew from this basic prior knowledge that this was what was required here too.

So which is it?

[Fact Checker]

But apparently the application was to cut three lime trees 4, 5 and 6 down on the opposite side of the house as in the submitted plan

I was under the impression that two previous tree root-barriers had been constructed at the front and side of 2 Prospect Close

That's spot on Myster. The work at the front and side of the house did not require planning permission because Sami had planted a short line of Lleylandi conifers there himself in the 1990s, just to the left of the front drive entrance and all the way up to the corner of the house. These proved to be too close once they had fully matured, so he had them removed, stump-ground, and the root-barriers installed at those two sites.

The planning application went in some years later to cut down the lime trees because those lime trees were subject to a tree preservation order. Note that he was only given permission to fell one tree, but felled all three anyway. He was also supposed to plant new, smaller trees in their place as a condition of the permission to proceed. These were never planted either.

[Fact Checker]

So which is it?

well, it's kind of like watching someone make Tiramisu on Masterchef. You know what steps the guy is taking, how high each layer of the cake is, etc. but you're not a professional chef yourself, so when it comes to you actually making the cake - it's rubbish!

[Fact Checker]

Where’s your evidence for this; Mark?

So JP is a good example. He lived opposite Sami's house for 20 years and told the police that Sami was "well known for starting jobs in the garden but never finishing... the residents were critical of Sami for the general appearance of his house, the garden was always a mess"

[Myster]

That's spot on Myster. The work at the front and side of the house did not require planning permission because Sami had planted a short line of Lleylandi conifers there himself in the 1990s, just to the left of the front drive entrance and all the way up to the corner of the house. These proved to be too close once they had fully matured, so he had them removed, stump-ground, and the root-barriers installed at those two sites.

The planning application went in some years later to cut down the lime trees because those lime trees were subject to a tree preservation order. Note that he was only given permission to fell one tree, but felled all three anyway. He was also supposed to plant new, smaller trees in their place as a condition of the permission to proceed. These were never planted either.

If the line of Leylandii was in roughly the position as indicated on the plan below, and they were felled and stump-ground, then I see no need for the construction of any root-barrier, and especially the one on the western side of the house where the boundary wall meets it.  If the builder had already dug down deep enough in both regions, then all he needed to have done was to saw off and remove any existing tree roots, then backfill with soil, whacker it or allow it to settle before carrying out any further work, such as block-paving with those Marshalls paviors stored at the front of the house.  There doesn't appear to have been any Leylandii conifers planted directly on the western side of the house adjacent to the road at all, (because there's a paving flag footpath which seems to have been present and undisturbed for years) as in the photo below... so why the need for a root barrier where that small inspection chamber / rodding point is positioned?

[Myster]

The red ticks and crosses mark the trees which have been retained or felled... if I'm right?

[Nicholas]

Mark helped his father with various jobs over the years, in which Sami had gradually allocated him increased roles of responsibility. One landscape gardener for example described how, "Sami would organise for me to come when Mark was there to let me in".

Mark had previously supervised the installation of the rear-drive gate (inbetween the brick pillars) in Sami's absence. This would have been about October 2008. He regularly mowed the back garden lawn, and had previously coated the newly installed fences seen bordering the front drive with wood treatment.

These discussions had already taken place in the summer of 2009. Mark had been instructed to place the order once preparations on the site were complete.

Sami's instructions to Mark were clear and wouldn't have required clarification. Mark took the initiative to press on with works in his father's absence to avoid further delays accumulating and the job laying unfinished for another year.

Remember, this was the third site of its kind. Mark had knowledge of what was required and the steps involved in the first two sites, so applied this understanding to the final one.

Sami had made the planning application to fell the trees several years previously and, as was his habit with most jobs, progress had been slow. Construction sites dotted around the house often lay incomplete for years. It is likely that Sami had discussed his plans with contractors in his employ. We know for example that his landscape gardener, AH, knew about the site and something of Sami's intentions.

The above appears contradictory and another opportunity to attempt to portray Sami in a poor light?

Why didn’t Mark finish the other jobs? Have you not questioned him why he clearly seemed in a hurry to back fill the hole?

[Fact Checker]

If the line of Leylandii was in roughly the position as indicated on the plan below, and they were felled and stump-ground, then I see no need for the construction of any root-barrier

Sami's rationale for the two root-barrier sites is unclear. We can see from his exchanges with the surveyor in the 2003 planning application that he had his own ideas about what was necessary and didn't take much notice of professional opinion. It seems that he took far more precautions in this regard, and more steps, than would strictly be required in this kind of situation, but that's just how he wanted to do things.

[Myster]

So trees A and B were both felled, these were very large trees not the small golden one that still survives in the back garden. E was probably a third silver birch which seems to have gone too.

Sami's rationale for the two root-barrier sites is unclear. We can see from his exchanges with the surveyor in the 2003 planning application that he had his own ideas about what was necessary and didn't take much notice of professional opinion. It seems that he took far more precautions in this regard, and more steps, than would strictly be required in this kind of situation, but that's just how he wanted to do things.

I don't believe tree A was felled.  I think it's still the existing conifer (possibly pruned and / or topped occasionally) which Sami indicated on his application form.  Why cut down one tree and replace it with a similar one in the same spot... it makes no sense.




Similarly if tree B, previously growing within the curved boundary wall area, was as large as you say and if its roots were affecting the house wall, then a root barrier would more likely to have been positioned near to the terracotta pots here...




... instead of on the other side of the boundary wall here...



Sami was a knowledgeable intelligent man obviously, so I can't see him wanting to create a root barrier where there were no trees, or the trees had already been felled and stump ground.  My own opininion is that the two areas of concrete (what looks like a dry mix of cement and all-in-one aggregate from the part-used bag at the house front) are simply shallow bases for flags or block paving, rather than deep root barriers.  Both are located under windows and would form a hard surface to stand on instead of grass for anyone cleaning them.

[Myster]

Tree A in the same position as on Sami's submitted plan...

[Fact Checker]

Sami was a knowledgeable intelligent man obviously, so I can't see him wanting to create a root barrier where there were no trees, or the trees had already been felled and stump ground.  My own opininion is that the two areas of concrete (what looks like a dry mix of cement and all-in-one aggregate from the part-used bag at the house front) are simply shallow bases for flags or block paving, rather than deep root barriers.  Both are located under windows and would form a hard surface to stand on instead of grass for anyone cleaning them.

It would seem odd for Sami to install paving to clean some windows and not others, so this theory doesn't quite work. Otherwise, we think you're right here. We realised that the plans only mark trees which were subject to a preservation order. There are trees and conifers which aren't subject to such an order and which therefore don't appear on the plans.

Sami has marked "five new trees" which were "introduced on the site since 1986" A through to E.

These trees were felled: T4 (Ash), 6 (Lime), 5 (Lime)
Of the new trees Sami planted himself, he subsequently removed B and E.

Mark only recalls being present and witnessing the work conducted on the site at the front of the house. He is confident that this was a root-barrier. We could dig exploratory trenches / use ground survey equipment next to both sites to confirm the depths, and test our assumptions, but this probably wouldn't have significant enough bearing on the case to justify disturbing the current owners or indeed the cost of such work.

[Myster]

It would seem odd for Sami to install paving to clean some windows and not others, so this theory doesn't quite work. Otherwise, we think you're right here. We realised that the plans only mark trees which were subject to a preservation order. There are trees and conifers which aren't subject to such an order and which therefore don't appear on the plans.  It appears that Sami bought an extra triangular-shaped area of land to the NW containing a long line of conifers, many of which have since been felled and shredded by the present owner according to one photo I've seen but which I can't find now.
Sami has marked "five new trees" which were "introduced on the site since 1986" A through to E.
These trees were felled: T4 (Ash), 6 (Lime), 5 (Lime)   T4 (Ash)?... but that tree wasn't on Sami's property and nowhere near the garage, according to the TPO plan of the former BT Training Centre.  Don't you mean G4 (Lime)  See attached pdf.
Of the new trees Sami planted himself, he subsequently removed B and E.Mark only recalls being present and witnessing the work conducted on the site at the front of the house. He is confident that this was a root-barrier. We could dig exploratory trenches / use ground survey equipment next to both sites to confirm the depths, and test our assumptions, but this probably wouldn't have significant enough bearing on the case to justify disturbing the current owners or indeed the cost of such work.  I think the present owners would be horrified at any proposed excavation, in case you found something you weren't meant to.  That small Hepworth inspection chamber is raised about 3 or 4 inches above the level of the weak concrete base, which suggests that either concrete flags or those Marshalls paviors were meant to be laid on top, presumably by the landscape contractor who never finished the job.  Maybe if you tried to contacted him, he would enlighten you whether they were root barriers or not.  Marshalls or the builders' merchant who supplied those paviors should have a past record of who ordered them, which is normally the person who is doing the work, not the client.