Bit difficult to comment without knowing the distance of the tree from the house, or when the house was built. Generally, where there are existing buildings, no non dwarf variety of tree should be planted within a minimum distance of 40 feet of those buildings. The exception is if new buildings are going up and there is already a large tree present. Certainly, Larch is a very large tree and isn't really appropriate in gardens other than in extremely large ones, or parks, unless you've got some sort of dwarfed variety.

Trees in preservation areas can usually only be removed after the local Council has given approval, though if the roots are causing damage to properties, particularly if there are insurance claims going on, they will readily approve.

The property was build in 1900 and the tree is about 8 feet from the property. The property has communal ground which used to contain two great oaks but when they were redeveloped the developers killed them.

The garden is very large.

There is no insurance claim.

I can't find anything that condemns larches - the Kew Tree Root Survey is the thing to go by (if you can get hold of a copy)
What damage is the tree supposed to be causing? Your insurers will have asked you the question 'Is there a tree over 15m (or some other specified height) within 5m (or other specified distance). If you have told your insurers and they have given you a policy then there is no problem. And removing a mature tree can actually cause more damage more quickly than leaving it and letting 100 years of root growth approach the house.

if you want to keep the tree then I suggest you ask the 'gardener' to provide you with independent reports from a professional arboriculturalist and from a structural engineer.

PS - how old is the tree, what sort of subsoil do you have - sandy/clay/rock etc and which part of UK are you in?

My feeling is that it should never have been planted so close to the building. I wouldn't worry about the birds as there are plenty of other trees nearby. Although larches are beautiful I would worry about this one if it were mine.

Recommended distance for a Larch within a useable area of front main garden is 16 metres, not necessarily because of root damage, though its possible, but definitely because its ugly being so close, blocks light and may need constant cutting back to keep it off the walls and windows. Were it adjacent to a garage, recommended distance is 3 metres, so even that is more than your 8 feet.

I have to say it doesn't look like a wonderfully healthy specimen anyway, seems somewhat sparse. If you're in an area where Phytopthera ramorum is an issue, Larch is very susceptible to infection.

The 'recommended' distances do not apply to houses over 100 years old. They are part of the NHBC guidelines and therefore only apply to the design and construction of new build houses.

The 'gardener' has said this tree is causing damage. I would challenge them to prove that. From recollection, there are very few incidents of larches being cited as causing structural damage (and I assuming that is what the gardener is claiming) to houses. Of course I only worked in the construction industry for 30-something years, but I would take the opinion of a structural engineer on damage to a property over that of a gardener - as should the planning officer when considering whether to allow the removal of a tree in a conservation area.

My first thought would be to check with the council as to the status of the tree. Can you see any damage to the exterior walls? I would say that it is too close to the house. With many deciduous trees you can cause more problems by cutting the tree down because the house will then suffer from heave as the soil can expand where once the tree was using the moisture but I wouldn't have thought that a larch would have a large water requirement. If you can get someone to dig a narrow trench along the property then you can see if there is any root encroachment into the foundations. Any small roots could be chopped and a barrier of Rootguard could be installed at the same time. Having said, if you have a serious concern, then consult a professional as it will give you peace of mind.

Do you know why the bark has been removed from the large roots at the base of the trunk? Bark ringing is a method of killing trees.

Bamboo the tree is just starting to get its foliage so looks a bit sparse.

Urbanite we live in Epsom and the soil is predominately clay. The tree is about 12 years old.

Steragram that's just the colour of the roots the bark has not been removed.

the clay is 'London' clay - it's a couple of hundred feet thick over Epsom Common (Unlike Epsom Downs which are chalk)
I wonder why the gardener has singled out your larch as there appears to be large magnolia nearby. And I really do think you need to challenge them rather than just accept what they say. Presumably, you would be expected to pay for the cost of removing the tree, so you need to be clear on what the problem is and as you appear to want to keep the tree then you need proper evidence before you have to pay out. Might be worth having a word with the local authority tree officer to get their view on what they would ask for before agreeing to the removal. But it is not your responsibility to gather that evidence - it is the responsibility of the person claiming that there is a problem.

Personally, I would be more concerned about the ivy heading towards the air brick.