arboricultural report · an updated survey, with reference to the current nhbc standards chapter...

Arboricultural Report

in Relation to Appeal Against Refusal of Planning Application

Number 3/2016/1192 for Outline Residential Development of

50 Units Including Reserved Matters for Access at

Hammond Ground, Whalley Road,

Read, Lancashire, BB12 7RP

Prepared by:

June 2018

ARBORICULTURAL REPORT

HAMMOND GROUND, READ

CONTENTS Page

1.0 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 TREE SURVEY AND SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATIONS ................................................................. 1

3.0 DEFINITION OF A VETERAN TREE ................................................................................................... 1

4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 3

5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 5

APPENDICES

APPENDIX ONE: ................................................................................ TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE

APPENDIX TWO: ............................................................................... TREE CONSTRAINTS PLAN

APPENDIX THREE: .................................................................................. PROPOSED SITE PLAN

Contact Details

Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd

First Floor

11 Cannon Street

Preston

Lancashire

PR1 3NR

T: 01772 437150

E: [email protected]

ARBORICULTURAL REPORT

HAMMOND GROUND, READ

Project Details

Project No.: BTC907

Site: Hammond Ground, Whalley Road, Read, BB12 7RP

Client: Trustees of Hammond Ground

Council: Ribble Valley Borough Council

Previous Survey Dates: 3 August & 3 September 2015

Previously Surveyed by: Kendall Rigg HND TechArborA

Resurvey Date: 23 May 2018

Resurveyed by: Jennie Keighley PhD MSc MArborA

Report Prepared by: Jennie Keighley PhD MSc MArborA

Checked by: Phill Harris MSc BSc(Hons) HND MArborA CEnv MICFor

Date of Issue: 28 June 2018

Status: Final Issue

DISCLAIMER

Survey Limitations: Unless otherwise stated all trees are surveyed from ground level using non-invasive techniques, in sufficient detail to gather data for and inform the design of the current project only. The disclosure of hidden crown and stem defects, in particular where they may be above a reachable height or where trees are ivy clad or located in areas of restrictive ground vegetation, cannot therefore be expected. Detailed tree safety appraisals are only carried out under specific written instructions. Comments upon evident tree safety relate to the condition of said tree at the time of the survey only. Unless otherwise stated all trees should be re-inspected annually in order to appraise their on-going mechanical integrity and physiological condition. It should, however, be recognised that tree condition is subject to change, for example due to the effects of disease, decay, high winds, development works, etc. Changes in land use or site conditions (e.g. development that increases access frequency) and the occurrence of severe weather incidents are also significant considerations with regard to tree structural integrity, and trees should therefore be re-assessed in the context of such changes and/or incidents and inspected at intervals relative to identified and varying site conditions and associated risks. Where trees are located wholly or partially on neighbouring private third-party land then said land is not accessed and our inspection is therefore restricted to what can reasonably be seen from within the site. Stem diameters and other measurements of trees located on such land are estimated. Any subsequent comments and judgments made in respect of such trees are based on these restrictions and are our preliminary opinion only. Recommendations for works to neighbouring third-party trees are only made where a potential risk to persons and/or property has been identified during our survey or, if applicable, where permissible works are required to implement a proposed development. Where significant structural defects of third-party trees are identified and associated management works are considered essential to negate any risk of harm and/or damage then we will inform the relevant Council of the matter. Where a more detailed assessment is considered necessary then appropriate recommendations are set out in the Tree Survey Schedule. Where tree stem locations are not included on the plan(s) provided then they are plotted by the arboriculturist at the time of the survey using, where appropriate and/or practicable, a combination of measurement triangulation and GPS co-ordination. Where this is not possible then locations are estimated. Restrictions in these respects are detailed in the report. This document is intended as a guide to identify key tree related constraints to site development only, and the potential influence of trees upon existing or proposed buildings or other structures resulting from the effects of their roots abstracting water from shrinkable load-bearing soils is not considered herein. The tree survey information in its current form should not therefore be considered sufficient to determine appropriate foundation depths for new buildings. Accordingly, an updated survey, with reference to the current NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2 - Building Near Trees, must therefore be prepared for the specific purpose of informing suitable foundation depths subsequent to planning approval being granted. The advice of a structural engineer must also be sought with regard to appropriate foundation depths for new buildings. Copyright & Non-Disclosure Notice: The content and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd, save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned to us by another party or is used by Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd under license. This report may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than those indicated. Third Parties: Any disclosure of this document to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd at the instruction of and for use by our client. This report does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the contents of this report.

Hammond Ground, Read Arboricultural Report June 2018

[email protected]

Page 1 of 5

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd was instructed, by the Trustees of Hammond Ground, to carry out a site visit in order to re-survey the trees at Hammond Ground, Read, in association with a refusal of consent for an outline planning application (number 3/2016/1192) for a 50 unit residential development and subsequent planning appeal, and to prepare a brief report on the findings of the re-survey.

1.2 The purpose of the re-survey and associated report is to consider the ages of the trees in relation to the statement, by Ribble Valley Borough Council in section 2.3 of their Statement of Case, that ‘there are a number of veteran trees within the site’. In this respect it should be noted the Council provide no explanation or evidence regarding their use of the term ‘veteran trees’.

1.3 The relevant tree data included in Arboricultural Impact Assessment report (ref. BTC907, dated December 2016), which was prepared by Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd and submitted in support of the 2016 outline planning application, was considered as part of the appraisal process for the preparation of this report.

1.4 The 2016 Arboricultural Impact Assessment report identified seven individual trees and one group of trees that were classed as ‘locally notable’, according to the definition set out in Lonsdale (2013) (see section 3), but concluded that development of the site as proposed could be achieved whilst retaining all of the surveyed trees by incorporating them into areas of public open space or suitably sizeable gardens.

1.5 In this respect the development design for the planning application that was submitted in December 2016, and subsequently refused permission, included provision for the retention and protection, during development, of the trees under consideration herein.

2.0 TREE SURVEY AND SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATIONS

2.1 The trees under consideration were initially surveyed, by Kendall Rigg, on 3 August and 3 September 2015, and were subsequently re-surveyed, by Jennie Keighley, on 23 May 2018.

2.2 In turn, the updated tree survey data is detailed in the appended tabulated Tree Survey Schedule which, for ease of interpretation, should be read alongside the appended BS5837: 2012 Table 1 and the associated Tree Constraints Plan.

2.3 During the 2018 visit it was noted that the physiological condition of oak tree T1 and ash tree T8 had evidently deteriorated since the 2015 survey and, as a result, the BS5837 retention categories of these trees were reclassified accordingly, with T1 downgraded from an ‘A’ to a ‘B’ category and T8 downgraded from a ‘C’ to a ‘U’ category.

2.4 There were also minor changes recorded in the heights and stem diameters of several of the trees, although these changes were not considered sufficient to amend any of the trees’ previously allocated age classifications.

3.0 DEFINITION OF A VETERAN TREE

3.1 Whilst there is a degree of subjectivity associated with the assessment and allocation of veteran tree designations, Lonsdale’s Ancient and other veteran trees: further guidance on management (Lonsdale, 2013), which is produced by the Ancient Tree Forum, offers


[email protected]

Page 2 of 5

detailed advice in this respect and, as such, can be considered to be the most comprehensive publication available on the subject.

3.2 In this publication Lonsdale (2013) states that a veteran tree should show signs of ancientness associated with having survived the rigours of life, irrespective of age. Thus, if a tree has the physical characteristics of an ancient tree but is not ancient in years, when compared with others of the same species, it is classed as veteran but not ancient. Throughout the publication (Lonsdale, 2013), the term veteran is used to describe all trees that have markedly ancient characteristics, irrespective of chronological age, whilst the term ancient is applied specifically to trees that are ancient in years.

3.3 When assessing trees in relation to proposed development works, the recommendations

outlined in British Standard BS5837: 2012 - Trees in relation to design, demolition and development – recommendations are applied. As BS5837: 2012 does not contain guidance on classifying veteran or ancient trees, Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd uses the chart shown at Figure 1, below (taken from Lonsdale (2013)), as an initial appraisal tool. This method is used as page 8 of the publication specially states that “The size criteria shown in Fig. 1.3 [report Figure 1] should be applied, for example, when trees are being evaluated according to BS 5837: 2012, Table 1” (Lonsdale, 2013).

3.4 In this respect Figure 1, below, lists eleven species commonly found in Britain and indicates the girth at which they can be considered to be ‘locally notable’, ‘veteran/notable’, ‘ancient’ or ‘late ancient’. As the chart indicates, it is evident that trees are expected to have attained a considerable stem size before being eligible for one of these classifications.

Figure 1: Chart of girth in relation to age and development classification of trees, taken from Lonsdale (2013) Ancient and other veteran trees: further guidance on management

3.5 In respect of Figure 1 it should be noted that the initial BS5837 survey, of 2015, included

an appraisal of the trees under consideration using this system, and concluded that none of them had a sufficient girth to be classified as either veteran or ancient, but that seven of the individually surveyed trees and one group of three trees had girth measurements of a size whereby they could be classed as ‘locally notable’.


[email protected]

Page 3 of 5

3.6 Besides a particularly large girth a veteran or ancient tree is also expected to exhibit a number of age- and/or environment-related characteristics, which are often termed ‘veteran features’. These characteristics include major deadwood, broken and torn branches, splits and cracks, delaminating bark, fungus brackets, etc.

3.7 In this respect Figure 2, below, which is taken from the Ancient Tree Forum’s website (www.ancienttreeforum.co.uk), shows the type of features that an ‘ideal’ veteran or ancient tree would possess to make it particularly valuable from a habitat perspective, thereby providing food and shelter to a variety of invertebrate, fungus, bat, bird and mammal species.

Figure 2: The Ancient Tree Forum’s ‘ideal’ veteran tree, showing the type of features a typical veteran tree could be expected to display

4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 The trees under consideration in this report are the larger more mature trees located within

the Hammond Ground site, being common oak trees T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 and G1 and common ash tree T8. In turn, the report does not take Leyland cypress T7, the small mixed group G2, or hedge H1, all of which were included in the 2015 BS5837 survey, into consideration.

4.2 General observations and comments in respect of each tree are detailed in the appended

Tree Survey Schedule, alongside their current heights, stem diameters, and other pertinent measurements.

4.3 Whilst, from the data included in the Tree Survey Schedule, it can be seen that several of the trees have what could be classed as veteran features, such as basal cavities and varying degrees of deadwood, none of the surveyed trees display the severity or combination of multiple veteran features to warrant a veteran classification.

http://www.ancienttreeforum.co.uk/


[email protected]

Page 4 of 5

4.4 In this respect common oak T6 could potentially be considered to be exhibiting the most veteran features, having multiple branch tear wounds with dead stubs and an unidentifiable decay fungus bracket in its crown. Nonetheless, as T6 stands at a height of 18 metres and has a stem girth of 3266 millimetres it can reasonably be concluded that, for an open grown tree of this species, it is still in the mid-stages of its maturity and has potential to attain a substantially larger stem girth before it begins its natural processes of retrenchment, thereby reducing in height when passing into late-maturity and, eventually, achieving a veteran classification.

4.5 Overall therefore, it is concluded that none of the surveyed trees have the severity or

combination of multiple veteran features, or sufficient girths, according to Lonsdale’s (2013) chart, to be considered veteran. The size shortcomings in this respect are listed below in Table 1, which shows the girth of the trees against the girth at which they would be considered locally notable and veteran/notable according to Figure 1.

Tree ID

Species

Stem diameter at breast

height (mm)

Stem girth (mm)

Girth at which species

considered locally notable

(mm)

Girth at which species

considered veteran/

notable (mm)

Age

classification

T1 Common Oak 1020 3203 2800-4700 ≥4700 Locally notable






T8 Common Ash 1000 3140 2500-3800 ≥3800 Locally notable

G1 3no. Common Oak ≤1150 ≤3611 2800-4700 ≥4700 Locally notable

Table 1: Age classification of Hammond Ground trees according to chart shown at Figure 1 from Lonsdale (2013) Ancient and other veteran trees: further guidance on management

4.6 Given the above evidence it is therefore concluded that the mature trees within the Hammond

Ground site fall within the locally notable categorisation in accordance with current best practice and available guidance, as was concluded in the 2016 Arboricultural Impact Assessment report for the subsequently refused planning application.

4.7 In turn, this conclusion is consistent with the Ancient Tree Forum’s advice on identifying trees of special interest in their Ancient Tree Guide No. 4, which states that [locally] ‘notable trees are usually magnificent mature trees which stand out in their local environment because they are large by comparison with other trees around them’.

4.8 In consideration of the above it could also reasonably be concluded that Ribble Valley Borough Council’s use of the term ‘veteran’ in their Statement of Case, without providing an explanation or any evidence regarding the usage of the term, is both unsubstantiated and erroneous.

4.9 Nonetheless, regardless of the above it should be noted that, although the majority of the locally notable trees are, without question, of moderate to high quality regardless of their status, considerable care was taken to incorporate them all into the outline development design for the subsequently refused 2016 planning application, and to ensure that they were provided with sufficient temporary protection, in accordance with current Government guidance, throughout the development process.

4.10 In this respect it should also be noted that the accompanying Arboricultural Impact Assessment report specifically stated that it would be imperative that the Council make adequate provision for the incorporation of the large [locally notable] trees into the design of any subsequent [detailed] planning application through the use of a set of suitably worded


[email protected]

Page 5 of 5

planning conditions attached to the outline planning approval.

4.11 Furthermore, the Arboricultural Impact Assessment report also concluded that provision of new tree planting as a component of the development’s landscaping stood as an opportunity to strengthen both the quality and value of tree cover at the site and to improve its long-term sustainability.

5.0 REFERENCES

Ancient Tree Forum (2008) Ancient tree guide no. 4: what are ancient, veteran and other trees of special interest? Ancient Tree Forum, c/o The Woodland Trust, Grantham Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd. (2016) Arboricultural impact assessment (reference BTC907) British Standards Institution (2012) BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations. British Standards Institution, London Lonsdale, D. (ed.) (2013) Ancient and other veteran trees: further guidance on management. The Tree Council, London Ribble Valley Borough Council (undated) Statement of case submitted on behalf of the local planning authority (planning inspectorate reference APP/T2350/W/17/3185445)

TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE FOR ARBORICULTURAL CONSTRAINTS APPRAISAL Surveyors: Kendall Rigg HND TechArborA & Jennie Keighley PhD MSc MArborA

Site: Hammond Ground, Whalley Road, Read, Lancashire, BB12 7RP Survey Dates: 3 August & 3 September 2015 (KR), 23 May 2018 (JK) Page: 1 of 5

Client: Trustees of Hammond Ground Job Ref: BTC907

No. Species Height Stem Diam.

Branch Spread

Branch & Canopy

Clearance

Life Stage

PC General Observations and Comments Management Recommendations ERC Cat.

Grade RPA (m²)

RPA Radius

(m)

Headings and Abbreviations:

No. Allocated sequential reference number - Tree (‘T’), Group (‘G’), Woodland (‘W’) or Hedge (‘H’) reference number - refer to plan and to numbered tags where applicable Species: Common name Height: In metres, to nearest half metre – where possible approximately 80% are measured using an electronic clinometer and the remainder estimated against the measured trees. In the case of Groups and Woodlands the measurement listed is that of the highest tree Stem Diam.: Stem diameter in millimetres, to nearest 10mm - measured and calculated as per Annex C of BS5837:2012. MS = multi-stemmed, TS = twin-stemmed Branch Spread: Crown radius measured (or estimated where considered appropriate) from the four cardinal points (north, east, south and west) to give an accurate visual representation of the crown Branch & Canopy Clearances: Existing height above ground level, in metres, of first significant branch and direction of growth (e.g. 2.5-N) and of canopy at lowest point – to inform on crown to height ratio, potential for shading, etc. Life Stage: Estimated age class - Y = young, SM = semi-mature, EM = early-mature, M = mature, PM = post-mature PC: Physiological Condition - a measure of the tree’(s)’ overall vitality, i.e. D = Dead, MD = Moribund, P = Poor, M = Moderate, G = Good General Observations and Comments: Comments relating to the tree’(s)’ overall condition and any other pertinent factors including structural defects, current and potential direct structural damage, physiological decline, poor form, etc. Management Recommendations: Either Preliminary or In Consideration of the Proposal - In the case of Arboricultural Constraints Surveys the recommended management works only take exiting site and tree circumstances and conditions into account and not proposed developments. Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement related

Surveys take the proposed development into consideration with recommendations made accordingly. More than one option may be given if considered appropriate ERC: Estimated Remaining Contribution - in years as per BS5837:2012 (i.e. <10, 10+, 20+, 40+) Cat. Grade: Category Grading - tree retention value listed as U, A, B or C - in accordance with BS5837:2012 Table 1 RPA m²: Root Protection Area in m² - calculated area around the tree that must be appropriately protected throughout the development process in order avoid root damage RPA Radius (m): Root Protection Area Radius - in metres measured from the centre of the stem to the line of tree protection # (Estimated Dimensions): Where trees are located off-site, or are inaccessible for any other reason, and accurate measurements or other information cannot be taken then the information provided is estimated and is duly suffixed with a “#” symbol

T1 Common Oak 16 1020

N E S W

8 9 10 5.5

3-E 2

M

G

▪ Flared buttress roots. ▪ Crown biased to south-east. ▪ 2018 survey note: Large amount of deadwood, particularly in western side of

crown, to a diameter of 200mm. ▪ Has a girth of 3203mm and is hence considered ‘locally notable’ (between

approximately 2800mm and 4700mm girth) according to Figure 1.3 in Lonsdale’s (2013) Ancient & Other Veteran Trees: Further Guidance on Management (page 5).

▪ Does not meet the criteria usually attributed to veteran or ancient trees, as described in section 1.2 of Lonsdale (2013). Figure 1.3 shows that a veteran oak tree could be expected to have a girth in excess of 4700mm.

▪ 20+ B1 471 12.24

T2 Common Oak 18.5 1040

N E S W

8.5 8.5 9 9

2.5-W 3

M

G

▪ Flared buttress roots. ▪ Ground around base of stem is bare and evidently compacted by livestock. ▪ Barbwire fence is stapled to the east side of the stem. ▪ Light to moderate amounts of deadwood up to approximately 150mm diameter

throughout crown. ▪ Has a girth of 3266mm and is hence considered ‘locally notable’ (between



▪ 40+ A1/2 489 12.48





Branch Spread

Branch & Canopy

Clearance

Life Stage


Grade RPA (m²)

RPA Radius

(m)


N E S W

9 12 8 8

3-W 3

M

M/G

▪ Heavily flared buttress roots. ▪ Ground around base of stem is bare and evidently compacted by livestock. ▪ Buttress roots to east are abraded to east of base of stem. ▪ Light deadwood up to approximately 125mm diameter throughout crown. ▪ Crown slightly biased to east. ▪ 2018 survey note: 3m reduction in height since 2015 survey. ▪ Has a girth of 3391mm and is hence considered ‘locally notable’ (between



▪ 40+ A1/2 528 12.96


N E S W

10 12 8 10

3-W 3

M

G

▪ Very heavily flared buttress roots. ▪ Ground around base of stem is bare and evidently compacted by livestock. ▪ Light deadwood up to approximately 100mm diameter throughout crown. ▪ 2018 survey note: 3m reduction in height since 2015 survey. ▪ Has a girth of 3297mm and is hence considered ‘locally notable’ (between



▪ 40+ A1/2 499 12.6


N E S W

10 12 11 10

4.5-E 3

M

M/G

▪ Flared buttress roots. ▪ Ground around base of stem is bare and evidently compacted by livestock. ▪ 175mm diameter cavity at south-west base of stem which, when probed, indicates

cavity is in excess of 500mm deep. ▪ 2m long vertical bark formation from north-west base of stem, which is indicative of

an internal stem fracture at this point. ▪ 1.2m long horizontal bark formation at a height of approximately 2m on east side of

stem, which is indicative of fibre buckling within this region. ▪ Slight stem lean east. ▪ Light deadwood up to approximately 125mm diameter throughout crown. ▪ Light branch tip dieback evident throughout crown. ▪ Has a girth of 3799mm and is hence considered ‘locally notable’ (between



▪ 40+ A1/2 662 14.52





Branch Spread

Branch & Canopy

Clearance

Life Stage


Grade RPA (m²)

RPA Radius

(m)


N E S W

8 8 10 9

3-W 3

M

M/G

▪ Located approximately 3m from a 1.2m high concrete shutter board and timber panel fence.

▪ 400mm diameter primary branch at a height of 4.5m in eastern side of crown has a 400mm x 300mm branch tear out wound.

▪ 350mm diameter primary branch at a height of 5m in eastern side of crown has a 3m long partially occluded top wound starting from main stem union.

▪ 450mm diameter primary branch at a height of 5m in south-east side of crown has a 2m long occluded vertical bark formation starting from main stem union.

▪ 400mm diameter primary branch at a height of 4.5m in north side of crown has a 500mm x 350mm branch tear out wound on east side of branch base.

▪ 2018 survey note: Small, white fungus bracket growing on partially occluded pruning stub on south-east side at a height of 5m; species not idenitifiable from ground level.

▪ Has a girth of 3266mm and is hence considered ‘locally notable’ (between approximately 2800mm and 4700mm girth) according to Figure 1.3 in Lonsdale’s (2013) Ancient & Other Veteran Trees: Further Guidance on Management (page 5).


▪ 20+ B1/2 489 12.48

T7 Leyland Cypress 8 6x150 (ms)#

N E S W

2 2 2 2

1-E 2

M

M

▪ Located on neighbouring land and therefore not inspected in detail. ▪ Multiple primary leaders from a height of approximately 0.5m.

▪ 10+ C1 61 4.41





Branch Spread

Branch & Canopy

Clearance

Life Stage


Grade RPA (m²)

RPA Radius

(m)

T8 Ash 16 1000

N E S W

11 8.5 11 8

3-E 4

PM

P

▪ Swollen base, which is approximately 2.7m diameter and narrows to 1m diameter at a height of 1.2m.

▪ Ground around base of stem is bare and evidently compacted by livestock. ▪ Base of stem is heavily abraded. ▪ Light to moderate deadwood up to approximately 100mm diameter throughout

crown and over main road and public footpath. ▪ 2018 survey notes: ▪ Heavy branch epicormics throughout crown. ▪ Branch tip dieback throughout crown. ▪ Crown expressing a severe reduction in vitality, suggesting tree is in mid-stage

decline. ▪ Short projected remaining life expectancy of less than ten years. ▪ Branch failures onto neighbouring public highway and/or footpath likely in future

as tree declines. ▪ Crown symptoms and decline are symptomatic of infection by Chalara Ash

Dieback Disease. ▪ Has a girth of 3140mm and is hence considered ‘locally notable’ (between


▪ Does not meet the criteria usually attributed to veteran or ancient trees, as described in section 1.2 of Lonsdale (2013). Figure 1.3 shows that a veteran ash tree could be expected to have a girth in excess of 3800mm.

▪ Consider crown retrenchment reduction or removal of tree due to potential risk of harm to persons or property as a result of branch failures onto neighbouring public highway and/or footpath.

▪ Monitor for further decline and signs of infection by Chalara Ash Dieback Disease.

<10 U 452 12





Branch Spread

Branch & Canopy

Clearance

Life Stage


Grade RPA (m²)

RPA Radius

(m)

G1 3no. Common

Oak ≤ 19

≤ 1150

N E S W

≤ 11 ≤ 8 ≤ 9.5 ≤ 9.5

3-S ≥ 3

M

G

▪ Closely spaced linear group, possibly denoting path of a historic hedgerow. ▪ Ground around stem bases is bare and evidently compacted by livestock. ▪ Western tree has heavily flared buttresses around base of stem, a 100mm x 50mm

cavity to eastern base of stem which, when probed, was seen to be approximately 350mm deep, and a slight stem lean east.

▪ Central tree has an 80mm diameter cavity to west base of stem, which is evidently connected to a 150mm cavity to south base of stem.

▪ 2018 survey note: Central tree exhibiting signs of reduced vitality, including branch tip dieback, branch epicormics and late coming into leaf compared to neighbouring trees.

▪ Eastern tree has four 100mm to 250mm diameter interconnected basal cavities to north, east, south and west. 2018 survey note: Dead lamb within cavity inhibited inspection.

▪ Light deadwood up to approximately 125mm diameter throughout crowns. ▪ Have girths of up to 3611mm and are hence considered ‘locally notable’ (between


▪ Do not meet the criteria usually attributed to veteran or ancient trees, as described in section 1.2 of Lonsdale (2013). Figure 1.3 shows that a veteran oak tree could be expected to have a girth in excess of 4700mm.

▪ 40+ A1/2 ≤

598 ≤

13.8

G2 2no. Hawthorn,

1no. Elder, 1no. Lilac

≤ 5.5

≤ 6x100 (ms)#

N E S W

≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≤ 2

1-E ≥ 1

M

D-G

▪ Located on neighbouring land and therefore not inspected in detail. ▪ Closely spaced linear group. ▪ One Hawthorn is dead.

▪ 10+ C1 ≤ 27

≤ 2.94

H1 Hawthorn,

Elder, Ash, Hazel, Sycamore

≤ 1.5

≤ 9x35 (ms)#

≤ 1 wide

N/A ≥ 0

M

G

▪ Managed boundary hedge. ▪ 10+ C2 N/A ≤

1.26

BS5837:2012 Table 1 – Cascade Chart for Tree Quality Assessment

Category and definition Criteria (including subcategories where appropriate) Identification on plan

Trees unsuitable for retention (see Note)

Category U Those in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years

Trees that have a serious, irremediable, structural defect, such that their early loss is expected due to collapse, including those that will become unviable after removal of other category U trees (e.g. where, for whatever reason, the loss of companion shelter cannot be mitigated by pruning)

Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, and irreversible overall decline Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other trees nearby, or very low quality trees

suppressing adjacent trees of better quality Note: Category U trees can have existing or potential conservation value which it might be desirable to preserve; see BS5837:2012 paragraph 4.5.7.

Red

1. Mainly arboricultural qualities 2. Mainly landscape qualities 3. Mainly cultural values, including conservation

Trees to be considered for retention

Category A Trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years

Trees that are particularly good examples of their species, especially if rare or unusual; or those that are essential components of groups or formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (e.g. the dominant and/or principal trees within an avenue)

Trees, groups or woodlands of particular visual importance as arboricultural and/or landscape features

Trees, groups or woodlands of significant conservation, historical, commemorative or other value (e.g. veteran trees or wood-pasture)

Green

Category B Those of moderate quality and value: those in such a condition as to make a significant contribution. A minimum of 20 years is suggested.

Trees that might be included in the high category, but are downgraded because of impaired condition. Examples include the presence of remediable defects including unsympathetic past management and minor storm damage

Trees present in numbers, usually as groups or woodlands, so they form distinct landscape features which attract a higher collective rating than they might as individuals. But which are not, individually, essential components of formal or semi-formal arboricultural features. For example, trees of moderate quality within an avenue that includes better, A category specimens. Or trees which are internal to the site, therefore individually having little visual impact on the wider locality

Trees with clearly identifiable conservation or other cultural benefits

Blue

Category C Those trees of low quality and value: currently in adequate condition to remain until new planting could be established - a minimum of 10 years is suggested - or young trees with a stem diameter below 150 mm

Trees not qualifying in higher categories Trees present in groups or woodlands, but without this conferring on them significantly greater landscape value, and/or trees offering low or only temporary screening benefit

Trees with very limited conservation or other cultural benefits

Grey Note – Whilst C category trees will usually not be retained where they would impose a significant constraint on development, young trees with a stem diameter of less than 150mm should be considered for relocation

DISCLAIMER Survey Limitations: Unless otherwise stated all trees are surveyed from ground level using non-invasive techniques. The disclosure of hidden crown and stem defects, in particular where they may be above a reachable height or where trees are ivy clad or in areas of ground vegetation, cannot therefore be expected. All obvious defects, however, are reported. Detailed tree safety appraisals are only carried out under specific written instructions. Comments upon evident tree safety relate to the condition of said tree at the time of the survey only. Unless otherwise stated all trees should be re-inspected annually in order to appraise their on-going mechanical integrity and physiological condition. It should, however, be recognised that tree condition is subject to change, for example due to the effects of disease, decay, high winds, development works, etc. Changes in land use or site conditions (e.g. development that increases access frequency) and the occurrence of severe weather incidents are also significant considerations with regards tree structural integrity and trees should therefore be re-assessed in the context of such changes and/or incidents and inspected at intervals relative to identified and varying site conditions and associated risks. Where trees are located wholly or partially on neighbouring private third-party land then said land is not accessed and our inspection is therefore restricted to what can reasonably be seen from within the site. Stem diameters of trees located on such land are estimated. Any subsequent comments and judgments made in respect of such trees are based on these restrictions and are our preliminary opinion only. Recommendations for works to neighbouring third-party trees are only made where a potentially unacceptable risk to persons and/or property has been identified during our survey. Where significant structural defects of third-party trees are identified and associated management works are considered essential to negate any risk of harm and/or damage then we will first attempt to inform the site occupier of the issues and, if not possible, then inform the relevant Council. Where a more detailed assessment is considered necessary then appropriate recommendations are set out in the Tree Survey Schedule. Where tree stem locations are not included on the plan(s) provided then they are plotted at the time of the survey using, where appropriate and/or practicable, a combination of measurement triangulation and GPS co-ordination. Where this is not possible then locations are estimated. Restrictions in these respects are detailed in the report. The tree survey and any report information provided is intended as a guide to identify key tree related constraints to site development only. As such, the potential influence of trees upon existing or proposed buildings or other structures resulting from the effects of their roots abstracting water from shrinkable load-bearing soils is not considered herein. The tree survey information in its current form should not therefore be considered sufficient to determine appropriate foundation depths for new buildings. Accordingly, an updated survey, with reference to the current NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2 - Building Near Trees, must therefore be prepared for the specific purpose of informing suitable foundation depths subsequent to planning approval being granted. The advice of a structural engineer must also be sought with regard to appropriate foundation depths for new buildings. Copyright & Non-Disclosure Notice: The content and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd, save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned to us by another party or is used by Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd under license. This report may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than those indicated. Third Parties: Any disclosure of this document to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd at the instruction of and for use by our client, as named. This report does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the contents of this report. Statutory Tree Protection: It is the client’s responsibility to check for the presence of any statutory tree protection measures, such as the site’s location within a Conservation Area and/or the presence of any Tree Preservation Orders, directly with the applicable Council’s planning department prior to scheduling or carrying out any tree works. In turn, it is also the client’s responsibility to check for the need for a felling licence with the Forestry Commission prior to scheduling or carrying out any tree works. Bowland Tree Consultancy Ltd cannot be held responsible for any decisions made by the client to prune or remove trees where any such statutory protection exists.

102.85

98.9

2

99.3

7

100.24

W

HA

LLE

Y R

O

AD

- -

-

Notes

All levels and dimensions must be checked on site by the contractor prior to

commencement of works. Any variations must be immediately reported to

GreenSkyArchitecture.

All information contained within this drawing and any attached details or specifications

are copyright of GreenSkyConsult Ltd trading as GreenSkyArchitecture. Copying of this

document in full or in part is strictly forbidden without the expressed written consent of

GreenSkyConsult Ltd.

ONLY TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WHERE THE SCHEME IS BEING UNDERTAKEN

USING LOCAL AUTHORITY BUILDING CONTROL SERVICES.

C GreenSkyConsult Ltd.

Revision Date Note

RevisionScaleDrawing Number

Drawn DateChecked

Project Title

Client

Architecture / Interior Design / Planning / Code for Sustainable Homes / BREEAM / Sustainability / Energy Assessors

T: +44(0)7815 606738 W: greenskyarchitecture.com E: [email protected]

Green Sky Architecture is a trading name of Green Sky Consult Ltd. Company Registered in Cardif No 7350336

Drawing Title

-

-

125m1:1250

Approval Tender ConstructionInformation Draft As Built

Drawing Status

1:500 @ A1

Illustrative Master Plan - Housing Mix

Trustees of Hammond Ground

Hammond Ground, Whalley Road, Read

MS 27.09.2017

N

Bungalow - over 55s [Open

Market] 4 No.

2 & 3 Bedroom Affordable Homes

12 No.

Site Area [Red Edge] 40888sqm. [4.089 Ha]

Development Density - 12.23 Dwellings/Ha

Bungalow - over 55s Affordable

4 No.

3 & 4 Bedroom Homes [Open

Market] - 30. No.

1155-A-101

Existing Retained Trees

Proposed Semi-Mature &

Standard Trees

Proposed Front Gardens

Proposed Swale

Proposed Pond [SUDs]

Master Plan prepared in conjunction with FPCR

Proposed Private Rear Garden

Areas

Proposed Meadow Grass Areas

Proposed Footpath

Proposed Permissive Footpath

Proposed Garage

arboricultural report · an updated survey, with reference to the current nhbc standards chapter...

Documents