Arboricultural Impact Appraisal - Ribble Valley · PDF fileThis arboricultural impact appraisal describes our assessment of ... This might include the removal of existing structures

Barnes & Associates

Rivermead, Skelton Road, Langthorpe, North Yorkshire, YO51 9BZ

Tel: 01423 322 371 Fax: 01423 322 371 Mobile: 07831 530 563

[email protected]

Arbor icul tural Impact A ppraisal

Site: Littlemoor, Clitheroe. BB7 1HF

Client: Jones Homes (Fylde), 5 Fleet Street, Lytham St Annes, Lancashire. FY8 2DQ

Date: 28th September 2015

Reference: BA4962AIA

mailto:[email protected]

BARNES & ASSOCIATES

Page 2 of 27 Arboricultural Impact Assessment at Littlemoor, Clitheroe. BB7 1HF For Jones Homes (Fylde) Our Ref. BA4962AIA - Dated 28 September 2015.

© Barnes & Associates 2015

VALIDATION STATEMENT FOR LPA REGISTRATION

This report contains the supporting tree information relating to the Littlemoor, Clitheroe, development.

A full Arboricultural Assessment (tree survey) compliant to the requirements of BS5837: (2012) Trees

In relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations. Undertaken by a qualified

arboriculturalist. (Tree Assessment) Please refer to Report BA4962TS – dated 20th March 2015.

For Local Planning Authority (LPA) validation purposes, this report contains the following:

An Arboricultural Impact Appraisal of the proposed development, detailing trees to be retained and

the proposed protection measures (Impact Appraisal)

Appended information on trees and protection methods (Appendices)

A list of tree removals required to enable the proposal (Appendices).

A plan with a north point showing tree survey information, including BS5837 categories and detailing

the proposed tree retentions.

Limitations of use and copyright: All rights in this report are reserved. No part of it may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without our written permission. Its content and format are

for the exclusive use of the addressee in dealing with this site. It may not be sold, lent, hired out or divulged to any third party not directly involved in this site

without the written consent of Barnes & Associates ©.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 4

ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT APPRAISAL 5

A

P

P

E

N

D

APPENDICES

A TERMS OF REFERENCE

B QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE

C TREE CONSTRAINTS

D DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

E RISKS TO TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION

F TREE PROTECTION

G TREE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

H PLANS

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



SUMMARY Background Administrative Information - All the trees that could be affected were

inspected and their details are discussed in the Tree Schedule in my original tree

survey BA4962 dated the 20th March 2015 within the Tree Schedule in Appendix C,

the tree positions are on the plan BA4962TS. Based on this information, guidance

was provided outlining the constraints these trees impose on the use of the site. This

submission proposal is a result of these consultations and has evolved, taking full

account of the tree constraints.

Summary of tree information - Historic changes have occurred on site as part of the

current management and the site has been affected by the localised compaction

from livestock. In addition, trees close to the southern boundary are likely to have

been affected by the nearby excavation.

Several trees are located close to the boundary walls and localised damage is

expected to become an increasing issue.

The condition of the trees and their long-term sustainability can be improved

through periodic remedial pruning works; however, these should ideally be viewed

in isolation.

Summary of the Impact on Trees and Local Character – My assessment of the

population identifies several key characteristics:

The trees have become established throughout the area and help filter the views

between the site, neighbouring properties and the highway.

A number of the trees have a short safe, useful life or are poor quality trees, which

need to be removed due to their current poor state.

In addition, several trees are inappropriately located in relation to current

structures, in particular hard landscaping and again, these trees may need to be

removed to improve local growing conditions or to simplify site management.

The Proposal. The scheme aims to create a new highway entrance on the southern boundary and create a new housing scheme complete with public open space and landscaped areas. My assessment of the proposal identifies 8 low value trees which are to be lost as part of the scheme as well as one moderate value tree. These trees expected to fail within the next 5 to 10 years – these losses relate to current site management and ideally should be viewed in isolation.

In addition to these, there are 6 neighbouring trees located close the boundary, which poses a risk to the site and the public domain and will need to be assessed in more detail. Within the site, 3 trees require works to improve their safety and help improve longevity – these losses relate to current site management and ideally should be viewed in isolation. The proposed scheme requires the loss of 6 trees in addition to hedges and understorey to provide space for the development. This is a consideration, however many of these trees are either poorly located or have only limited size and therefore offer only limited or local benefits. To help improve local growing conditions on site, the removal of an additional 5 trees is proposed to improve growing conditions for retained trees. The proposed new landscape scheme will significantly enhance the contribution of this site to the local amenity. The landscape scheme will evolve to provide a valuable group chosen to meet the requirement of the proposed scheme and site conditions. The new tree planting of at least 36 trees, aims to provide moderate to large growing species.

The scheme is located away from the principal retained trees, which are to form the basis of the landscaped areas and will be further enhanced with additional tree planting and landscaping.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Tree Assessment. This arboricultural impact assessment includes general

information on tree condition, value and management, in addition to detailing

the notional root protection area outlined within BS3837:2012.

Information upon the trees is located in the Tree Schedule in my original tree

survey BA4962 dated the 20th March within the Tree Schedule in Appendix C, the

tree positions are on the plan BA4962TS.

The trees on site are a significant asset and help to both provide screening for the

site within the broader landscape, but also set the tone for the area giving it its

character.

Introduction. This arboricultural impact appraisal describes our assessment of how the proposal will be affected by the tree constraints and details the general impacts upon the tree population and on local amenity and character of the site. In addition to outlining tree protection measures to be adopted. The proposal will involve earthworks, which are located close to trees in addition to the creation of hard surfacing within the root protection areas of retained trees. However, these can be undertaken using sensitive methods and pose only a minor risk. General Constraints posed by existing trees. Our tree survey and the tree survey plan, includes the relevant constraint information, plotted around each of the categories A, B and C trees and included information on shading and the minimum Root Protection Area (RPA), in addition to a suggested limit for construction. In addition to this, we have included the presence of tree preservation orders, conservation areas or other regulatory protection and highlighted potential incompatibilities between the layout and trees proposed for retention.

Care is required to avoid the retention of large, mature, over-mature or veteran trees which may become enclosed within a new development. When such trees are retained, adequate space should be allowed for their long-term physical retention and future maintenance. Such retentions are seen as beneficial, helping to contribute to climate change resilience, amongst other benefits of habit and biodiversity. Achieving successful integration of large species trees requires careful consideration; this has formed part of the design process and helped inform the tree retention within the project. Ideally, structures should be located outside the RPAs of trees to be retained. However, where there is an overriding justification for construction within the RPA, technical solutions might be available that prevent damage to the tree(s). If operations within the RPA are proposed additional information can be provided to demonstrate that the tree(s) can remain viable and offer mitigation measures such as but not limited to, improvements to the soil environment that is used by the tree for growth. We aim to provide a realistic assessment of the probable impacts of any proposed development on the trees, and vice versa, which should take into account the characteristics and condition of the trees. To maximize the probability of successful tree retention, the following factors are taken into account.

Shading of buildings. This can be a problem, particularly where there are rooms which require natural light.

Shading of open spaces & gardens. Siting normally requires direct sunlight for at least for part of the day. However, shading can be desirable to reduce glare or excessive solar heating, or to provide for comfort during hot weather.

Privacy and screening. The retention of trees helps to reduce overlooking by neighbours or to mitigate undesirable views, such as busy roads, railway lines or industrial premises.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Direct damage. Below ground, damage to structures can occur because of incremental root and stem growth in addition above ground damage can occur to trees and structures by the continuous whipping of branches against the fabric of a building. Therefore, this is considered to avoid the need for frequent remedial pruning or other maintenance.

Future pressure for removal. The relationship of buildings to large trees can cause apprehension to occupiers or users of nearby buildings or spaces, resulting in pressure for the removal of the trees. Buildings and other structures should be sited to allow adequate space for a tree’s natural development, with due consideration given to its predicted height and canopy spread.

Seasonal nuisance. Trees are naturally growing and shedding organisms. Leaves of some species can cause problems, particularly in the autumn, by blocking gullies and gutters. Fruit can cause slippery patches or accumulations of honeydew, which can be damaging to surfaces, these aspects, are also considered.

By assessing the scheme in detail, we can evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the proposed design and where necessary recommend mitigation. The assessment takes account of the effects of any tree loss required to implement the design, and any potentially damaging activities proposed near retained trees. This might include the removal of existing structures and hard surfacing, the installation of new hard surfacing, the installation of services.

Within the evaluation, we include information on the trees to be retained and removed, in addition to trees to be pruned, including any access facilitation pruning.

In addition to the impact of the permanent works, account should be taken of the build ability of the scheme in terms of access, adequate working space and provision for the storage of materials; typically, these risks and any protection methods would be detailed within a Method Statement to help inform the construction phase.

Tree Constraints. Typically, trees can offer constraints to potential layouts. Ideally, the requirements of the trees and the proposal should be considered at the design stage. I have included a general guide to potential tree constraints in Appendix C. General Risks to Trees. The development process does have the potential to both damage existing trees and compromise tree planting opportunities through the severance of roots or changes to the soil levels, volume or structure. I have included a general guide to potential tree damage in Appendix E. Protection of Trees. The potential for conflicts between the proposal and the existing trees do exist. However, these foreseeable risks can be defended through the adoption of tree protection to help protect the Root Protection Area and maintain sufficient space to enable the confident retention of trees. In general, tree protection requires a combination of protective fencing, ground protection, and the adoption of building design, materials and techniques that can sustain normal growth further details included in Appendix F. Retained trees need to be considered as part of any site changes and protected from the potentially negative effects of alterations or construction. Where protection is not possible removal and replacement of a tree with a suitable landscaping scheme may help offset losses and improve the overall levels of screening and biodiversity. Summary of the Impact on Trees and Local Character. My assessment of the proposal identifies 8 low value trees, which are to be lost as part of the scheme. These trees expected to fail within the next 5 to 10 years – these losses relate to current site management and ideally should be viewed in isolation. The proposed scheme requires the loss of 2 moderate & 4 low value trees to provide space in which to undertake the proposed scheme. However, many of these trees are either poorly located or have only limited size and therefore offer only limited or local benefits. In addition to the loss of short-lived trees and trees to provide space for the scheme, I have suggested that an additional 5 trees detailed below are removed

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



to improve the growing conditions of nearby retained trees. Within the population of retained trees, 3 trees will benefit significantly from canopy formative pruning and remodelling works to improve their safety, to help improve longevity – these losses relate to current site management and ideally should be viewed in isolation. In addition to these, there are 6 neighbouring trees detailed below located on neighbouring land, close the boundary, which pose a risk to the site and the public domain and will need to be assessed in more detail. The principal tree group losses are:-

Trees located on the north eastern boundary in the area identified to create the pedestrian entrance and the location of the garage for plot 38. These losses will impact the internal and views with neighbouring properties on Copperfield Close.

Other trees are relatively young and not fully developed. The loss of these trees will affect internal views principally.

Elsewhere losses are generally limited to poorer individual trees and wherever losses are proposed they are to be offset by new planting chosen to meet the new site constraints.

By virtue of the current site layout and the proposed scheme, the tree losses are limited to the boundaries and as such the impacts are screened by other trees. As a result, the proposed changes will have limited implications for residents that overlook the site; the impacts on the wider public realm will be minor. A significant tree planting offsets the potential negative aspects of the tree removals and a soft landscaping scheme is proposed in addition to improved management of the retained trees. The retained trees on the boundaries will significantly buffer the views both in

and out of the site from the street scene and it is therefore assumed that the

proposal will have little impact on the present character of the wider area.

The proposed new landscape scheme will significantly enhance the contribution

of this site to the local amenity. The landscape scheme will evolve to provide a

valuable group chosen to meet the requirement of the proposed scheme and site

conditions. The new tree planting of at least 36 trees aims to provide moderate

to large growing species.

As with any development, the proposed changes may affect retained trees if

appropriate protective measures are not taken. However, precautions to protect

the retained trees can be included and implemented. Therefore, no significant

impacts on the contribution of retained trees to local amenity or character in the

wider setting, ideally these will be set out within an Arboricultural Method

Statement.

Retained Trees. These trees complete with a magenta circle, indicating the

minimum Root Protection Area (RPA) as shown on the Plan BA4962AIA, attached

to this report in Appendix H. The scheme, proposes changes to the vehicle

entrance and the footpath network in addition to the creation of the

accommodation within the central site. Potential conflicts are limited in light of

the design and the previous land use.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Required Tree Removals. The table below details 8 low value

short-lived trees which should be removed to help improve

safety and simplify site management. These trees are

highlighted in Red, (as shown opposite) and on the Plan

BA4962AIA, attached to this report in Appendix H and detailed

within the Tree Management Schedule, included as Appendix

G. These low value short-lived tree removals should ideally be considered in

isolation to the scheme.

Removals to Enable Development. The redevelopment of the

site requires the removal of 6 trees and a section of hedge as

detailed below to provide space; these trees are highlighted in

yellow, on the Implication Assessment Plan BA4962AIA,

attached to this report in Appendix H and within the

Management schedule Appendix G.

Removals to Improve Retained Trees. To help improve trees

a series of additional tree removals are recommended to

improve the growing conditions of retained trees. These 5

trees are detailed below and are highlighted orange as

shown opposite on the Implication Assessment Plan

BA4962AIA, attached to this report in Appendix H and within the Management

Schedule in appendix G.

Pruning to Improve Retained Trees. To help improve

trees a series of additional tree removals are

recommended to improve the growing conditions of

retained trees. These 3 trees are detailed below and

highlighted orange as shown opposite on the

Implication Assessment Plan BA4962AIA, attached to

this report in Appendix H and within the Management

Schedule in appendix G.

Tag No.

Species Category Proposed Management

498 Elder U Remove due to current poor state.

506 Silver Birch U Remove due to current poor state.

508 Goat Willow U Remove due to current poor state.

513 Grey Lawson Cypress U Remove due to current poor state.

514 Alder U Remove due to current poor state.

518 Ash U Remove due to current poor state.

520 Ash U Remove due to current poor state.

537 Rowan U Remove due to current poor state.

Tag No.


502 Silver Birch C2 Remove to improve growing conditions for

nearby trees

523 Ash C3 Remove to improve growing conditions for

nearby trees


nearby trees

530 Rowan C3 Remove to improve growing conditions for

nearby trees


nearby trees

Tag No.


486 Ash B2 Remove to enable proposal.

487 Ash B2 Remove to enable proposal.

509 Alder C3 Remove to enable proposal.

510 Goat Willow C3 Remove to enable proposal.

511 Leyland Cypress C1 Remove to enable proposal.

512 Leyland Cypress C1 Remove to enable proposal.

Tag No.


502 Silver Birch C2 Remove to improve growing conditions for

nearby trees


nearby trees


nearby trees


nearby trees


nearby trees

Tag No.


492 Ash A1 Pruning Required to improve safety and extend safe life

493 Ash A1 Pruning Required to improve safety and extend safe life

522 Alder A1 Pruning Required to improve safety and extend safe life

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Additional Trees. To help improve trees on site and help maintain safety,

neighbouring trees needs works of further investigation. These 6 trees are

detailed below.

Expected Risks To Retained Trees. In light of the separation distances, the

potential incompatibilities between the layout and trees proposed for retention

are limited as no significant changes other than landscaping are proposed within

the Root Protection Area of retained trees.

A minor risk does exist where a new hard surfacing for an internal drive

close to the southern boundary is shown. Protection of these areas will

be required for the duration of the project this will be required in

addition to the adoption of low impact methods of construction may be

considered, however the extent of infringement is within safe limits.

The proposed boundary wall on the western section of the southern

boundary does pose a potential risk to retained trees and should be

either constructed using low impact fencing or substituted for fencing .

The changes associated with the proposed scheme are not expected to

significantly alter growing conditions within the Root Protection Area and

therefore impact to retained trees are expected to be limited.

Pruning to enable Development. In light of the current layout and the separation

distances provided, the scheme does not require specific pruning to provide

space in which to undertake the proposal.

There may be a need to crown lift the Birch T507 to clear the roofline, though

without final levels this is not clear at the current time.

There may be an occasional need to raise the canopies of trees to achieve

pedestrian access or enable maintenance, which is a requirement of the current

site layout.

Reducing Risks to Trees. Potential conflicts between the proposal and the existing

trees do exist where site levels and significant material changes extend into the

Root Protection Area. However, these foreseeable risks to the retained trees can

be readily defended through the adoption of fencing.

Location of the Buildings. The proposed changes and in particular material

changes are not located within the Root Protection Areas. There should be no

noticeable negative affect for the retained trees, providing the recommended

planting is undertaken the scheme, should be viewed as a net gain.

Construction Access. To avoid changes in the soil condition within the Root

Protection Area, general precautions are necessary during the demolition and

construction phase. The construction works are located next to and in some

cases within the RPA and special precautions for the temporary access of

operatives will be required - examples of the fencing is included in Appendix F.

The exact details of this will need to be detailed within an Arboricultural Method

Statement; this can be a conditional item within the planning approval.

Tag No.


489 Ash C1 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help maintain safety.

541 Oak C1 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help maintain safety.

542 Ash C1 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help maintain safety.

543 Sycamore C1 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help maintain safety.

544 Pear A2 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help maintain safety.

545 Plum U Encourage owner to remove due to current poor state.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Protective Fencing. The area within the Root Protection Area (RPA) requires

fencing and management to avoid potentially damaging alterations to the soil

within the root zone. An example of the fencing is included in Appendix F. The

minimum distance of the fencing refers to the protective distances outlined

within BS5837:2012 Section 4.6, which are included within the Tree Schedule

within the Tree Survey BA4962TS - Appendix B.

The creation of the Root Protection Area will need to be undertaken following

the initial tree works and before any construction activity. It shall remain in

position for the whole of the Demolition, Construction and Completion phase.

The fencing should only be removed during the landscaping phase, where final

detailed level changes should be undertaken by hand. These works can easily

be incorporated into an Arboricultural Method Statement, which can be a

conditional item within the planning approval.

Location of the Footpath. Where located within the Root Protection Areas of

retained trees, these impacts can be maintained within acceptable limits and the

guidelines prescribed within BS5837:2012 and as such the negative impacts are

expected to be minimal. In such areas, No-Dig surfacing should be adopted to

limit direct damage through excavation and limit the changes to soils through

compaction or alteration to soil air & water ingress.

Such surfacing will have secondary benefits, by limiting surface water runoff and

should help the schemes Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) significantly

helping to mimic nature by managing the rainfall close to where it falls. These

methods allow water to soak (infiltrate) into the ground, enabling its use by

vegetation.

Where hard surfacing is required in close proximity to trees, BS5837:2012 and

the principles of Arboricultural Practice Note 12, Through the Trees to

Development, AAIS 2007, [APN 12] with regard to “No-Dig” surfacing will be

employed, although incorporating improvements to the construction methods.

Alternatively, the location of the footpaths should be adjusted and relocated

outside the Root Protection Area of retained trees.

Location of Services. Services are not expected close to trees, if required they should be located outside the RPA of retained trees. Where there is not an alternative and they need to enter the RPA they can be readily defended by adopting low impact methods for installation. Underground services near to trees will need to be installed in accordance with the guidance given in BS5837 together with the National Joint Utilities Group Volume 4 [NJUG4]: 2007. Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of utility apparatus in proximity to trees (Issue 2). Light Levels. The layout of dwellings has been informed by the existing shade offered by the trees, although the properties close to the eastern boundary are expected to suffer shading during the early morning. This is not expected to provide any significant shade problems and shade is not expected to be a significant issue. Where there are windows in the proposed buildings with shading, the fenestration should be arranged to maximize natural daylight and the internal arrangements should limit usage of living space from these areas. Post Development Pressure. The location of trees in relation to the changes suggests there is little likelihood of conflict and there is not expected to be an appreciable post development pressure or seasonal nuisance and certainly none that would oblige the council to give consent for inappropriate tree works. In light of the numbers of retained trees there is, a high likelihood of leaf litter falling onto the roof it would be prudent to include filtration for rainwater guttering such as a mesh or sponge systems in addition to discrete ladder rest points to facilitate ease of maintenance. There is no appreciable post development pressure and certainly none that would oblige the Council to give consent for inappropriate tree works. The

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



proposal does not offer a high foreseeable risk to retained trees and what risks that do exist can be managed through appropriate protection methodologies. Replacement Trees. The scheme proposes significant replacement tree planting of 36 new trees, in addition to wider landscape and tree management improvements within the garden and communal spaces. In light of the available, space available these are not expected to result in management issues for the site.

Conclusion. Retained trees need to be considered as part of the site constraints

and require protection from the potentially negative effects of traditional

construction. Tree losses are generally restricted to lower value or short-lived

trees, which have a limited impact on the wider local area and are typically limited

to the interior of the site.

The potential for conflicts between the proposal and the existing trees does exist.

However, these foreseeable risks can be defended through the adoption of

careful excavation, minimal level changes, and the adoption of low impact

systems that allow air and water percolation into the soils below the new

surfacing and general root zone improvements.

Providing this work is undertaken sensitively, there should be no noticeable

negative impacts on the retained trees and the scheme should have only a minor

impact on tree health.

In light of the relative size of the site, the current constraints and the proposed

mitigation, I conclude that a proposal to develop this site should be relatively

straightforward and pose only a small risk to the retained trees.

Providing appropriate protection methods are adopted, the risks to retained

trees can be controlled and new tree planting will develop to offer an

improvement on the existing tree population.

On balance, the improvements offered to the trees on site through the removal

of the existing hard surfacing, remedial works and additional landscaping should

be viewed as a net gain from an arboricultural perspective, which easily offset

the possible risks.

Ian Barnes F.Arbor.A, HND Arb, ND Ht/Arb, Tech.Cert (Arbor.A), MCI Hort, CEnv

Registered Consultant Arboricultural Association

Chartered Environmentalist

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



APPENDICES

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



APPENDIX A - TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Terms of Reference. This report is based upon a ground base assessment and is based upon the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) methodology, as devised by Mattheck (1993) in

addition to Hazard Evaluation devised by Matheny & Clark (1993). Guidance is also taken from Lonsdale (1999) Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management. The format of

the survey follows the guidelines of British Standard 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition & construction - Recommendations’ & The ISA Tree Risk Assessment Manual

(2013).

Tree Categorization. To help understand the value of the trees both on the site and in relation to the wider area the trees have been assessed in line with the guidelines in BS5837:2012

Section 3.5 Tree categorization method. Which suggests that trees should be categorized using the criteria shown in Table 1 (BS5837), which is included on the Tree Survey Plan.

The purpose of the tree categorization method is to enable the rapid identification of a trees quality and value of trees in a non-fiscal sense, in addition to providing an insight into its

expected safe life.

For a tree to qualify under any given category, it should fall within the scope of that category’s definition (U, A, B, C) and, for trees in categories A to C, it should qualify under one or

more of the three subcategories (1, 2, 3). Subcategories 1, 2 and 3 are intended to reflect arboricultural and landscape qualities, and cultural values, respectively.

Tree Risk - Target evaluation. To enable a balanced approach to the site assessment I undertook an initial assessment of the associated risks on site to identify areas of high public

access, areas where trees are within striking range of valuable or fragile structures or high human occupancy locations. Targets are broadly zoned in the ’Target’ ranges based on the

levels of occupation, population and value. Target areas are assumed high as a result of the level of public access.

Risk Assessment. The assessment follows the general principles of Risk Assessment; Risk assessment is important to reduce the risk of injury to people, property damage or disruption

of services. The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Methodology takes a qualitative rather than quantitative approach to risk assessment. The system uses

matrices to compare the likelihood of failure of a tree or tree part, the likelihood of impacting the target and the potential consequences of failure. The matrices generate an output

describing the Risk Offered by the trees in line with general risk assessment methodologies; these are arranged into bands differentiated by coloured text within the tree schedule as

detailed within the tree schedule.

The trees are assessed as being within or close to the Tolerable Region of risk and appear to have a generally acceptable level of risk at the present time based on the current assessed

site usage. Where, the level of site usage is expected to alter significantly this will require a revision of the risk assessment.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Tree Protection. To help reduce the potential impact of site changes BS5837:2012 recommends in Section 3.7 that a Root Protection Area (RPA) which is a protected area based upon

the Root Protection Area - a point equivalent to 12 times the trunk diameter or by ensuring the effects of site changes such as excessive root severance or compaction can be controlled.

This is included as a layout design tool. This indicates the minimum area around a tree deemed to contain sufficient roots and rooting volume to maintain the tree’s viability, and where

the protection of the roots and soil structure is treated as a priority. The Root Protection Area for each tree is plotted as a magenta circle on the plan.

Where pre-existing site conditions or other factors indicate that rooting has occurred asymmetrically, a polygon of equivalent area is included. This modification to the shape of the

Root Protection Area reflects a soundly based arboricultural assessment of likely root distribution. This has been included as a dashed magenta line on the plans. Ideally, this area should

remain free from soil disturbance whenever possible. Tree protection should revolve around the need to prevent compaction or excavation within the soil profile or significant changes

to the existing soil levels close to retained trees.

Appropriate site organisation and management are essential following the adage of ‘Prevention is better than Cure’. Unfortunately, tree damage can easily occur and although it is costly

to repair, it comes with few guarantees.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



APPENDIX B – BRIEF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF IAN BARNES

Registration Schemes:

Arboricultural Association Registered Consultant (49)

Qualifications:

Higher Diploma in Arboriculture (H.N.D Arb)

National Diploma in Horticulture & Arboriculture (N.D.Ht/Arb)

Arboricultural Association Technicians Certificate (Tech.Cert. (Arbor.A))

International Society of Arboriculture – Tree Risk Assessment (TRAQ)

Membership grades by peer review:

Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv)

Corporate Member of Chartered Institute of Horticulture (MCI Hort)

Fellow of the Arboricultural Association (F.Arbor.A)

Professional member Consulting Arborist Society UK.

Practical experience:

I have worked in the Arboricultural Industry since 1987. Firstly as a climbing Arborist in both the public and private, sector, before becoming a gang foreman. I set up and ran my own Arboricultural

contracting business for 15 years, though this is now under new ownership. I have developed an arboricultural consultancy practice since 1993, working throughout England for clients in both the

public and private sector.

Continuing professional development:

As part of my ongoing education, I am a member of a range of related Arboricultural bodies. Including the Arboricultural Association (AA), International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Royal Forestry

Society (RFS), Forestry Contracting Association (FCA), and Consulting Arborist Society (CAS) of which I am a professional member. I am a corporate member of the Chartered Institute of Horticulture

(MCI Hort) and a Fellow of the Arboricultural Association (F.Arbor.A). An inclusive member of the British Mycology Society (BMS) in addition to being a Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv).

I am a registered consultant of the Arboricultural Association. I regularly attend seminars and training events on issues relevant to Arboriculture these include events focusing on General Tree

Management, Veteran Tree Management, Tree Health, Tree Pest management, Tree Diseases management, Trees Biology & Morphology, Tree Stability, Wind Loading of Trees, Tree Risk Assessment, in

addition to keeping an upto date level of CPD.

I am a licensed user of the Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA) System and regularly attend updates, I am also ISA tree risk qualified (TRAQ). I am a trained user of Picus ‘Acoustic’ and electronic

Tomography and have attended training to extend my knowledge in this area. I am trained in the use of thermal imaging as an aid to detecting defects in trees.

Relevant experience:

My career to date has involved me in a variety of tree care, dealing with trees in many different environments, and with differing management aims, these included: Tree planting schemes, including

Woodland Design & Management, Detailed Health and Safety Appraisals, Tree inventories / population surveys, Management & selection on both proposed and active development sites, Advice

upon trees in relation to structures, Additional areas of work such as Contract Specification & Management, Planning applications, Expert Witness. This has provided me with a range of experience,

enabling me to comment upon trees and their management, in line with current best practice. Full CPD and training record can be forwarded upon request.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



APPENDIX C - TREE CONSTRAINTS Legal constraints. Trees can be protected by planning legislation in several ways. These include being located within a National Park or on a Site of Special Scientific Interest, located within

the grounds of a listed building, conservation area or by being subject to a current Planning condition. In general, the main type of protection for trees adopted by the Local Planning

Authority (LPA) on potential development sites is the Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

The protection of trees is a duty of the LPA under the Town and Country Planning act 1990 and aims to encourage rational discussion and consideration of trees within the design process.

The following guidelines are proposed to encourage rational discussion and consideration of trees within the design process. Legislation indicates that protection should be used to protect

healthy trees that are likely to have a reasonable safe useful life expectancy. Generally, those classified with a condition rating of (A) Excellent & (B) Good are worthy of a TPO. Those

classified (C) Fair are generally poorer and therefore unlikely to qualify for a TPO on grounds of poor appearance, management issues or unlikely to have a sufficient safe life expectancy.

Those trees classified (U) are Unsuitable for retention, generally contain structural defects, have a short safe useful life expectancy or are dangerous and therefore would not qualify for a

TPO as indicated within the legislation.

The presence of a TPO should be expected upon development sites for the above reasons. It can however only be regarded as a material consideration, as can any other tree or significant

natural feature, within the planning process, and cannot be used as a means of preventing development. Any trees protected or otherwise, which are located on or close to the site can

be expected to be regarded as a material consideration or offer a design constraint within the development process.

General Constraints posed by existing trees. The constraints imposed by trees, both above and below ground should inform the site layout design, although it is recognized that the

competing needs of development mean that trees are only one factor requiring consideration.

Certain trees are of such importance and sensitivity as to be major constraints on development or to justify its substantial modification. However, care should be taken to avoid misplaced

tree retention; attempts to retain too many or unsuitable trees on a site can result in excessive pressure on the trees during demolition or construction work, or post-completion demands

for their removal.

Our tree survey schedule includes the relevant constraint information, plotted around each of the categories A, B and C trees and included information on shading and the minimum Root

Protection Area (RPA), in addition to a suggested limit for construction.

Typically, development should endeavour to retain category A & B trees and category C trees where they can be either improved and included in low risk areas or help improve biodiversity.

Ideally, structures should be located outside areas of shading and the recommended construction limit (Minimum Root Protection Areas plus an additional 2 metres) of trees to be retained

should inform the development. However, in some cases the existing site layout has impacted on the trees in particular when existing structures or hard-surfacing extend or have been

installed in the root protection areas. To help understand this I have colour coded the principal Structures, Hard Surfacing, Services, Earthworks and areas of High water content on the

tree survey plan BA4962TS.

However, where there is an overriding justification for construction within the RPA, technical solutions might be available that prevent damage to the tree(s). If operations within the RPA

are proposed additional information can be provided to demonstrate that the tree(s) can remain viable and offer mitigation measures such as but not limited to, improvements to the soil

environment that is to be used by the tree for growth.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



APPENDIX D - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Care is needed regarding the retention of large, mature, over-mature or veteran trees which become enclosed within the new development. Where such trees

are retained, adequate space should be allowed for their long-term physical retention and future maintenance. However, such retentions are seen as

beneficial, helping to contribute to climate change resilience, amongst other benefits of habit and biodiversity. Achieving successful integration of large species

trees requires careful consideration at the conceptual and design stages and specialist arboricultural input.

Design Considerations. To enable a realistic assessment of the probable impacts of any proposed development on the trees, and vice versa which should take

into account the characteristics and condition of the trees. To maximize the probability of successful tree retention, the following factors are taken into account.

Shading of Buildings. This can be a problem, particularly where there are rooms, which require natural light.

Shading of Open Spaces & Gardens. Sitting normally requires direct sunlight for at least for part of the day. However, shading can be desirable to reduce

glare or excessive solar heating, or to provide for comfort during hot weather.

Privacy and screening. The retention of trees helps to reduce overlooking by neighbours or to mitigate undesirable views, such as busy roads, railway

lines or industrial premises.

Direct damage. Below ground, damage to structures can occur because of incremental root and stem growth. In addition above ground damage can

occur to trees and structures by the continuous whipping of branches against the fabric of a building. Therefore this needs to be considered to avoid

the need for frequent remedial pruning or other maintenance.

Future pressure for removal. The relationship of buildings to large trees can cause apprehension to occupiers or users of nearby buildings or spaces,

resulting in pressure for the removal of the trees. Buildings and other structures should be sited to allow adequate space for a tree’s natural development,

with due consideration given to its predicted height and canopy spread.

Seasonal nuisance. Trees are naturally growing and shedding organisms. Leaves of some species can cause problems, particularly in the autumn, by

blocking gullies and gutters. Fruit can cause slippery patches or accumulations of honeydew, which can be damaging to surfaces, these aspects,

should also considered.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



In general, developments close to trees needs to maintain the site and particularly the soils close to the current prevailing conditions and avoid significant

changes. However, a development is achievable providing the 8 key points listed below can be incorporated into the proposal's design:-

1. Available Space, The proposal should consider the available space both now and in the future and avoid the need to remove large diameter

branches and stems whilst providing sufficient space for future growth.

2. Foundations, the proposal will need to offer support to the structures with the need for minimal excavation to avoid tree root severance, typically

a pile and beam or partial cantilever solution could be considered following the advice of a structural engineer.

3. The Building, particularly the underside of the proposal will need to be above the current soil level to avoid compaction, excavation and ensure

continued soil hydration and aeration. Typically, either a timber frame or block and beam can be adopted to achieve this relatively simply.

4. Ground Protection, needs to be a principal theme running throughout the proposal with the current ground being protected from, Excavation,

Cultivation or Compaction and should remain wherever possible close to its current condition. This can be significantly simplified through the

adoption of timber frame construction avoiding the need for potentially damaging heavy weights and potential noxious material such as

concrete blocks, bricks and chemicals such as cements to be used near trees.

5. Services for the proposal should be located outside the Root Protection Area to avoid the need for excavation. Where new services are required

within the Root Protection Area, these should adopt low impact methods of installation such as moling. Ideally, existing site utilities should be either

isolated and retained in situ where they extend into the RPA or recycled or upgraded where this can be done without excavation.

6. Hard surfacing will typically be required unless it can be substituted for decking or above ground walkways. Hard surfacing will need to be

installed without the need for excavation and should be porous to allow continued soil hydration and aeration. Typically, either a porous paving

system or gravel supported by a NO-dig foundations such as Cell-Web can be adopted to achieve this.

7. Building use, within the proposal, available light should help inform the building design, layout and its use. Ideally, windows and views should be

directed away from trees and toward open areas. In addition, the use of secondary or passive light through light reflecting tubes should be

considered to help reduce the negative aspects of large trees.

8. Building maintenance will be required, particularly where canopies of trees extend close to or above the roofline, this can cause maintenance

difficulties due to leaf and organic matter build up in the gutters and down pipes. This problem needs to be designed out as far as possible by

the addition of filters in the gutters to restrict the access to leaves and small twigs.

The design should take account of the effects of any tree loss required to implement the design, and any potentially damaging activities proposed near

retained trees. This might include the removal of existing structures and hard surfacing, the installation of new hard surfacing, the installation of services.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



APPENDIX E - RISKS TO TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION

The following operations are all very damaging to trees, I have included a poster that demonstrates these points, and this might be useful for full circulation:

Compaction of the soil - Compaction will destroy the soil structure by removing the spaces

between soil particles preventing the uptake of oxygen and nutrients. Compaction is caused

by storage of materials, including bricks, soil, gravel and cement, and even a single vehicle

movement will cause damage. Compacted ground will also damage soil drainage, which may

then become waterlogged.

Excavations - any excavations close to the tree are likely to cause root severance. The closer

excavations occur to the tree the more severe the damage. Root severance will lead to loss

of vigour of the tree, reduce uptake of water and nutrients, allow access for decay organisms

and increase likelihood of wind throw.

Ground level changes - both reduction and raising of soil levels will be detrimental even if this

is only by a few centimetres. Reducing ground levels will sever roots, and can increase the

drainage of a site thereby reducing water availability. Raising ground levels will cause

compaction, suffocate roots and damage fibrous roots.

Impact damage - this can be caused by machinery - including torn branches and damage to

bark and trunks. This will lead to entry for decay organisms and reduced vigour.

Soil contamination - this can be caused by spillage of oil, fuel and chemicals and mixing

cement or other materials. Allow for sloping ground – keeping toxic material downhill from trees

and aim to store them 10m from the Protected Zone to allow for leaching through the soil.

Fires - both the intense heat and direct flame will damage the trees causing loss and damage

to both major roots and fibrous roots. Intense heat will damage the trees vascular system under

the bark even if the bark does not appear burnt.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



APPENDIX F - TREE PROTECTION

Protection of retained trees. The successful retention of trees depends on the quality of the protection and the administrative procedures to ensure those

protective measures remain in place while there is a risk of damage. An effective means of doing this is through an arboricultural method statement that can

be specifically referred to in a planning condition. An

arboricultural method statement for this site should ideally be agreed. Implementation of a method

statement will allow all the retained trees to survive without any adverse impact and allow them to continue to contribute to local amenity and character.

Limiting Threats to Trees. To help reduce the potential impact of site changes BS5837:2012 recommends in Section 3.7 that a Root Protection Area (RPA) is

included as a layout design tool. This protected area is based upon the Root Protection Area - a point equivalent to 12 times the trunk diameter. This indicates

the minimum area around a tree deemed to contain sufficient roots and rooting volume to sustain the tree’s viability, though ideally the offset shown as the

Construction Limit should be adopted to provide additional space and enable trees to thrive.

Tree Protection: where retained trees need to be protected this is most easily achieved by establishing a Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) as part of a Tree

Protection Zone (TPZ) to protect the roots and aerial parts as recommended in BS5837:2012 – further details upon request. Within this area, retained trees need

to be protected from the effects of site changes and in particular excessive root severance, soil level changes or soil compaction.

Appropriate site organisation and management are essential following the adage of ‘Prevention is better than Cure’. Unfortunately, tree damage can easily

occur and although it is costly to repair, it comes with few guarantees.

Inside the exclusion area of the fencing, the following actions need to be avoided:-

No linear mechanical excavation whatsoever.

No excavation by any other means without arboricultural site monitoring.

No hand digging without a written Method Statement having first been approved in writing by the consulting arboriculturist.

No lowering of levels for any purpose (except removal of grass sward by hand).

No construction of a sealed hard surface (except where agreed with the arborist)

No storage of plant or materials.

No storage or handling of any chemical, including cement washings.

No vehicular access.

No fire lighting.

In addition to the above, further precautions are necessary adjacent to trees:-

A 10m separation distance shall be observed between any tree and substances injurious to tree health, including fuel, oil, bitumen, cement (including

cement washings), builders' sand, concrete mixing and other chemicals.

No fire shall to be lit such that flames come within 5m of tree foliage; this shall be taken to mean a fire separation distance of 20m from any tree’s canopy.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Protective Fencing: Based on tree survey data, Root Protection Area (RPA) have been calculated for the trees identified for retention and included in the tree

schedule. The RPA’s are designed to protect at least a functional minimum of tree root mass in order to ensure that the trees survive the construction process.

Tree protection will need to be installed following the initial tree works and before the onset of any demolition or ground works. The RPA should remain in position

for the whole of the construction and demolition phase. Protection fencing is highlighted on the Protection Plan BA4962PRO attached to this report in Appendix.

Type 1 Tree Protection Fencing

(TPF1), which is suitable for

areas of high intensity

development, shall comprise

of interlocked Heras panels, or

similar, well-braced to resist

impacts by attachment to a

scaffold framework that has

been set firmly driven into the

ground and braced as shown

opposite.


(TPF2), is to be erected as a

temporary barrier to protect

areas designated for later

construction within TPZ, shall

consist of Heras panels

mounted on rubber/concrete

‘boots’ which shall be pinned

into the ground using 450mm

steel pins and/or clamped to

adjacent Type 1 TPF, shown

opposite.


(TPF3), is to be erected as a

visual barrier to protect areas

designated for no or later

construction and typically consist

light with visual barriers such as

stock fencing, post and rail,

Chestnut Pale fencing or Orange

Extruded Plastic Netting,

supported on ground pins as

shown opposite.

Signage: To inform site personnel of the

purpose of the fencing and to underline the

importance of the Construction Exclusion

Zone, information notices such as the

example shown opposite should be fixed to

the fencing.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Ground Protection (Temporary):

Access across the RPA, if

this is required this can be

achieved for the duration of the

development phase in such a way,

which will reduce the potential

negative effects of compaction.

For pedestrian movements, which

are expected to be limited on this

site, a single thickness of scaffold boards placed either on top of a driven

scaffold frame, to form a suspended walkway as detailed in the image

opposite can be used. Alternatively, this could be positioned on top of a

compression-resistant layer, laid onto a geotextile membrane.

If pedestrian-operated plant up to a gross weight of 2t are forecasted then,

proprietary, interlinked ground protection boards are available; however,

their use should only be undertaken following the advice of the consulting

arborist and following a detailed assessment of the particular soils.

Where heavy plant is expected to enter the Root Protection Area, bespoke

methods will need to be agreed.

Ground Protection (Permanent): The creation of Hard Surfacing within or

close to trees offers a risk to trees through compaction, excavation, soil level

changes or contamination and this needs to be defended. Protective

measures can be adopted successfully to help retain trees. This information

ideally needs to be outlined within an Arboricultural Method Statement post

approval.

To counter this risk it is proposed to install all hard surfacing is above the

existing ground within the Root Protection Area using a porous sub-base,

which allows the support of a permanent porous surface. Unmade ground

is to be protected with anti-compaction boarding during construction. A

Sub-base is to be formed using cellular confinement system (e.g.

Geosynthetics Cellweb) used with NO-fines granular fill as shown opposite.

It is essential that all kerbing is non-invasive within the TPZ, ideally to provide

a long-term solution a flexible steel shuttering should be pinned into position

at regular intervals to provide ongoing support. Where the level of the final

surfacing needs to be graduated to the existing grade, this can be

achieved using a 50:50 mixture of grit sand and native top soil, which shall

remain distinct with the graduation not extending greater than 500mm from

the edge of the surfacing.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



APPENDIX G - TREE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE Tag No.

Species Age Vitality Safe Life Category Diameter @ 1.5m (mm) Proposed Management

486 Ash EM Good 20 to 40 B2 330 Remove to enable proposal. 487 Ash M Good 20 to 40 B2 320 Remove to enable proposal. 488 Ash EM Good 40 or more A1 290 Retain and protect during the development phase.

489 Ash M Good 10 to 20 C1 380 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help

maintain safety.

490 Beech Y Good 20 to 40 B2 190 Retain and protect during the development phase. 491 Beech Y Good 40 or more A1 200 Retain and protect during the development phase. 492 Ash V Poor 10 to 20 A1 1150 Pruning Required to improve safety and extend safe life

493 Ash OM Fair 10 to 20 A1 700 Pruning Required to improve safety and extend safe life

494 Ash M Good 20 to 40 C2 450 Retain and protect during the development phase. 495 Ash M Good 10 to 20 B2 300 Retain and protect during the development phase. 496 Ash M Fair 20 to 40 C2 500 Retain and protect during the development phase. 497 Hawthorn M Fair 20 to 40 C2 120, 100, 90 Retain and protect during the development phase. 498 Elder OM Poor 10 or less U 190 Remove due to current poor state.

499 Hawthorn EM Poor 10 to 20 C3 210, 220 Retain and protect during the development phase. 500 Rowan EM Good 20 to 40 B2 220, 200 Retain and protect during the development phase. 501 Beech SM Good 40 or more B1 280 Retain and protect during the development phase. 502 Silver Birch EM Poor 10 to 20 C2 250 Remove to improve growing conditions for nearby trees

503 Alder EM Good 10 to 20 C2 410 Retain and protect during the development phase. 504 Silver Birch EM Good 20 to 40 B2 220 Retain and protect during the development phase. 505 Silver Birch SM Good 40 or more A1 290 Retain and protect during the development phase. 506 Silver Birch SM Fair 10 or less U 200 Remove due to current poor state.

507 Silver Birch EM Good 40 or more A1 290 Retain and protect during the development phase.

508 Goat Willow M Fair 10 or less U 210, 190 Remove due to current poor state.

509 Alder SM Poor 10 to 20 C3 140 Remove to enable proposal. 510 Goat Willow SM Poor 10 to 20 C3 140 Remove to enable proposal. 511 Leyland Cypress SM Fair 10 to 20 C1 230 Remove to enable proposal. 512 Leyland Cypress SM Fair 10 to 20 C1 210 Remove to enable proposal.

513 Grey Lawson Cypress Y Poor 10 or less U 90 Remove due to current poor state.

514 Alder SM Poor 10 or less U 300 Remove due to current poor state.

515 Ash M Fair 10 to 20 C1 300, 200 Retain and protect during the development phase. 516 Alder M Good 40 or more A1 320 Retain and protect during the development phase. 517 Oak SM Good 40 or more A1 280 Retain and protect during the development phase.

518 Ash Y Very Good

10 or less U 90 Remove due to current poor state.

519 Alder M Good 40 or more A1 300 Retain and protect during the development phase.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Tag No.


520 Ash Y Very Good

10 or less U 110 Remove due to current poor state.

521 Elder OM Declinin

g 10 to 20 C3 250, 150, 100 Retain and protect during the development phase.

522 Alder V Fair 10 to 20 A1 720 Pruning Required to improve safety and extend safe life

523 Ash SM Poor 10 to 20 C3 140, 90 Remove to improve growing conditions for nearby trees

524 Ash EM Fair 20 to 40 B2 380 Retain and protect during the development phase.

525 Ash M Poor 10 to 20 C2 190 Remove to improve growing conditions for nearby trees

526 Ash M Fair 10 or less C2 350 Retain and protect during the development phase. 527 Ash M Fair 10 or less B3 400, 360 Retain and protect during the development phase. 528 Rowan Y Good 40 or more C3 100 Retain and protect during the development phase. 529 Downy Birch EM Good 40 or more A1 250 Retain and protect during the development phase. 530 Rowan Y Good 40 or more C3 100 Remove to improve growing conditions for nearby trees

531 Silver Birch EM Good 40 or more B1 250 Retain and protect during the development phase.

532 Rowan Y Good 40 or more C3 100 Remove to improve growing conditions for nearby trees

533 Hawthorn & Ash M Fair 10 to 20 C3 320, 300, 100, 110 Retain and protect during the development phase. 534 Silver Birch EM Fair 10 to 20 C1 200 Retain and protect during the development phase. 535 Downy Birch EM Good 40 or more A1 250 Retain and protect during the development phase. 536 Rowan EM Fair 10 to 20 C3 140 Retain and protect during the development phase.

537 Rowan Y Dead 5 or less U 90 Remove due to current poor state.

538 Downy Birch EM Good 40 or more A1 250 Retain and protect during the development phase. 539 Ash EM Good 10 to 20 C1 160 Retain and protect during the development phase. 540 Ash, Hawthorn & Holly Hedge EM Fair 40 or more C2 up to 90 Retain and protect during the development phase.

541 Oak M Fair 10 to 20 C1 520 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help

maintain safety.

542 Ash OM Fair 10 to 20 C1 650 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help

maintain safety.

543 Sycamore M Fair 10 to 20 C1 650, 600 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help

maintain safety.

544 Pear V Fair 40 or more A2 490 Encourage owner to investigate tree stability to help

maintain safety. 545 Plum OM Good 5 or less U 500 Encourage owner to remove due to current poor state.

546 Pear V Fair 40 or more A2 470 Retain and protect during the development phase. 547 Hawthorn SM Fair 20 to 40 B2 300 Retain and protect during the development phase. 548 Beech Hedge M Good 40 or more B2 330 Retain and protect during the development phase. 549 Beech M Fair 20 to 40 A2 800 Retain and protect during the development phase. 550 Irish Yew M Fair 20 to 40 B2 100 Retain and protect during the development phase. 551 Irish Yew M Fair 20 to 40 B2 100 Retain and protect during the development phase. 552 Apple M Fair 20 to 40 B2 250 Retain and protect during the development phase. 553 Variegated Holly M Good 20 to 40 B2 420 Retain and protect during the development phase.

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Tag No.


554 Purple Cherry Plum M Good 20 to 40 B2 600 Retain and protect during the development phase. 555 Holly M Fair 20 to 40 B2 100 Retain and protect during the development phase. 556 Himalayan Birch EM Fair 20 to 40 B2 200 Retain and protect during the development phase.

APPENDIX H - PLANS

BARNES & ASSOCIATES



Tree Impact Appraisal Plan - BA4962AIA (A0 Plan Attached)

Tree Protection Plan - BA4962PRO (A0 Plan Attached)

Barnes & Associates, Rivermead, Skelton Road, Langthorpe, North Yorkshire, YO51 9BZ

Telephone: 01423 322 371 Mobile: 07831 530 563

Email: [email protected]

Tree Surveys & Condition Reports

Tree Health & Safety Reports

Tree Risk Assessments

Tree Population Site Inventories

Estate Tree Management

Woodland Management

Tree Work Specification & Tenders

Insurance & Mortgage Reports

Decay Detection & Mapping – Picus

Windload & Stability Assessments

Development Site Tree Reports to BS5837

Arboricultural Implication Assessments (AIA)

Arboricultural Method Statements (AMS)

Construction Exclusion Zone Management

Tree Protection Plan Design

Tree Valuation & Replacement Costing

TPO Objections & Appeals

Soft landscape planting Schemes

Landscape visual impact assessment

Landscape Consultants

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Arboricultural Impact Appraisal - Ribble Valley · PDF fileThis arboricultural impact appraisal describes our assessment of ... This might include the removal of existing structures