Laurel hill tree survey and aboricultural impact assessment by 10bristol

LAND AT LAUREL HILL

CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL

TREE SURVEY AND ABORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PREPARED BY PEGASUS GROUP | BRS.4751 | APRIL 2014

25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

St June

TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN ON BEHALF OF

DICK LOVETT FOR

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR UPTO 110 DWELLINGS AT

LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL BS5837:2012 ‘TREES IN RELATION TO DESIGN, DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION – RECOMMENDATIONS’ Prepared by: A Cunningham Tech Arbor A

Checked by: M Reid Tech Arbor A

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

CONTENTS: Page No:

INTRODUCTION

REPORT LIMITATIONS

DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION PROVIDED

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Statutory tree protection Statutory Wildlife Protection

4 4 5

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND TREES

TREE SURVEY FINDINGS

IDENTIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY TREE CONSTRAINTS

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

10.

ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA)

11.

DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN (TPP)

12.

HEADS OF TERMS FOR AN ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT

13.

SUMMARY

APPENDICES: APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX

1 2 3 4 5 6

SITE LOCATION PLAN TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE TREE SURVEY PLAN TREE RETENTION/REMOVAL PLAN ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT SCHEDULE DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

Revision B. MR. 25.04.14 Notes: removal of H2

25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Pegasus Group have been instructed to carry out a tree survey on land referred to as Laurel Hill, located within the Cribbs Causeway area of Bristol and hereafter referred to as ‘the site’.

1.2

The scope of the assessment was to visit the site and to survey relevant trees, hedges and shrub masses in accordance with BS5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations.’

Pegasus Group was

requested to then present the following information:

1.3



Tree survey report



Schedule of tree survey data



Updated topographical survey showing preliminary tree constraints

With reference to the above information and BS 5837:2012, Pegasus Group were subsequently also instructed to assess the impact of indicative development proposals on the site’s arboricultural resource and to produce the following: 

Arboricultural Impact Assessment



Draft Tree Protection Plan



Heads of terms for an Arboricultural Method Statement

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 1

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

REPORT LIMITATIONS

2.1

Trees are living organisms as well as self-supporting dynamic structures. Their physiological and structural condition can change rapidly in response to a wide range of biotic/abiotic factors. They have the potential to fail structurally, without prior manifestation of any reasonably observable symptoms. It is therefore not possible to categorically state that any tree is ‘safe’.

2.2

This report is prepared for planning application purposes only and does not evaluate the degree of risk posed by trees.

2.3

It is beyond the scope of this report to comment in relation to structural damage – direct or indirect, existing or potential – that might be associated with vegetation growth, or vegetation-related soil subsidence or heave.

2.4

Any management recommendations set out within this report are of an advisory and preliminary nature only and relate to trees within the context of current site use. Any physical alterations to site conditions subsequent to the date of the site survey

will

have

the

potential

change/invalidate

the

findings

and

recommendations of this report. 2.5

The findings and recommendations of this report are limited to a period of 24 months from the date of this report.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 2

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION PROVIDED

3.1

For the purposes of carrying out the assessment, Pegasus Group were provided with the following information:  Site

Location

Plan

–

Pegasus

Environmental

–

BRS.4751_18-A

–

18.02.2014.  Topographical survey (No reference)

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 3

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Statutory tree protection

4.1

South Gloucestershire Council have confirmed (telephone conversation 24.3.14 15.30hrs) that the site is not located within a conservation area and that none of the trees are currently protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO). However, the following information is provided for advisory purposes in case circumstances change.

4.2

Notwithstanding specific exemptions and in general terms, a TPO prevents the cutting down, uprooting, topping, lopping, wilful damage or wilful destruction of trees or woodlands without the prior consent of the local planning authority.

4.3

Penalties for contravention of a TPO tend to reflect the extent of damage caused but can, in the event of a tree being destroyed, result in a fine of up to ÂŁ25,000 if convicted in a Magistratesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Court, or an unlimited fine is the matter is determined by the Crown Court.

4.4

On many non-residential sites (excluding specific exemptions) there is also a statutory restriction relating to tree felling that relates to quantities of timber that can be removed within set time periods.

In basic terms, it is an offence to

remove more than 5 cubic metres of timber in any one calendar quarter without having first obtained a felling licence from the Forestry Commission. 4.5

Any proposed tree works that are planned to be carried out on site must be carried out in accordance with the statutory controls outlined.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 4

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

Statutory Wildlife Protection 4.6

Although preliminary visual checks from ground level of likely wildlife habitats are made at the time of surveying, detailed ecological assessments of wildlife habitats are not made by the arboriculturist and fall outside the remit of this report.

4.7

Trees which contain holes, splits, cracks and cavities could potentially provide a habitat for bats in addition to birds and small mammals. It is recommended that in line with any accompanying specialist advice, any tree works should only be carried out following a detailed climbing inspection to the tree to ensure that protected species or their nests/roosts are not disturbed. If any are found, the project manager, site owner or consulting arboriculturist should be informed and appropriate action taken as recommended by a Statutory Nature Conservation organisation such as Natural England.

4.8

It is advised that tree/hedgerow works are carried out with the understanding that birds will generally nest in trees, hedges and shrubs between March and August. Ideally, operations should be avoided during this period. Any necessary work should only be carried out following a preliminary check of the vegetation.

4.9

For information, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010, form the basis of the statutory legislation for flora and fauna in Britain.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 5

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

SURVEY METHODOLOGY Site visit

5.1

Pegasus Group visited the site on 25 March 2014.

Individuals present on site:

Matthew Reid Tech Arbor A. Tree Survey 5.2

The tree survey was carried out with reference to the methodology set out in BS5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations’.

5.3

Trees were not tagged.

Trees were surveyed individually or as groups where it was considered that they had

grown

together

form

cohesive

arboricultural

features

either

aerodynamically (trees that provide companion shelter), visually (eg avenues or screens) or culturally (including for biodiversity).

However, where it was

considered that there was an arboricultural need to differentiate between attributes trees within groups/woodlands were also surveyed as individuals 5.4

Tree survey findings are recorded in the tree survey schedule (Appendix 2).

5.5

Within the tree survey schedule, each surveyed tree (T), group (G) or woodland (W) on or adjacent to the site is given a reference number which refers to its position on the tree survey plan (Appendix 3).

5.6

Also shown on the tree survey plan are quality grading and preliminary tree constraints: root protection areas.

5.7

Tree species are listed by common name.

5.8

Heights are measured in metres. They are recorded to the nearest half metre for dimensions up to 10m and to the nearest whole metre for dimensions over 10m.

5.9

Trunk diameters are measured in millimetres and are rounded to the nearest 10mm.

Single stemmed tree diameters are measured at 1.5m above ground

level or, where a fork or swelling makes this impractical, at the narrowest point beneath.

Diameters of multi-stemmed trees are calculated as ‘combined stem

diameters’ according to specific guidance set out within BS5837:2012.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 6

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

5.10

Branch spreads are taken at the four cardinal points to derive an accurate representation of the tree crown. They are recorded up to the nearest half metre for dimensions up to 10m and to up the nearest whole metre for dimensions over 10m.

5.11

Crown clearance is expressed both as existing height above ground level of first significant branch along with its direction of growth (eg 2.5m-N), and also in terms of the overall canopy.

Measurements are recorded to the nearest half

metre for dimensions up to 10m and to the nearest whole metre for dimensions over 10m. 5.12

Estimates. Where any other measurement has had to be estimated, due to inaccessibility for example, this is indicated by a “#” suffix to the measurement as shown in the tree survey schedule.

5.13

Life stage is defined as Y – young (stake dependent), SM - Semi-Mature (still capable of being transplanted without preparation, up to 30cm girth and not yet sexually mature), EM – Early Mature (not yet having reached 75% of expected mature size), M – Mature (anything else up to normal life expectancy for the species), OM – Over Mature (anything beyond mature and in natural decline), V – Veteran (any tree displaying characteristics described by Natural England).

5.14

General observations are recorded in relation to a tree’s structural and/or physiological condition (eg the presence of any decay and physical defect) and /or any preliminary management recommendations that may be appropriate.

5.15

Physiological condition

is described as Good (no indications of impaired

physiological function and in optimum condition for age and species), Fair (with indicators of reduced vitality. Some intervention may be required), Poor (with significantly impaired physiological function for age and species). 5.16

Structural condition is described as Good (without any observable significant biomechnical structural weaknesses), Fair (with minor biomechanical structural flaws.

Some

biomechanical

remedial

action

weaknesses

may

requiring

required),

intervention

Poor

(with

particularly

significant where

risk

management is required).

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 7

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

5.17

Useful life expectancy, or the length of time a treeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s is estimated to be able to make a useful contribution, is expressed in years as: <10, 10+, 20+, 40+.

5.18

Quality of individual trees, groups of trees and woodlands is assessed in terms of quality and benefit within the context of proposed development and graded into one of four categories (A, B, C and U) which are differentiated on the tree survey plan (Appendix 3) plan by the colours indicated below: Category A (Green)

Trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of 40 years

Category B (Blue)

Trees of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years.

Category C (Grey)

Trees

low

quality

with

estimated

remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm. Category U (Red)

Unsuitable for retention. Trees in such a poor condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years.

5.19

A, B and C trees have also been given a sub-category of 1, 2 or 3 which reflects their arboricultural, landscape or cultural and conservation values respectively. Each subcategory has an equal weight, for example an A1 tree has the same retention priority as an A3 tree.

5.20

In addition to the category, the tree survey schedule also describes each treeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s root protection area (RPA) in terms of radius (metres) and overall area (sq metres).

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 8

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND TREES

6.1

The site is located within northern Bristol within the Cribbs Causeway area: ď&#x201A;ˇ Nearby post code: BS10 7TJ ď&#x201A;ˇ Grid ref: ST 57519 80451

6.2

A location plan is provided at Appendix 1.

6.3

The site consists of open land that appears to currently be within agricultural use. There is a public footpath adjacent to a recently pruned hedge that passes through the centre of the site.

6.4

To the north of the site the landscape consists of built form that is dominated by large buildings that are in commercial business use.

To the east lies a row of

residential properties and gardens with open agricultural land beyond.

The

southern boundary of the site is marked by a watercourse known as Henbury Trym, the banks of which are well treed.

To the east of the site there is

agricultural land with commercial use built form beyond. 6.5

Ground levels slope from the industrial units to the north down towards the south-east.

6.6

Some vegetation has recently been removed from the site interior.

The most

obvious arboricultural feature associated with the site is the well-established tree group that follows the watercourse to the south.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 9

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

TREE SURVEY FINDINGS

7.1

Summary of tree survey findings are shown in table form below:

7.2

Total

Trees Groups Woodlands

11 4 0

0 0 0

5 1 0

5 3 0

1 0 0

Shrub mass Hedgerow Total

0 1 16

0 0 0

0 0 6

0 1 9

0 0 1

It can be seen that the majority of surveyed items were considered to be of poor quality (nine) with an additional one tree assessed as being unsuitable for retention in the current site context.

The poor quality trees are defined by

BS5837 as having a maximum remaining life expectancy of twenty years. 7.3

Six survey items (five trees and one group) were assessed as being of moderate quality; that is having an estimated remaining life expectancy of up to forty years.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 10

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

7.4

Select photographs of the site are shown below:

Photoview 1: View west from northern boundary showing G1.

Photoview 2: View north-east showing G8, a mix of broken hedgerow and standard trees. ______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 11

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

Photoview 3: View north showing individual trees on northern boundary. left of frame and T14 to right of frame.

T9 is

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 12

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

Photoview 4: view south-west showing G3 following line of watercourse. All trees to the south of the watercourse are protected by TPO. There are several trees within G6 that require management to control the risk of structural failure.

Photoview 5: view south showing G3 following line of watercourse. Offsite ash tree, T5, is left of frame and was surveyed as being unsuitable for retention, with a maximum estimated life expectancy of ten years.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 13

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

Photoview 6: View north showing footpath through the site with recently managed hedge, H2, on right hand side. 8.

IDENTIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY TREE CONSTRAINTS

8.1

In accordance with BS5837:2012, below ground constraints, or root protection areas (RPAs), for the surveyed trees have been plotted onto the tree survey plan for the site. These are represented as a circle centred on the base of each tree stem with a radius of 12 times stem diameter measured at 1.5m above ground level.

8.2

With reference to BS5837:2012, a root protection area (RPA) is defined as “a layout design tool indicating 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 should be treated as a priority”. “The default position [when considering design layout in relation to RPAs] should be that structures are located outside the RPAs of trees to be retained”.

8.3

BS5837:2012 states (4.6.2) that, “where pre-existing site conditions or other factors indicate that rooting has occurred asymmetrically, a polygon of equivalent area should be produced.” The BS goes on to state that, “modifications to the shape of the RPA should reflect a soundly based arboricultural assessment of

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 14

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

likely root distribution,” and that any deviation from the original circular plot should take into account:  morphology and disposition of roots  topography and drainage  soil type and structure  the likely tolerance of the tree to root damage/disturbance 8.4

Root systems can be damaged in a number of ways as follows:  Severance of a root will destroy all parts of the root beyond that point. The larger the root severed, the greater the impact on the tree. If roots are damaged close to the trunk, the anchorage and stability of the tree can be affected  The root bark protects the root from decay and is also essential for further root

growth.

damage

the

bark

extends

around

the

whole

circumference, the root beyond that point will be killed  Soil compaction, which may occur from storage of material or passage of heavy equipment over the root area, can restrict and even prevent gaseous diffusion through the soil, and thereby asphyxiate the roots. The roots must have oxygen for survival, growth and effective functioning.  Lowering the soil level will strip out the mass of roots near the surface  Raising soil levels will have the same effect as soil compaction  Incorrect selection and application of herbicide  Spillage of oils or other harmful materials 8.5

Above ground constraints posed by trees describe the capacity for trees to have an overbearing or dominating effect on new developments; usually post occupancy. Typical above ground constraints include a number or combination of inconveniences including shading, branch spread, movement of trees during strong winds and so on. If not adequately considered, above ground constraints

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 15

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

can lead to repeated requests to fell or heavily prune retained and protected trees. 8.6

The colour-coded categorisation of tree quality is also shown on the tree survey plan.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 16

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

9.1

The proposed development is for up to 110 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure.

9.2

The access to the site is to be via a new route which will be obtained by the demolition of two existing dwellings on the eastern boundary of the site. There are a number of insignificant ornamental shrubs contained within the gardens to these dwellings.

9.3

The intended layout of the development is shown on the draft Tree Protection Plan at Appendix 6.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 17

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

10.

ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA)

10.1

With reference to BS5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction’, this AIA evaluates the direct and indirect effects of the proposed design on the site’s arboricultural resource.

10.2

The AIA considers the effects of any tree loss required to implement the design as well as any potentially damaging activities proposed in the vicinity of retained trees. BS5837:2012 suggests that such activities might include:  Removal of existing structures and hard surfacing;  Installation of new hard surfacing;  Installation of services;  Location and dimensions of all proposed excavations and changes in ground level (including those that might arise from the implementation of recommended mitigation measures);  The ‘buildability’ of the scheme in terms of access, adequate working space, provision for storage of materials including topsoil.

10.3

With reference to BS5837:2012, the AIA includes the following information:

a) tree

retention/removal

plan

incorporating

proposed

tree

pruning

specifications (Appendix 4)

b) an evaluation of the impact of proposals (Appendix 5 and 10.5-10.16 below) 10.4

An AIA schedule is included at Appendix 5.

This provides a tree-by-tree

assessment of the potential impacts of the proposals.

It also evaluates the

degree of impact and sets out mitigation measures as may be necessary. This overall assessment is expanded on below:

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 18

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

Evaluation of effects of proposed tree losses 10.5

The table and comments below summarise the tree retention and loss of across the site.

TREES/

Total

GROUPS/

Number

Number retained

loss

HEDGES

10.6

Category A

Category B

Category C

Category U

Total

The table indicates that two survey items within the site will have to be removed in order to enable the construction of the proposed residential development. The two items, H2 and T16 are both Category C. These removals are considered to be acceptable as new planting can be conditioned as part of the wider landscaping scheme for the site.

10.7

In addition, one Category ‘U’ tree was identified during the survey as being unsuitable for retention in the current context of the site. This tree is considered to be outside of the red line boundary of the site. Removal of existing structures and hard surfacing

10.8

No existing structures and hard surfacing in proximity to retained trees will need to be removed to enable the proposed development. Installation of hard surfacing

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 19

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

10.9

Soil compaction reduces soil aeration and penetrability thereby impeding tree root growth and respiration capacity.

The consequences of soil compaction often

manifest themselves in trees as symptoms of reduced physiological function; dieback at branch and root extremities and thinned density of foliage. In turn, the effects of these symptoms can lead to overall decline and/or reduced resistance to pests and diseases. 10.10 In relation to the construction of the infrastructure to the proposed development, the indicative site layout shows major ground works are anticipated within the RPAs of G1 and G8. The intention to retain these as items should be possible by a detailed adjustment of the layout at detailed planning stage. 10.11 The indicative site layout shows that the implementation of the new access in to the site will result in the removal of T16 as well as small ornamental shrubs in the gardens of the due to be demolished dwellings. Given their modest size and location of this vegetation, the wider impact is considered to be negligible. 10.12 Minor hard surfacing is anticipated on the periphery of the RPA of T7. It is considered that this tree is robust enough in the terms of its physiological condition to withstand these minor impacts without any detrimental long-term effects on its overall health. Installation of services 10.13 The exact routing of services is a matter of detail that should be addressed as part of further subsequent detailed applications for the site.

However, a

preliminary evaluation of the indicative layout demonstrates that adequate space exists within the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s internal road layout to adequately demonstrate that it is feasible for services to be installed without adverse impact on retained trees. 10.14 Notwithstanding the above, In the event of excavations being required within the RPA of any retained tree, works can be carried out in accordance with specifications and recommendations defined by the National Joint Utilities Group in the guidance document NJUG Volume 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees. Additional guidance should also be provided by an arboriculturist. Levels ______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 20

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

10.15 It is anticipated that may be a degree of level change to accommodate the development proposals. Where re-profiling within RPA’s is absolutely necessary the proposed work will need to be fully assessed by an arboriculturist to identify any impacts to retained trees. Then if appropriate, the work will need to be undertaken in accordance with a detailed arboricultural method statement. ‘Buildability’ 10.16 Access to implement the proposed development will be via a new access route which will involve the demolition of two existing properties on the eastern boundary of the proposed site. It is considered that there is adequate space within the site interior to accommodate site huts, storage of materials and contractors parking. 10.17 Provided that tree protection measures are put in place, it is considered that there is adequate space to the enable the proposals to be constructed without significant damage to retained trees.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 21

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

11.

DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN (TPP)

11.1

The draft Tree Protection Plan is attached at Appendix 6.

11.2

In accordance with BS5837:2012 the draft TPP is superimposed onto the proposed site layout plan and based on the topographical survey. Any hard surfacing and structures within the RPAs of trees to be retained are shown on the draft TPP.

In addition, where relevant, the draft TPP shows the following

information, accompanied by descriptive text as required:  Precise locations of protective barriers (forming Construction Exclusion Zones in relation to RPAs of retained trees)  Extent and type of any ground protection;  Other protection measures necessary e.g. tree protection boxes. 11.3

The preparation of the draft TPP has considered the following factors where relevant: Site construction access;  intensity and nature of construction activity;  contractors car parking;  phasing of construction works;  availability of special construction techniques;  spatial requirements for:

a) temporary and permanent apparatus and service runs; b) foundation excavations and construction works; c) cranes, plant scaffolding and access during works; d) site huts, toilets (including drainage) and other temporary structures; e) storage (either temporary or long-term) of materials, spoil, fuel and mixing of concrete. ______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 22

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

ď&#x201A;ˇ All changes in ground levels including location of retaining walls, steps and adequate allowance for foundations of such walls and backfillings 11.4

The tree protection measures shown on

the

draft

Tree Protection Plan

demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed development in relation to retained trees.

However, it must be implemented with specific reference to an

arboricultural method statement that is relevant to the proposals.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 23

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

12.

HEADS OF TERMS FOR AN ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT

12.1

BS5837:2012 (Figure 1) recommends that detailed/technical design of tree protection and arboricultural methodologies should be resolved and finalised following on from the approval of the feasibility of a scheme by the relevant regulatory body.

12.2

Annex

and

Table

B.1

BS5837:2012,

informative,

advises

that

arboricultural method statement heads of terms are a sufficient level of information in order to deliver tree-related information into the planning system. The table also advises that a detailed arboricultural method statement might reasonably be required as a ‘reserved matter’ or planning condition. 12.3

In relation to the above site, it is anticipated that arboricultural working methods are likely to be quite straightforward. A draft, ‘heads of terms’ is set out below: 

Project arboriculturist – schedule of monitoring and supervision



Pre commencement site meeting



Erection of tree protection barriers and temporary ground protection



Main construction phase



Removal of tree protection barriers



Final landscaping

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 24

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

13.

SUMMARY

13.1

The proposals are for a residential development for up to 110 dwellings and associated infrastructure.

13.2

The majority of items were considered to be low quality with an almost equal number of moderate quality items. There was one tree (T5) that was categorised as category U. This tree is located outside of the red line boundary of the site and therefore can be retained.

13.3

The implementation of the proposals would require a new access route to be constructed from the eastern boundary of the site. This will involve the removal of T16. The removal of this tree is considered acceptable as wider planting is proposed as part of the landscape scheme for the site.

13.4

It is likely to be possible to retain G1 and G8 with a detailed adjustment of the site layout at detailed planning stage.

13.5

Two items within the site are marked for removal; H2 and T16 are both Category C survey items. These removals are considered to be acceptable as new planting can be conditioned as part of the wider landscaping scheme for the site.

13.6

The indicative layout shows infrastructure may be required within the periphery of the RPA of T7. This tree is considered robust enough in the terms of its physiological condition to withstand these very minor impacts without any detrimental long-term effects assuming that works are carried out appropriately.

13.7

Overall, provided that the tree protection measures that have been specified are put in place and all works are undertaken in accordance with an arboricultural method statement, it is reasonable to conclude that the development proposals are feasible from an arboricultural perspective.

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 25

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX 1 SITE LOCATION PLAN

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 26

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX 2 TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 27

Date: 14 November 2013

Site: Cribbs Causeway

Surveyor: MR Client: Dick Lovett Crown clearance height

Spread Species

Elm, hawthorn, Field Maple, Privet, Elder, Rose

Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Dogwood, elder, Field maple, spindle, rosa, elm

100

0.5

Ash (Common)

800

T4 T5

Ash (Common) Field maple Hazel, hawthorn, field maple, crack willow, ash,

9 8

# #

600 280

# #

5 5

# #

5 4

# #

6 5

# #

6 4

# #

na 2

8.5

200

400

2.5

G6 T7

Willow (Crack)

Height Est Stem dia Est

Life 1st 1st N Est S Est E Est W Est Est branch Canopy Est stage branch direction

Ref

8.5

150

Fair

10+

1.8

Adjacent to public footpath. Ditch along one half of length. Unmanaged. Width >5m for majority of length. Blackthorn sucker growth out into field (W). Too wide to be considered a hedge in terms of hedgerow regulations. More an unmanaged linear tree/shrub group. Requires management.

Fair

Good

10+

1.2

Pollard tree with dense ivy throughout. Unable to inspect base

Fair

10+

9.6

290

na West

2 1.5

# #

M M

Fair Good

10+ 20+

C1 B1

7.2 3.4

163 35

0.5

Fair

Good

20+

2.4

North

A taller tree within G2. Unable to inspect base. A taller tree within them linear group. In bottom of ditch Located offsite beyond watercourse? Unmanaged. Eastern end of group encroaches into southern portion of site. Multi-stemmed tree on far bank of watercourse. RPA likely to substantially restricted to north

Fair

Good

10+

4.8

Poor

Fair

<10

10.2

327

850

4.5

Willow (Crack)

400

T10

Oak (English)

850

W11

G12 G13

Scots pine, Norway spruce, hawthorn, gum, goat willow, Hawthorn, poplar, ash, weeping willow Elm, hawthorn, blackthorn

North

North east North east

Structural Physiological Quality RPA ULE RPA area Condition Condition grading radius

Forms buffer with adjacent industrial units. Unmanaged

Ash (Common)

0.5

General observations Physiological and structural condition. Preliminary management recommendations

Job no: BRS.4751

Offsite tree? Located on far side of watercourse. RPA likely to be restricted to north. Dense ivy throughout. Moderate amounts of major deadwood. Notable lean overall to NW. Evidence previous large limb failure 2m (W). Unsuitable for retention without substantial pruning intervention.

2.5

Onsite. One of the larger components of G6

Good

10+

4.8

Located on far bank of water course. Offsite? Previously heavily pruned (E&SE)

Fair

Good

20+

10.2

327

Fair

Good

20+

3.0

250

Plantation, contains majority conifers but ash aslo. Likely to develop into an incongruous feature within landscape due to spruce? Possible former Christmas tree plantation? Unmanaged. Would benefit from removal of Spruce and introduction of native species

500

Mainly offsite group containing mature trees

Fair

Good

10+

6.0

113

200

Boundary feature forming buffer with adjacent industrial units

Fair

10+

2.4

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX 3 TREE SURVEY PLAN

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 28

0 0

25m 50m

0 ÂŠ Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. ÂŠ Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 emapsite Licence number 0100031673. Ordnance Survey Copyright Licence number 100042093 I Promap Licence number 100020449 . Pegasus Environmental is part of Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. Drawing prepared for planning. Any queries to be reported to Pegasus for clarification

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX 4 TREE RETENTION/REMOVAL PLAN

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 29

2 FE .7M NC HI E GH TO P BO ALL UN ISA DA DE RY

B1 TE ,B F 2 OR & B8 US G TA ON

N DI

IL BU

BU TA ON FR

N DI

E AG

NT RO

25m

50m

I G 2.6 EN A ER CR IS E S , B IT 1, E B2 FO & R B8 US

IL BU

© Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 emapsite Licence number 0100031673. Ordnance Survey Copyright Licence number 100042093 I Promap Licence number 100020449 . Pegasus Environmental is part of Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. Drawing prepared for planning. Any queries to be reported to Pegasus for clarification

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX 5 ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT SCHEDULE

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 30

Arboricultural Impact Schedule No Species Quality

Elm, hawthorn, Field Maple, Privet, Elder, Rose Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Dogwood, elder, Field maple, spindle, rosa, elm Hazel, hawthorn, field maple, crack willow, ash,

Willow (Crack)

Ash (Common)

Willow (Crack)

Oak (English)

Elm, hawthorn, blackthorn

Poplar (Hybrid black)

Arboricultural effects (direct and indirect) of proposed design description

Site: Laurel Hill, Bristol Unadjusted Unadjusted degree of significance of Arboricultural Arboricultural Impact on tree Impact

Retained as part of the green infrastructure, located on northern boundary. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

High

Remove to enable development

Recommended mitigation

Ref: BRS.4751 Adjusted degree Adjusted of Arboricultural significance of Impact on tree/ Arboricultural site's Impact arboricultural resource

Tree removal required

Moderate

Amendment of detailed design to minimise above and below ground constraints, Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Medium

Moderate/Minor

High

Moderate

Replanting as part of wider landscape scheme for the site.

Medium

Moderate/Minor

Yes

Retained as part of the green infrastructure on the southern boundary to the site. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

Low

Minor

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Insignificant

Negligible

Retained as part of the green infrastructure. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

Low

Negligible

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Insignificant

Negligible

Off-site tree. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

Low

Negligible

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Insignificant

Negligible

Retained as part of the green infrastructure. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

Medium

Moderate/Minor

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Low

Negligible

Retained as part of the green infrastructure. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

Medium

Moderate

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Low

Minor

Retained as part of the green infrastructure, located on northern boundary. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

High

Moderate

Amendment of detailed design to minimise above and below ground constraints, Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Medium

Moderate/Minor

Off site tree, located within rear garden of neighbouring property. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

Medium

Moderate

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Low

Minor

T10

Willow (Weeping)

T11

Birch (Silver)

T12

Poplar (Hybrid black)

T13

Ash (Common)

T14

Willow (Weeping)

G15

Norway spruce, wild cherry

T16

Spruce (Norway)

Off site tree, located within rear garden of neighbouring property. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities. Off site tree, located within rear garden of neighbouring property. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities. Off site tree, located within rear garden of neighbouring property. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities. Off site tree, located within rear garden of neighbouring property. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities. Off site tree, located within rear garden of neighbouring property. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

Medium

Moderate

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Low

Minor

Medium

Moderate

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Low

Minor

Medium

Moderate/Minor

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Low

Negligible

Low

Negligible

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Insignificant

Negligible

Low

Minor

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Insignificant

Negligible

Off site trees, situated within neighbouring property. Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities.

Low

Negligible

Use tree protection barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012.

Insignificant

Negligible

Potential root damage and above ground impact-type damage assoiciated with construction work activities. Removal anticipated.

High

Moderate

Mitigation planting as part of the wider landscaping scheme for the site.

Medium

Moderate/Minor

Yes

DICK LOVETT LAUREL HILL, CRIBBS CAUSEWAY, BRISTOL TREE SURVEY, ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

APPENDIX 6 DRAFT TREE PROTECTION PLAN

______________________________________________________________________________ 25 APRIL 2014 | ACU/MR | BRS.4751_B

Page | 31

2 FE .7M NC HI E GH TO P BO ALL UN ISA DA DE RY

B1 TE ,B F 2 OR & B8 US G TA ON

N DI

IL BU

BU TA ON FR

N DI

E AG

NT RO

25m

50m

I G 2.6 EN A ER CR IS E S , B IT 1, E B2 FO & R B8 US

IL BU

web site: www.pegasuspg.co.uk Prepared by Pegasus Planning | Planning I Environmental I Urban Design Pegasus Group First Floor South Wing Equinox North Great Park Road Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4QL Telephone: (01454) 625945

COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. Crown copyright. All rights reserved, Licence number 100042093