Arboricultural Proof of Evidence - David Bailey DB1 · David Bailey The Hawthorns 27th November...

Keele Parish Council, Arboricultural report DB/1

David Bailey The Hawthorns 27th November 2014 of 22

Appeals by Keele Seddon Ltd against refusal of a planning application to

Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council for demolition of existing buildings

and development of 92 dwellings at the Hawthorns, Keele, Newcastle under

Lyme.

Arboricultural Evidence – Keele Parish Council

Proof of Evidence

David Bailey David Bailey BSc(hons), M.Arbor.A, cert. Arb(RFS) Appeal references: APP/P3420/A/14/2219380

APP/P3420/E/14/2219712

Original references: 13/00424/FUL

13/00425/CON

AArrbboorriiccuullttuurraall RReeppoorrtt

50 Chestnut Road, Loggerheads, Market Drayton, Shropshire TF9 4BL Tel: 01630 673216 Mob: 07813 808174 Web: www.oldoaktreecare.co.uk



Contents

1.0 Qualifications and experience

2.0 Instructions

3.0 Extent of survey

4.0 Original proposal

5.0 The site

6.0 My findings – issues of amenity

7.0 My findings – regard given to trees designated for retention

8.0 My findings – professional approach to the development

9.0 Conclusions

1.0 Qualifications and Experience

1.1 My name is David Bailey. I am the owner of Old Oak Tree Care, an

Arboricultural Consultancy based on the Staffordshire/Shropshire border. I

have run my business as a contractor since 2004 and progressed to work

as a consultant since 2008. In 2014 I ceased contracting work to

concentrate full time on consultancy work.

1.2 I attained an honours degree in arboriculture at Myerscough College,

Lancashire at an upper second level in 2011 after completing a foundation

degree in arboriculture at merit level from Myerscough College, in 2008. I

attained a certificate of arboriculture from the Royal Forestry Society in

2006.



1.3 I am a professional member of the Arboricultural Association and hold

professional indemnity insurance to £1 million.

1.4 Old Oak Tree Care is an approved contractor to Shropshire Council and

carries out work for non-government agencies, county councils, town

councils, The Forestry Commission and private individuals.

1.5 In my work as a consultant, I have carried out numerous surveys of trees in

relation to construction, large scale health and safety tree surveys, private

consultancy work and LPA appeals.

I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in my report are within my own knowledge I have made

clear which they are and I believe them to be true, and that the opinions I have expressed

represent my true and complete professional opinion.

2.0 Instructions

2.1 I am instructed by Keele Parish Council to provide independent and

objective opinion in the field of arboriculture concerning the appeal by Keele

Seddon Ltd against an application made to Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough

Council to remove buildings, trees and structures from the current site at

the Hawthorns, Keele and replace it with a housing estate.

2.2 I am instructed to consider the visual impact of the development on the tree

population if the appeal were to be successful.



2.3 I am instructed to investigate whether trees that are to be retained can be

given the required space, both above and below ground, should the

development take place. This should be in accordance with the relevant

standard, BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to design, demolition and

construction: Recommendations.

2.4 I am to give my professional opinion on the application and appeal where

trees are concerned.

3.0 Extent of Survey

3.1 This report comes with two appendices, DB/2 is a summary of the evidence

contained here within and DB/3 contains photographs and maps to support

my evidence.

3.2 The survey covers only arboricultural matters in relation to this planning

application and appeal.

3.3 There are two separate planning applications involved in this appeal.

13/00425/CON deals with ‘Demolition of existing student accommodation

blocks and management centre’. 13/00424/FUL deals with ‘Proposed

student accommodation and proposed development of 92 dwellings with

school drop off point, shop and area of greenspace’. As the two applications

are linked (paragraph 1.1 of the Planning Statement of 13/00425/CON), I

will be referring to them from now on collectively as either ‘the application’

or ‘the appeal’.



3.4 This document deals only with matters arising at the Hawthorns site within

this development. The Barnes site, where student accommodation is

proposed is not in the scope of this report.

3.5 Photographs were taken with a digital compact camera. No manipulation of

images was carried out apart from altering brightness, contrast and

sharpness. Two panoramic views were created using Arcsoft 5 Panorama

maker. Some images were marked to show trees to be removed. These

trees are marked with a red X. Some red lines are drawn where houses are

proposed.

3.6 This investigation took place in the summer months when trees were in leaf.

The site was visited on three different occasions between 11th July and 18th

July 2014. Different views of the site will become available when trees lose

leaves in the winter. A different evaluation of amenity might be made during

winter also.

3.7 Documents I have seen:

i) I have made use of documents for both the appeal and the original

application from Newcastle-Under-Lyme Borough Council’s Planning

Web site

ii) Keele University’s planting map for newly built accommodation dated

12/1/1965



iii) Web pages from Keele University in ref to history of Keele Estate

http://www.keele.ac.uk/alumni/keelesheritage/briefhistory/

iv) Tree Report Ref: DFMG/3546/TreeSurveyReport Rev A

v) Tree Survey and Root Protection Area Drawing. Number 3546.01 rev

B

vi) Tree Protection Plan. Number 3546.16 Rev A

vii) Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement – Trevor

Bridge Associates (tba) Aug 2013

viii) Landscape Visual Impact Assessment Keele University – Barnes

Hall

ix) Letter of 25th September 2013 from Landscape Development Section

in reply to my letter of 18th September.

x) Letter from tba of 6th November re Tree Issues, The Hawthorns

xi) Letter, dated 7th December 2010 from Landscape Development

Section in reference to planning application 10/00531/FUL.

3.8 Item I have not seen:

i) Landscape Structure Plan 3546.09 Revision B. I have been unable

to download a working copy of this document from the council’s

portal.

3.9 I have not taken instructions which are at odds with ethical practice.

3.10 I rely upon the tree protection plan (TPP) within the original planning

application (supplied by Landscape consultants, Trevor Bridge Associates

(tba) and numbered 3546.16 Rev A). I presume this to be correct in the

plotting of tree positions, crown diameter and root protection areas (RPAs).



3.11 I rely also upon the tree report as supplied by tba and dated March 2013. I

presume this to be accurate and find on selected trees that the data is

correct. I am also in broad agreement with the quality categories given to

the trees.

4.0 The Original Proposal

4.1 The original planning proposal at the Hawthorns was to demolish the

current student accommodation, built between the 1960s and 1980’s, and

replace it with 92 residential houses, a school drop off point, shop and

linked areas of green space. The Application was made to Newcastle-

under-Lyme Borough Council.

4.2 Using the Tree Protection Plan (TPP) 3546.16 Rev A supplied by tba in the

original application, I counted 166 trees proposed for removal. The total

number of trees on site that appear on the TPP is 306.

4.3 In a letter dated 6th November 2013 from tba to the LPA, it is stated that ‘in

the order of 151 trees across the site would be lost’. The documents to

support this were given as the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and

a drawing produced by Pozzoni Architects ref. P3521-104 Rev A.



4.4 Paragraph 4 of this letter gives special working methodologies required. 4.1

states a number of trees will require the implementation of a cellular

confinement system to allow root protection areas (RPA) to be built upon

without damaging the soil below. Guidance for this is given in Appendix C of

the AIA.

4.5 4.2 of the AIA states a number of trees will require excavations to take

place in RPAs. It is proposed to use an Air Spade to identify roots down to

one metres depth along the required line of construction. Roots less than

25mm in diameter are to be pruned off and roots over this are to be

redirected back away from the construction area if practical to do so.

4.6 The paragraph below 4.2 of the AIA, indicates a similar need to excavate

using an Air Spade as road access is needed in this area and cellular

confinement systems are unusable. It refers back to Paragraph 4.2 to deal

with roots that are encountered.

4.7 A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has been prepared for the Barnes

Hall site at the university but a similar assessment cannot be found within

the council’s documents relating to the Hawthorns site in this application.

5.0 The Site

5.1 I visited the site on three occasions from 11th July to 18th July 2014 to take

measurements, photographs and assess trees.



5.2 The Hawthorns site at Keele is currently made up of buildings belonging to

the old Keele estate and newer functional buildings associated with the

university. It is primarily made up of student accommodation blocks built in

the 1960s.

5.3 The Hawthorns site is situated centrally within Keele village and contains

the only shop in the village.

5.4 The trees at the Hawthorns site are generally mature. It appears the site

was part of the wider Keele Hall estate. The size and species of a number

of trees on site would indicate these trees were planted in the late Victorian

era. This would coincide with a time of landscaping and development as

suggested by the university’s web pages on the history of the estate.

5.5 The majority of trees on the site appear to be of an age and species type

that would coincide with the development of the site into student

accommodation during the 1960s.

5.6 From looking at a selection of the trees on site, the trees appear to be of

generally good form, are well managed and will be able to add to the local

amenity for a significant amount of time in the future.

5.7 The trees bring maturity to the Hawthorns site, adding a high amount of

amenity to it.



6.0 My findings – Issues of amenity

6.1 The site is densely populated with trees, making any development within it

difficult. As trees are a material consideration within the planning process,

the developer has undertaken a tree survey to support the planning

application.

6.2 The original planning documents, as stated in my own paragraph of 5.3, do

not state the number of trees to be lost as being 151. The table within the

Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) does not give the number of trees

in the groups and the architect’s plan pictorially shows trees to be lost or

retained without numbers.

6.3 I have counted 166 trees to be lost out of a total of 306 trees and tba have

stated ‘in the order of 151’ to be lost and have not stated a total number of

trees. To prevent unnecessary argument, I will use the figures of 306 trees

in total counted and 151 trees to be lost. This gives a figure that suggests

approximately half of the trees are to be removed.

6.4 The removal of half of the trees on any site is liable to cause considerable

change to the appearance of it. This is especially so when trees are mature

and large groups of trees are taken.



6.5 The Barnes site has had a professional Landscape Visual Impact

Assessment completed. The planning application does not include one for

the Hawthorns site.

6.6 I photographed the site from a number of exterior and interior angles. The

positions and photographs are shown from figures 1 to 8. I have indicated

the position where all photographs were taken on a plan of the site in Map

E.

6.7 Some areas, particularly along the immediate boundaries of the western

and eastern sides of the site, are not subject to much tree felling in the plan.

However, within the site and along the northern boundary, tree loss is

heavy and will result in lost amenity.

6.8 Distant exterior views of the site are mainly to be found from the A525. If

travelling in a westerly direction towards Madeley the site is softened by

trees along the eastern border. These trees are, in the whole, destined to

remain in the original planning application. Travelling easterly on the A525,

there are some views of the site particularly around the junction with the

B5044. Figure 1 shows the view from this location. The loss of trees here

would be considered a moderate loss to amenity.

6.9 The site is not visible from Station Road when coming into the village until

relatively far into the built up area.



6.10 Figure 2 shows the view from the top of Quarry Bank Road. While most of

the trees on the periphery will be retained, the younger trees in the middle

will be lost. This would amount to a small loss of amenity.

6.11 From outside the school, the loss of all of the cherry trees in G20, G22, G23

and G24 will have a substantial loss to the amenity of the area. These trees

soften the view into the Hawthorns site from this well used area. Figures 3

and 4 show this.

6.12 The largest shock to the amenity of the site when viewed from the exterior

of the site is to be found from the main entrance to the site off Station Road.

Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the view from here. From this entrance the loss of

much of G10, all of G29, 6674, 6686, G28, 6668, 6639a, 6657, 6658, G33,

G30, G31 and 6653 will be visible. I would consider this to be an extreme

loss of tree amenity.

6.13 The northern boundary is clearly in view for users of the footpath that cross

from Station Road to the A525. Figure 8 shows the panoramic picture of

this. A considerable number of trees are to be lost here. This will cause a

moderate loss to amenity.

6.14 Within the site a number of trees would be retained whilst some areas will

experience more tree loss. Taken as total amount, I would consider the tree

loss within the site to amount to a significant loss of amenity to the site.



7.0 My findings – Regard given to trees designated for retention

7.1 Of the 155 trees that are to be retained on site, 18 of the trees will have a

cellular confinement system placed upon their root protection area (RPA)

and 5 trees are designated as having their RPA’s dug into.

7.2 A root protection area (RPA) is an area around a tree that contains the

minimum amount of roots and rooting medium to maintain the viability of the

tree. This area is prioritised for the tree. The size, shape and area of an

RPA is set out in BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition, and

construction – Recommendations. A tree’s root system spreads far beyond

an RPA, often over 1.5 x the height of a tree and further. The plotting of

RPAs is a tool to help ensure a realistic amount of rooting medium is given

over to the tree to ensure its viability.

7.3 The British Standards provide recommendations to arboriculturists in the

basic position of RPAs, whilst relying on arboriculturists to use their

assessment of the site and knowledge of the tree system to modify the RPA

to better protect the tree’s future. The Standards recommend the RPA to be

drawn as a circle and then adapted should site conditions indicate

asymmetrical rooting (BS5837:2012 section 4.6.2).



7.4 Where RPAs are to be diminished or moved, an arboriculturist needs to

justify this using all their experience and tools reasonably available to them.

Suitable and useful mitigation needs to be made to ensure the health of the

tree.

7.5 It is my opinion that in a number of positions on the site, due regard for the

trees has not been sufficient to properly protect them. Relevant information

such as constraints on root growth has not been transferred from the Tree

Survey and Root Protection Area Drawing 3546.01 rev B to the Tree

Protection Plan 3546.16 Rev A.

7.6 In some cases RPAs have not been plotted correctly. Every RPA on the

Tree Survey and Root Protection Area Drawing is shown as a default circle.

This is so, even in the case of RPAs reaching into roads, buildings and

other structures that make normal rooting action exceptionally hard, if not

impossible.

7.7 6774, is a large ash tree on the south east of the site, figure 9. It is within

the hedgeline and is given a large RPA of 12 metres radius Map A shows

this tree, its crown and the RPA as plotted by the developers. Map B shows

where I would expect the trees RPA to be found. I have discounted the road

as part of the RPA and have spread the 452m2 required for the RPA to the

closest areas of good rooting medium.



7.8 I do not consider a surfaced road to be suitable to add into an RPA. It is my

opinion that this area will be an exceptionally difficult area for a tree to

gather the nutrients, water and air needed for sustained tree growth.

7.9 During the planning application stage I wrote a letter to the LPA, dated 18th

September 2013, to express my concern about the poor plotting of the

RPAs within the TPP.

7.10 The LPA’s response of 26 September 2013 stated the Landscape

Development Section accepted the RPAs to be plotted correctly in tba’s

Tree Protection Plan 3546.16 Rev A.

7.11 This statement was backed up by tba in a letter, referenced

DRG/MEE/3536 on 6th November 2013. Much linespace is given to

explaining that roots are often found under roads, buildings and unsuitable

structures. I do not disagree with this, but an area such as a road cannot be

considered a usable area to put aside for the long term needs of a trees

rooting system. Trees will root into difficult areas, often in search of water,

nutrients and air. Below a road, if they manage to penetrate, roots quickly

exhaust these supplies and move on, often beyond the road and to better

rooting mediums. This is often shown by the lack of fine small, fibrous and

single celled roots found in mediums where rooting is difficult. The tree is

not gaining vitality from beneath the road, but extending its reach to better

areas where rooting is more profitable.



7.12 I have shown in Map B where I consider the RPA of 6774 should lie and it

places constraints upon the design that the current TPP does not

recognise. The tree may be at risk of a severe restriction of resources

should the proposed plan go ahead. A mature and valuable tree such as

6774 should be allowed the maximum possible rooting area. A constricted

rooting area is liable to cause long term damage and loss of longevity to the

tree.

7.13 I have counted a total of 73 trees on the Tree Survey and Root Protection

Plan where the RPA has not been altered to better reflect current root

distribution.

7.14 A similar problem, with added difficulties, is found with tree 6809, figure 10.

This large twin-stemmed tree is a significant tree with a 950mm diameter at

breast height. It is scheduled for retention. The large bike shed next to the

tree where rooting will have been very poor is not shown on the TPP. I have

shown it on Map C, and similarly on Map D where I have redrawn the RPA

to show a better representation of where I would consider the RPA to be.

Additional constraints are placed on the development which is not

considered by the current planning proposal.



7.15 Suggestion is made within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) that

digging within the RPA is possible under the guidance of an arboriculturist

by hand tools and with an air spade that uses high pressure air to displace

soil. This is a common practice and considered to be of low impact to the

tree roots involved.

7.16 Section 4.2 of the AIA states that within the RPA, a line should be dug

where construction should happen. Any roots encountered below 25mm in

diameter should be neatly severed and any root over 25mm should be

‘redirected away from the development’.

7.17 No method statement is provided to suggest how tree roots over 25mm in

diameter can be redirected away from a development. When considering

the small amount of flex within a tree root of 25mm or above, I do not think

this is possible and the root is likely to snap or delaminate.

7.18 Any building work within an RPA requires significant justification and

remedial work. If the justification is acceptable and the tree is given the

space, remedial action is sufficient to ensure the tree survives in the long

term, then the damage done in the RPA is justified. There is no given

justification for the intrusion into the RPA of 6809 and no method statement

given on how this process will occur.



7.19 In the case of tree 6809, not only is the RPA dug into, but a footpath laid

upon it as well. The footpath is to be laid over a cellular confinement

system, preventing compaction of soil around the roots below, but invariably

adding to the stress upon the tree to a further margin as already made by

the digging out of some of the tree’s RPA.

8.0 My findings – Professional approach to the deve lopment

8.1 I am concerned that there have been a number of deviations from

professional arboricultural good practice.

8.2 I have already stated, in section 7, findings where root protection areas

(RPAs) are not drawn correctly and where work within RPAs has been

specified but suitable mitigation has not been planned and unrealistic

operations specified.

8.3 I am concerned that the council officers of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough

Council, who supported the scheme, did not subject the application to

thorough consideration and unbiased opinion.

8.4 I have already stated that after I questioned the shape of the RPAs in my

letter of 18th September, the Landscape Development Section dismissed

my claim stating the RPAs to be correct. In a previous application on the

same site 10/00531/FUL by the same applicant, the same Landscape

Development Officer requested that RPAs be moved off roads and included

into better rooting areas. This was requested for trees 6687-6690 on Station



Road and 6787-6802 on Quarry Bank Road, just 20 metres away from

6774. No justification for this change of opinion can be found.

8.5 As already discussed, areas of visually prominent, mature and amenable

trees are to be lost in a historical parkland landscape. The LPA is usually

opposed to substantial tree loss on development land, especially in the

case of visually prominent mature trees of high amenity value.

8.6 As already discussed, section 4.2 of the supplied Arboricultural Impact

Assessment (AIA) indicated that where RPAs are to be dug into to provide

foundations for roadways, then small roots (<25mm) can be cleanly cut and

larger roots are to be redirected back away from the construction zone,

where practical to do so.

8.7 No method statement is given on how to carry this out. I have never heard

of this practice before in 10 years of arboricultural work. I cannot see how it

could work. A root over 25mm in diameter is stiff and relatively brittle,

comparable to a branch of similar diameter. To bend it, would more likely

than not, break it. To suggest roots can be re-directed away from a

construction zone would require the tree roots to be much more flexible

than the average tree root of this size.

8.8 Section 4.3 of the AIA states a tree in G29 will have its RPA encroached

using the same methodology in section 4.2 of the AIA. No mitigation is

given for this operation which appears to be at odds with current standards.

The outcome of this will be that the tree roots, of whatever size, are likely to

be severed to the tree’s detriment.



8.9 Some houses are in close proximity to trees, for example, the crown of

6808 overhangs the proposed house to the north of it at 5.25 metres away,

figure 11. Residents of such a property are liable to be concerned as to the

presence of a 17 metres high (and liable to grow much taller) tree

overshadowing their property. A similar problem is found with 6758 which

will be 6 metres from a house. At 18 metres this pine is likely to cause

distress to the property resident in high winds due to the shape of its crown.

Should the development happen, there will be a lot of pressure from

homeowners to remove a number of trees that cause concern because the

houses have been built too close to them.

8.10 Mitigation for the loss of the 151 trees on site is given in tba’s letter of 6th

November 2013. It states that 115 trees are to be planted. There are just a

few places within the proposed development where trees that will grow to a

large size can be planted and have a reasonable chance of growing to

maturity. To grow to maturity an English oak requires 20 metres of space

for the diameter of its crown. A small leaved lime would require 16 metres.

The quantity of housing on the site does not give space for the replacement

of large trees and it is unlikely that new residents will wish to see trees that

grow to a large size in close proximity to the house.

8.11 It is very unlikely that there will be space or residential support to allow

trees to be planted and reach such a size as to replace the amenity lost

should the development take place.



9.0 Conclusion

9.1 The site has 306 trees that are mainly mature. I consider them to have a

high amenity value.

9.2 151 trees are set to be removed, half of the tree cover for the area.

9.3 Tree loss will have a varying effect on amenity depending on where the site

it viewed from. Some views will see very little amenity loss but others will

have severe losses. Overall, I would class the loss of the trees as a large

loss to amenity.

9.4 The proposal shows every root protection area (RPA) as a circle. Current

site conditions have not been considered and the RPAs have not been

made to better protect the trees by providing adequate rooting area. I have

counted 73 trees where this is an issue.

9.5 The use of root digging within RPAs in five instances is given no justification

and in some cases, because of the issues raised in 9.5, an adequate

amount of root protection is not afforded to the trees. There is no mitigation

prescribed to offset the damage done by digging within an RPA.

9.6 Unreasonable and unattainable methods are prescribed to redirect roots

away from construction areas.



9.7 It would appear the LPA failed to maintain standards whilst offering little

resistance to major amenity loss and questionable arboricultural practice.

9.8 The close proximity of some of the trees to households is liable to create

post-development pressure for tree removal.

9.9 The replanting plan of 115 trees is inadequate to replace the 151 mature

trees lost.

9.10 There is not enough space to replace the lost trees with similar sized trees.

9.11 If the plan should go ahead the tree loss to the area is liable to be

permanent.

9.12 I would agree with the decision of the LPA’s Planning Committee in refusing

permission for the proposed development and would support the refusal of

an appeal by the Planning Inspectorate on arboricultural grounds.

Arboricultural Proof of Evidence - David Bailey DB1 · David Bailey The Hawthorns 27th November...

Documents

Transcript of Arboricultural Proof of Evidence - David Bailey DB1 · David Bailey The Hawthorns 27th November...