Dalguise | Planning, Architecture, Engineering | Dublin - … › uploads › RFrkP3fY ›...

Arboricultural Report The Tree File LtdProposed Development at Consulting ArboristsDalguise Ashgrove HouseMonkstown Road Kill AvenueMonkstown Dun LaoghaireCo Dublin Co DublinMarch 2020 01-2804839

i©The Tree File Ltd 2020

ii©The Tree File Ltd 2020

Contents

ReportPage Subject

1 Introduction3 Report Summary

15 Appendix 1 – Preliminary Arboricultural Method Statement(With Tree Protection Plan)OverviewTree ProtectionGround ProtectionWorks within “RPA” ZoneService InstallationTree ManagementDemolitionWorks SequenceAncillary PrecautionsGeneralFig 1Fig 2

21 Appendix 2 - Tree SurveyThe SurveyNature of Survey and ReportDrawing ReferenceSite DescriptionSurvey Data Collection and MethodologySurvey Key and Explanations

24 Table 1 - Tree Survey Table

Associated Drawings

This report is to be read with the drawings noted below

Drawing Title Drawing Subject1) D1-TCP-Dalguise-03-20 Tree Constraints Plan

A plan depicting the predevelopmentlocation, size, calculated constraints andsimplified tree quality category system

2) D2-AIA-Dalguise-03-20 Tree Impacts PlanThis plan represents the effects of theproposed development works on the abovetree population and depicts trees to beretained and removed.

3) D3-TPP-Dalguise-03-20 Tree Protection PlanThis plan depicts the nature, location andextent of tree protection measures requiredto provide for sustainable tree retention.

iii©The Tree File Ltd 2020

1©The Tree File Ltd 2020

Introduction

This report has been prepared by-Andy Worsnop Tech Arbor A, NCH Arb (PTI LANTRA)The Tree File LtdAshgrove HouseKill AvenueDun LaoghaireCo Dublin

Report Brief and Context

This report was requested by “LULANI DALGUISE LTD”. It comprises an Arboricultural

review of the proposed development project. The various elements of this report provide an

assessment of the sites existing tree population in respect of suitability for retention and sustainability

in their current scenario, as well as an assessment of their potential for sustainable retention in the

post-development scenario and the effects of the development process. It also provides information

in respect of the necessary tree protection and the avoidance of damage to trees during the

construction process, required to achieve sustainable tree retention.

This assessment summarises the Arborists findings and recommendations, arrived at after the

screening process and considerations defined within the “Implication Assessment Scope” and after

an evaluation of trees as defined and described in the tree survey at “Appendix 2”. This report also

includes a preliminary Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan that illustrates the

requisite conservation and protection methodologies necessary to maintain tree sustainability. This

report is not intended as a critique of the proposed development but is an impartial assessment of the

development implications relating to the sustainable retention of trees, whether that be any, some or

all trees. This report is for planning purposes only and may be deficient for construction phase use.

This report must be read with the three associated drawings.

1. The “Tree Constraints Plan” drawing “D1-TCP-Dalguise-03-20” that provides a graphic

representation of tree survey data, depicting the constraints asserted by the site trees, as well

as a categorisation of their condition and potential value.

2. The drawing “Arboricultural Implication Plan” drawing, “D2-AIA-Dalguise-03-20” depicts

the expected impacts by overlaying the tree constraints information with the architectural and

engineering information.

3. The “Tree Protection Plan”, “D3-TPP-Dalguise-03-20” depicts the location and extent of the

tree protection measures required to prevent damage and disturbance to trees intended for

retention.

Report Limitations

This report relates the Arborists interpretation of information provided to him before the report

compilation and gained by him during the undertaking of the site review and tree survey. The site


review data is subject to the limitations as set out under “Inspection and Evaluation Limitations and

Disclaimers” in “Appendix 2” of this report. The findings and recommendations made within this

report are compiled, based upon the knowledge and expertise of the inspecting Arborist.

The “Implication Assessment” element of the report builds on assumptions and estimates,

particularly in respect of how construction works might proceed on a day to day basis and appreciates

the “design” stage of the project, as opposed to “detail design” or “construction” detail. Many

elements of the “Arboricultural Method Statement” are deliberately broad and generic. They will

require review, amendment and consolidation at the construction stage, for example in respect of the

size and nature of the equipment, plant and machinery that might be utilised by any potential building

contractor and any details as may change at “detail design” or “construction detail” stages.

Accordingly, the accuracy of this assessment premised on all its elements/recommendations, and the

omission or alteration of any part can radically alter outcomes in respect of sustainable tree retention.


Report Summary

The subject site supports a notable tree population that where possible, should be preserved

and/or augmented. This design basis has raised numerous issues, particularly when considered in

conjunction with the site’s topographical issues and how they interact with modern day requirements

for construction and services engineering.

These issues must be considered within a broader planning context, that sees the site zoned for

residential and associated amenity uses, and at the same time supports an additional planning

objective to “protect and preserve trees and woodland”. When these requirements are considered in

conjunction with the efficient use of available land and the higher-level planning intent to maintain

higher levels of development density, then a simple contradiction develops. The basic prerequisite of

sustainable tree retention is the conservation of existing environments, but the desire for higher

numbers of residential units, that must, in accordance with current practice, comply with current

requirements and specification for access and road design, parking, the provision of services and

drainage etc, is therefore fundamentally at odds with tree retention, an issue compounded by the fact

that many of the elements of a modern development are subject to codes of practice, design rationales

and engineering, that demand minimum specifications, sizes and locations, consequently resulting in

the consumption/disturbance of more site space.

The cumulative effect of the efficient use of land space is unfortunately, the consumption, use

and conversion of that space. This is fundamentally in contradiction with the basic requirements for

sustainable tree retention, which at its essence, the sterilisation of space and by extension, the

inefficient use of available space.

In recognition of this, the design team for this project have, where possible created what they

consider to be a reasonable balance between the two competing requirements. This has required the

unavoidable loss of trees and has in some instances, meant that the desired degree of tree protection

cannot be achieved. Nonetheless and while appreciating such shortfalls, but appreciating the degree

of planting and the number of new trees being installed as part of the development works, the intent

to maximise short to medium term tree retention, and to provide continuity during the establishment

period for the new plants, was considered particularly valuable.

From an early stage, it was intended to localise and congregate much of the development towards

the centre of the site, thereby providing the greatest potential retaining site edge and boundary trees.

In this way, it was felt that the overall design and development ethos of the original Dalguise site, as

well as its outward façade could be best retained within the broader Monkstown context.

Nonetheless, numerous problems were encountered, particularly regarding construction access,

excavation and enabling works and particularly, the provision of modern engineering and

underground services including drainage and sewerage, all of which contribute to a greater

consumption of space over and above the principal structures. This was particularly pertinent in

respect of the north-western corner of the site and its inclusion of a particularly steep slope. This

created numerous design issues both regarding the nature and type of residences, but also regarding

the provision of services considering the disparity of levels in the area, as well as connectivity and

access issues regarding the creation of new roads that had to traverse the slopes. All these issues


resulted in widespread requirements for groundworks and the modification of levels, often extending

substantially beyond the simple footprint of any particular structure. For this reason, tree loss through

disturbance is somewhat higher towards the north and north-west of the site. An additional concern

relates to less tangible effects and particularly, the broader environmental effects of the development.

Particularly, there may well be issues relating to hydrology and changing soil conditions that has the

potential to adversely affect trees, particularly those closest to the works.

Additionally, it must be appreciated that the site supports a diverse tree population. This

population includes poor and sometimes dangerous trees, as well as trees that must be considered

unsustainable, unmanageable and presenting an issue both within and to neighbours of the site. An

example of this includes the unfortunate installation of Cyprus (Leyland and Lawson) lines at various

positions adjoining the boundaries, presumably with the intent to augment screening and boundary

definition. At this stage, many of these trees are outgrown and some are beyond management, with

many trespassing into neighbouring properties. In some instances, these issues have been actioned by

neighbours, with widespread evidence existing to illustrate prior cutting back. Notwithstanding these

issues, the value of these trees has been noted, particularly regarding the degree and nature of

screening they provide. For this reason and notwithstanding concerns regarding longer term

sustainability, many such hedges have been nominated for retention at this time, through the

construction period and for the short to medium term future, whilst new plantings develop.

The compilation of the basic tree survey identified several trees whom through ill-health or

support of defect were considered unsuitable for retention. All such trees have been categorised as

“U” grade trees within the tree survey and would under most circumstances, be recommended for

removal as they would be unsuitable for retention within the developed or high occupation and use

context. Nonetheless, it is intended to review these trees, particularly where there locations would be

less sensitive, the nature of their decline less critical or through small size their potential for harm or

damage was limited, in the hope that some may offer some degree of short-term or interim retention

capacity.

Because of the minimum constraints posed by the proposed construction process, the tree

population was also reviewed regarding potential physiological constraints that might be used to a

design advantage. An example of this relates to the historic access road and driveway and the trees

that adjoin its edge. It is understood that tree roots tend to proliferate and develop in areas of free

draining, aerobic and on compacted soil and that they tend not to develop within compacted soils and

indeed in some instances, cannot gain access to such soils. Such soil types are commonly associated

with road and driveway structures where high bulk-densities and “CBRs” (California Bearing Ratio)

make the ground environment inhospitable to tree root development. Accordingly, and

notwithstanding the radial calculation of nominal root protection areas, the decision was made that

such thoroughfares be considered as a physiological barrier to natural root development and that close

degrees of work, disturbance and service installation might be adopted in such zones. Therefore and

based on the likely understanding that lower densities of root material will be encountered and

therefore related impacts will be used then, it has been specifically intended to use such thoroughfares

for the installation of services and to act as a buffer zone between areas of known

building/construction and retainable trees. This option was reviewed in detail and has been applied

specifically to the major driveways, where the original entrance drive will be upgraded using a no-

dig, upon-surface to create a new access with footpath. This option will not apply to simple woodland

paths and tracks where there is no prior history of compaction/use.


This consideration has been used along much of the length of the sites existing driveway,

attempting where possible, to concentrate and isolate impacts and construction works to one side of

the driveway only, thus offering some degree of protection to trees arising close to but on the other

side of the driveway.

The information available today remains design stage and thus, further review may be necessary.

Examples of this relate to the provision of services the possible use of trenchless techniques. In some

instances, pre-existing codes of practice, for example those provided by Irish water, raise issues in

respect of minimum clearance requirements and the provision of root barriers, in other instances, the

potential for directional drilling, pipe jacking, thrust boring or the use of manually operated “Air

spades” might offer the potential to increase sustainable tree retention. An example of this might

apply to the provision of site lighting within the completed development context. Whilst the lighting

fixtures themselves present little issue and can be installed on relatively small and localised

foundations, connectivity for conduits and cables can be damaging in this respect, techniques such as

“Air Spade” trenching can provide for necessary degrees of connectivity without the use of typically

mechanised trenching techniques.

For those trees deemed suitable for retention, the general conservation practice will be orientated

towards construction activity exclusion, by the erecting of tree protection fencing prior to the

commencement of any site works. In the interests of maximising tree retention, it is appreciated that

in some instances, recommended and desirable degrees of tree protection simply cannot be attained,

but nonetheless, such trees will be retained in situ, monitored and managed as necessary over time.

Though not the preferred tree management option, this approach will at worst maximise interim tree

retention, a factor itself considered important regarding the early post development period whereupon

the numerous new plantings and trees to be installed in accordance with the landscape plan will be

establishing and maturing.

This report is intended to provide a realistic interpretation of likely impacts but is cognisant of

the fact that some construction stage in detail is not yet available, nor is information with regard to

specific construction procedures and methodologies. Notwithstanding this, the reports tree

loss/retention analysis is considered reasonable but might be improved upon. Particularly, it should

be noted that the design team have expressed desires to maximise tree retention where possible.

Particularly, there remains a desire to attempt to retain tree numbers 107, 116, 186 and 271, amongst

others. Currently, it appears likely that construction impacts will not allow for their retention however,

these trees will remain under review at detail design and construction stage with a view to allowing

for their retention.

Site Description

The site in question is broadly rectangular, longest about its north to south access. The site’s

primary access is by way of a narrow driveway to the north and Monkstown road. The site is adjoined

by additional private properties on the Monkstown Road to the north, by the original Cheshire Home

and Richmond Park estates to the east, by Brooke Court to the south, and by the Orchard and

Monkstown Valley to the west.


Levels across the site are quite disparate, the northernmost area, associated with the northern

boundary stream being low in comparison to most of the mid and southern site. The north-easternmost

corner of the site is defined by a substantial slope that divides the 2 areas.

The site supports a pre-existing late 19th century dwelling and associated outbuildings, most of

which are located towards the south of the site, but which include additional, gate lodge and nearby

smaller dwellings towards the north of the site and close to the southern end of the access drive.

The site area has been planted over time and still supports some trees that would date from the

late 19th and early 20th century. Many of the site boundaries are well defined by belts of trees with

additional parkland and ornamental plantings scattered throughout. There is a pre-existing access

drive extending from the narrow Monkstown Road access drive, curving about the eastern side of the

site’s the front of the main house, the edges of which support many trees.

To the south of the site, there is a walled garden that appears once to have supported an orchard

and espalier plantings though little of this now remains. Elsewhere across the site, there is evidence

of ongoing management and maintenance including recent and ongoing plantings within a broader,

generally well managed landscape.

Pre-Development Arboricultural Scenario

The tree review has found a diverse population by way of age, size, condition and species. Whilstthe area is dominated by relatively common trees including Sycamore, Beech and Ash, several moreexotic species have been encountered, including Dawn Redwood. This illustrates a deliberate plantingintent including a broad array of broadleaves and conifers encountered.

The age profile across the survey area is again variable. Whilst the visually dominant treescomprise mature specimens, presumed to be commensurate and contemporary with the main DalguiseHouse planting, there is evidence of additional planting in recent decades likely within the past 20years with additional, more naturally arising trees, typically dominated by Sycamore and Ashthroughout the populations.

The mixture of species along the drive side to the south the site appears broadly ornamental. Thenorthern boundary is, by comparison, supporting elements that would be more structural and formaland appear intended to create a boundary belt or screen. This is most notable regarding theeasternmost half of the alignment where substantial elements of Leyland Cypress are encountered.

The condition of trees across the site is again highly variable. Note has been made of substantialnumber of trees that are of such poor condition as to render them unsuitable for retention, regardlessof development. Additionally, note has been made that some specimens have failed recently with twoparticularly large trees having been blown over. The cumulative effect of current and unavoidabletree losses will be one of shelter loss and exposure across the site, a factor likely to exacerbate naturaldeterioration and mechanical failure.

It is noted that the population supports small number of particularly large trees that are alreadybecoming exposed. Such trees raise concern regarding their likely longevity, regardless of theircurrent health status.

Nonetheless, it is noted that the area supports a substantial number of reasonably good qualitytrees. It would be these that should be considered for retention and would provide the best basis for


sustainable retention. However, considering the information noted above, it must be appreciated thatunavoidable tree losses may well undermine the degree of sustainability normally expected.

Across the site, issues were noted, particularly with the degree to which many trees obscured bydense Ivy growth. This issue prevents full visual appraisal and, in some instances could mean thatotherwise obvious faults or other issues may have been obscured. For this reason and notwithstandingthe preliminary review provided at this stage, it is imperative that such trees are reviewed further onceIvy can be cut and become shed from the trees.

Another issue that arose on regular basis across the site was one of species sustainability andcontextual compatibility. Note was made of the large numbers of Cypresses, both Monterey andLeyland. These species have particularly poor reputations regarding sustainability at maturity,relating to their natural predisposition towards failure and an inability to be managed using normalArboricultural means. For this reason, such specimens, regardless of health would not be regarded assuitable for retention in that their retention potential is likely to be highly limited. In such instances,the primary advice would always be towards removal and replacement with more sustainable speciesand specimens.

Continuing to the south of the access drive, a similar scenario is encountered where strongboundary plantings surround a more open central area.

Between the crossing driveway and the main house, there is a substantially open lawn area withdispersed plantings at various points. The eastern and western boundaries are still heavily planted,and note is made of more alignments of Leyland Cypress.

To the west, the cypresses are dominated by a collection of large Austrian Pine that though fullymature, are still unlikely to be contemporary with the original site development. The proportion ofmature trees compared to relatively recent landings (last 30 years) remains relatively low and notehas been made that some of the larger, older trees are faulty and unsuitable for retention

The overall effect to the front (north) of the house is to create a variable, dispersed but broadlyopen parkland setting. This has been achieved however, more recent plantings appear to have beenoverly dense and already, issues of coalescence and suppression are occurring, suggesting that at best,population thinning is required though, in many instances, this is overdue and late.

The house and its driveway effectively divide this area of the site with a broadly separated areaexisting to the south of the house, dominated by a walled garden though enough evidence exists tosuggest that the walled garden once supported a substantial fruit tree population, little of this nowremains and what does, tends to be of poor quality.

The area is again defined in dominated by substantial boundary plantings. To the east, thiscomprises a Leyland Cypress alignment that is of dubious sustainability and raises issues in respectof suitability or potential for retention

Similar issues exist to the west where the dominant element comprises an alignment of relativelypoor-quality poplar that is a typically short-lived species is already attained an age whereby issuesare beginning to develop and accordingly, its sustainability is highly questionable.

To the south of the site and to the east of the outbuildings, there is substantial plantation ofrelatively young trees. This population includes several fast-growing specimens such as Eucalyptusand Monterey Pine and accordingly, there are several already large specimens.

Substantial issues exist in this area relating to the planting format and densities. Most trees havealready coalesced creating issues of suppression with many of the smaller and slower growing


specimens already having been substantially affected. In this respect, many specimens are alreadynoted to be beyond any reasonable degree of sustainable retention and will require removal.Additionally, and because of early life suppression, many of the faster growing specimens havebecome hugely elongated or distorted. Unfortunately, it is these larger specimens potentially offersome degree of sustainability however, the degree of exposure they will suffer nonetheless raisesconcerns regarding safety and possible predisposition towards damage. Accordingly, there retentioncontext may be poor and thus their sustainability impaired.

Overall and in respect of the entire site, we must appreciate a substantial tree population thatcommands notable visual significance. However, close review reveals numerous issues regardingsustainability and suitability for retention. Whilst appreciating that many trees would appearostensibly suitable for retention, it will be necessary to review those trees considering any futurecontext for any realistic understanding of sustainability can be arrived at. This will be particularlypertinent in respect of the sites existing context and its reliance on what must be regarded as minimallysustainable coniferous belts at many points, many of which will be unsuitable for retention and requireremoval. This will have a substantive effect regarding exposure and shelter loss, on many trees thatmight ostensibly be retained.

As can be seen from the graphs below, the population breakdown is quite indicative of a typical

managed landscape. On average, the condition of trees is dominated by fair and good/fair

specimens, the suggesting ongoing management and the removal of faulty, poor quality specimens

on a regular basis.

The tree category breakdown and the age breakdown appear to correlate well. A predominance

of category C trees is likely to relate to the dominance of mature trees within the age breakdown.

The number of poor-quality category “U” trees raises some concern and again relates to the

dominance of mature specimens.

In respect of age, the dominance of mature trees suggests a need for action and replacement

planting as it would be reasonable to assume that these trees offer reduced sustainability in

comparison to their younger counterparts.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

A B C U

Tree CategoryBreakdown

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Tree AgeBreakdown

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Goo

d

Goo

d/f

air

Fai

r

Fai

r/p

oor

Poo

r

Dea

dTree Condition

Breakdown


Nature of Proposed Works and Likely Impacts

The proposed development comprises of a residential development on the lands at Dalguise

House (Protected Structure RPS No. 870). The proposed development will comprise of 300 dwelling

units, including the conversion of ‘Dalguise House’ into two dwellings and a creche, 276 apartments

in 8 new blocks up to 9 storeys in height, and 22 houses, (including the converted stable yard and

refurbishment of an existing gate lodge), within a site area of circa 3.66 hectares, with a gross floor

area of 30,587 sqm.

While the footprint of the various proposed structures and buildings, access roads, parking area

and paths are readily understandable regarding the spatial requirements, additional and ancillary space

is commonly required for construction works and associated activities and access. Additionally, it is

noted that the proposed development will require some amendments to current ground levels across

the site.

Site trees can readily be affected by one of three primary impacts including-

A. Direct conflict with proposed structures, thus requiring tree removal.

B. A partial conflict where the “Root Protection Area” is encroached upon by works or ground

amendments and cannot be preserved/protected in full.

C. Environmental damage e.g. compaction, capping, sealing – changing the existing ground

environment to one that can no longer support tree root function.

D. A change in site context or a change in occupation or use that makes a tree unsuitable for

retention.

Design Iterations and Arboricultural Considerations

From the outset, the site topography generates numerous issues and inevitably requiressubstantive modification of the existing levels and ground condition, if only to create useable levelspaces. This in turn means that the existing ground environment, critical to sustainable tree retentionhas required substantial change and disturbance.

Particularly, concerns arose in respect of enabling works regarding primary excavation works,with the project engineers already considering various options whereby excavations can be kept asclose to building footprint sizes as possible.

Project Engineering including drainage and mains water have undergone review and amendmentto improve tree retention. Particularly, liaison with Irish Water provided for a project derogation andthe ability to reduce standard clearances and move proposed watermain is closer to the buildstructures. Additionally, where structures, such as access routes, roads and parking areas are requiredand required finished levels allow, no-dig and low impact solutions have been adopted, as have thepossible use of none-standard approaches to dealing with disparate levels between new structures andnative ground levels, such as the use of “permacrib” retaining walls.

Another example of low-impact options relates to the post development use and access to thearea to the south of the main apartment block. The current designs call for the creation of a suspendedwalk-way and platforms, that offer an excellent means of minimising disturbance and the need to“level” the existing tree supporting slopes. Nonetheless, the efficacy of such options will be linked toworks methodologies to achieve this outcome with the minimum of disturbance.


Nonetheless, it is appreciated that many trees will be lost to facilitate the proposed works, butwith care, the adoption of low impact techniques, it appears that there is potential to retain asignificant number of trees that in turn will play an important part in the appearance of the postdevelopment landscape scenario and more critically, will offer a substantive overlap and degree ofcontinuity between retained trees and the development of the new trees being installed as part of thebroader development project.

Identification of Impacts

The review of likely Arboricultural implications is based upon the recommendations and

criteria as defined within BS5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction

– Recommendations. The “assessment” tends to concentrate on any activity that affects the tree, its

local environment, or the context within which it might be retained.

In respect of tree impacts, any structure, action or apparent need to enter or otherwise

disturb/convert the “root protection area” of a site tree has been considered likely to have a negative

impact, with the potential to render a tree wholly unsuitable for retention, unsafe or unsustainable.

Additionally, the tree specimens have been evaluated in respect of health, sustainability and suitability

for retention within the new context and adjoining the proposed development. Such considerations

can readily affect the “predevelopment suitability for retention” scenario.

This report, its findings and recommendations have arisen from the scrutiny of development

proposal drawings as provided by Horan rainsford Architects, in the form of AutoCAD drawings

“190513_433_P2_Dalguise_Site Massing Model CENTRAL_philip@horanrainsford-ie-Floor Plan -

Proposed Site Plan A0.dwg”, drainage and engineering as provided by Benchmark Properties

Consulting Engineers in the form of AutoCAD drawings “S03 04 FS LAYOUT BORD SUB.dwg”,

“S05 06 SW LAYOUT BRD SUB” and “S07 08 WATERMN LAYOUT DEROGATION

ISSUE.dwg” and by Dermot Foley Landscape Architects, in conjunction with the most recent tree

survey data (as appended to this report). The evaluation is primarily based on minimum protection

ranges as extrapolated from the tree survey data in accordance with paragraphs 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and 4.6.3

of BS5837: 2012, and any element of the proposed development of works associated with it that

affects the defined protection areas.

The perceived development impacts have been illustrated graphically on drawing “D2-AIA-

Dalguise-03-20”, where trees denoted with “Broken Pink” crown outlines will be removed and those

denoted with “Continuous Green” crown outlines will be retained.

Arboricultural Implications of Proposed Development

The proposed development and its constituent parts that comply with current development

expectations and planning densities, require the unavoidable consumption of space to provide for the

proposed apartment blocks and basement parking, access roads and paths, as well as various other

services and facilities. Accordingly, the development will result in the unavoidable loss of trees.

Additionally, this report is cognisant of the fact that much of the information provided to date

relates to design detail as opposed to construction detail. Particularly, little information exists at


present in respect to specific methodologies and procedures and therefore, many proposals will

require revisiting and further analysis once construction detail is available.

Many losses relate to conflicts between trees and the location of new structures; however, many

additional losses relate to the necessary conversion or disturbance of the ground that currently

supports trees. Such conversions include capping and sealing by the creation of new surfaces, changes

in levels, either by excavation and direct loss of tree roots or by raising-up and burial that results in

root asphyxiation, as well as the simple compaction of the soil structure as a result of construction

related activities and vehicular passage that similarly rendered the soil mass incapable of supporting

tree root function.

The above issue appears likely to arise in a number of areas where nearby structures, was not

directly affecting trees are to completed levels above or below native ground levels. This requires

some degree of grading and amendment of soil levels. Whilst minor grading can be accepted, in some

instances the discrepancies are substantial, sometimes exceeding 500mm thus suggesting that the

works are beyond manual means and would require mechanised plant and equipment. Such an extent

of work might be seen as contravening the standard construction exclusion requirements associated

with ground condition conservation.

The loss of trees has many indirect but compounding effects, amongst which would be shelter

loss and exposure, an issue that can expose hitherto sheltered trees to wind conditions not previously

experienced, often resulting in increased rates of mechanical damage and tree failure. Similarly, the

loss of trees can have a substantial visual effect t in the loss of privacy and screening.

The proposed development will see a substantial change in rates of occupation and usage across

the site. The current site usage is minimal and would be limited and affected by weather conditions.

This will change substantially with the proposed development of the site, with greatly increased rates

of occupation that will be of a nature that because of its domiciliary nature, will not be moderated by

weather conditions as access and egress will likely be required around the clock and regardless of

weather.

The scale and nature of the development including the proposal for basement structures, is likely

to result in changes to the ground environment. Such effects are beyond the scope of this report but

have the potential to adversely affect the health of trees, particularly those closest to the areas were

the larger digs are envisaged.

The construction process in conjunction with the meeting of various standards is likely to have

repercussions regarding the conservation of ground space. Examples of this relate to standard working

practice and to the provision of services. Whilst tree retention is often premised on avoiding direct

impact on trees or utilising existing physiological barriers that will have restricted tree root

development, in some instances their immense potential for this to be surpassed. An example of this

relates the installation of services along the original access drive. Was it is considered likely that the

hardened, compacted and historic driveway will act as a physiological barrier to natural root

development and thus will separate much of the adjoining root bearing soil mass from the effects of

development works, the necessary requirement to install services and inspection chambers appears

likely to require extensive excavation at various points along the driveway. In this respect and with

regard guard to construction stage, it would be advised that these issues are revisited prior to the


commencement of construction so as to gain any possible benefits from maintaining the maximum

possible clearances from the nearby trees.

It is also advised that in accordance with Irish Water standard details “STD-W-6”, “STD-W-6a”,“STD-W-12” and “STD-W-12a”, there are works to be carried out within would be regarded as theprecautionary zone of various trees. This includes the provision of drainage and mains waterservices. Accordingly, there may be a need for specifically engineered ducting/piping or thepossible use of root barriers to prevent root penetration issues in the future.

While the retention of trees is laudable, one negative effect will be the creation of an artificial

horizon and its effect on light admission to homes and apartments nearest tree groups. This issue will

be variable across the site and across seasons dependent upon deciduous or evergreen species.

An indirect advantage of the proposed development is the extent of tree planting envisaged

across the site will in part mitigate the above losses. Details have been provided within the proposed

landscape plans as provided by Dermot Foley Landscape Architecture, that includes the proposed

installation of 246 new trees.

Particulars of Tree Loss

The drawing “D2-AIA-Dalguise-03-20” comprises the tree survey drawings overlaid by the

development drawings, thus providing a graphic representation of the tree related impacts, with those

trees that will be removed, being denoted by pink dashed outlines.

The nature and extent of the proposed development and its unavoidable need to convert or

otherwise disturb the existing site conditions effectively requires the removal of all site trees as

outlined below-

The pre-development review area supports a total of 364No. items including 14No. groups or

lines that include multiple specimens including-

2 category “A” trees

147No, category “B” items (including 3 groups/lines)

167No. category “C” items (including 9 groups/lines)

51No. category “U” items

On most development sites, all category “U” trees would normally be removed (many need

removal regardless of development) (52 items cumulative) including Nos. 4, 11, 21, 25, 26, 34, 37,

38, 40, 54, 64, 65, 66, 71, 93, 94, 99, 104, 108, 109, 110, 117, 123, 127, 175, 178, 192, 193, 196, 200,

205, 209, 210, 214, 215, 217, 218, 225, 231, 233, 234, 235, 245, 246, 248, 256, 263, 269, 284, 303,

305 and 308. Where not directly affected by development activities, these trees will be reviewed in

respect of any potential for interim retention, dependent upon the evaluation of potential threats

through possible failure.

Of the site’s “good” quality, category “A” trees, the development works will require the

removal of tree Nos.155 (1 item cumulative)

Of the site’s “fair” quality, category “B” trees, the development works will require the removal


of tree Nos. 1, 2, 20, 22, 24, 28, 36, 43, 46, 47, 49, 53, 84, 88, 89, 95, 100, 113, 117 a, 119, 120,

131, 151, 152, 153, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 166, 185, 186, 187, 220, 221, 222, 223, 228, 230, 237,

238, 239, 241, 242, 243, 258, 262, 264, 265, 266, 271, 272, 274, 279, 289, 293, 294, 301, 302, 304,

311, 313, 314 and 315 and L, plus Tree Line 4 (64 items cumulative)

Of the site’s category “poor” quality “C” trees, the development works appears to require the

removal of Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 41, 42, 81, 96, 105, 106, 111,

112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120, 154, 157, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 188, 189, 199, 201, 202, 203, 208,

216, 219, 224, 226, 227, 229, 240, 244, 259, 260, 261 273, 278, 280, 281, 282, 285, 286, 287, 288,

292, 297, 298, 300, 312, 316, 319 and 320, plus Tree Line 9, Tree Line C and part of Tree Line 1a,

1b and 10 (75 items cumulative)

The tree loss breakdown for the site will be-

52 No. Category U trees (though some may be retained on an interim basis)

1 No. Category A trees

66 No. category B trees and Tree Line 4

72 No. category C trees plus Tree Line 1a, 1b, 9, and C and part of Tree Line 10

Tree Protection within the Scope of a Development

The design and management recommendations as set out in “BS5837:2012” are considered as

“best practice” regarding the selection, retention, protection and management of tree within the scope

of new developments.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Category A Category B Category C Category U

Tree Retention and Removal

Total For Removal For Retention


In respect of tree protection, whether vertical or horizontal, all must conform or equate to the

recommendations of Section 9, BS5837: 2012, must be fit for purpose and commensurate with the

nature of development and the expected day-to-day activities of the site works.

This report provides a “Preliminary Arboricultural Method Statement” at “Appendix 1” to this

report, as well as the associated “Tree Protection Plan” drawing “D3-TPP-Dalguise-03-20”.

In this drawing, the edges “Construction Exclusion Zone” is defined by the bold “Orange” lines

that represent the proposed location of the primary protective “Construction Exclusion Fencing”, with

the “Orange” hatched area representing the primary “Construction Exclusion Zone”.

The tree protection plan includes the use of special materials and methodologies intended to

minimise the impacts of structures near trees. In these areas, nominated as “Controlled Work Zones”

and depicted by pale blue hatching on the tree protection plan “D3-TPP-Dalguise-03-20”, it is

intended to use manual procedures and low impact methodologies that limit need for excavation or

ground disturbance and maintain the drainage and porosity of the ground volume beneath. Examples

of this includes where new structures are to be created on top of existing structure, such as the access

laneway, where disturbance of the underlying ground volume is to be minimised.

The above drawing provides only a representation of the protection locations and extents that

must be located, positioned and erected under the guidance of the project Arborist and may require

referral to a figured and dimensioned version of the “Tree Protection Plan” drawing. All

recommended protection measures will be installed before the commencement of any site works and

must remain in situ (unless under the guidance of the site Arborist) until the completion of all site

works.

Preliminary Management Recommendations

Provided in the tree survey table (Table 1) are “Preliminary Management Recommendations”.

These recommendations relate to the trees as they existed at the time of the tree review and therefore

and in line with the changing context of the site, such recommendations may no longer apply.

Examples include where the felling of trees or other specific works are necessary to facilitate

development requirements.

Many of the concerns raised in the tree survey relate to evidence suggesting mechanical failure

to trees, ill-health or contextual issues that may continue to a point where a trees suitability for

retention may change over time.

Additionally, the proposed development and particularly its unavoidable loss of trees will raise

exposure and shelter loss issues in respect of those trees that will remain. For this reason, all retained

trees should be reviewed immediately after the primary site clearance works with a view to updating

and amending the “preliminary management recommendations” provided in the original tree survey

and intending to address such issues as may arise.

On an ongoing basis, all retained trees must be reviewed regularly so that early intervention and

action is applied promptly.


Appendix 1 - Arboricultural Method Statement (and Tree Protection Plan)

Method Statement Outline

Set out below is a broad and prescriptive method statement, intended to provide advice andguidance for most events, occurrences and issues that arise in respect of trees and tree protection ontypical development sites. This statement intends to instruct and to advise regarding the execution ofthe proposed development works in a manner that will be least detrimental to the retained treepopulation.

Drawings

This Arboricultural Method Statement must be read with the associated “Tree Protection Plan”drawing, “D3-TPP-Dalguise-03-20”. This drawing, as was submitted as part of the Arboriculturalplanning package must be updated and confirmed for “Construction” stage purposes, for example bythe inclusion of specific tree protection ranges and dimensions. Accordingly, and in respect of treeprotection ranges from any tree, reference must be made to the root protection area radius as definedfor that tree within the tree survey table.

Method Statement Use

This Method Statement should be used under the direct guidance of the project Arborist, assite/project specific issues arise, and new information becomes available, it may be amended andadjusted by him/her to address project-specific issues. In this respect, limited “constructionmanagement” detail was available at compilation time, and therefore this method statement deals withtree protection in its broadest terms and may require modification to deal with project specific detailsto this development, e.g. to account for specific plant/machinery/access issues.

Amendments and Modifications

In some situations, and with the adoption of specific ground protection procedures and structures,parts of the above defined “Construction Exclusion Zones” might still be utilised during theconstruction process. In respect of vehicular/plant/machinery access, the provision of suitable groundprotection measures that avoid soil compaction and maintain drainage/percolation and breathability,that are acceptable to the project Arborist and subject to engineering confirmation, can be utilised.Such might include the various form of “roll-out” temporary access surfaces or might include the“three-dimensional cellular confinement systems that utilise specific forms of confined hard-core.The effective use of either system is subject to the avoidance of excavation and level changes, by useupon existing ground surfaces. Where provided, the above systems would allow for the relocation ofthe “Construction Exclusion Fencing” to exclude and provide access to and across the newlyprotected areas.

Works Related Impacts

In respect of any necessary and unavoidable structures required within or entry into the “RPA”zone, all efforts must be made to minimise impacts. Aerial issues may require “access facilitationpruning” or clearance pruning. Subterranean works that require excavation must, by design, locationand action, minimise impacts to trees. The adoption of “manual only” procedures so that root damagecan be minimised, for example by hand digging or the use of “air-spades” for excavation or trenching,may be required. All such works must be undertaken under the guidance of the project Arborist whowill advise on likely repercussions and necessary tree management issues.


Tree Works Specification Updates

It must be noted that many tree management recommendations, as stipulated within the“Preliminary Management Recommendation” section of the primary tree survey, were made prior toany grant of permission, relate to a changing site context and may no longer be applicable, or mayrequire modification to account for the changes that the built project will cause.

General Method Statement

Any inability to conform to the recommendations of this method statement or the associated treeprotection plan could readily change the sustainability of trees and/or their suitability for retention.

1.0) Overview and Implementation

1.1 This method statement will be addressed and discussed by all member of theconstruction team management, prior to any site works or construction/demolitionrelated works or access.

1.2 A review must be undertaken to identify any issues as may have arisen in respect of planningconditions or details as may have changed between the design stage and construction stagedevelopment details.

1.2 The project Arborist or another qualified person will oversee the application of all treeprotection measures and any necessary modifications to this Method Statement to provide abasis upon which tree protection will be managed on the construction site.

1.3 The tree constraints (radial range) associated with any tree to be retained on site is to beregarded as sacrosanct and is not to be entered for any reason without confirmation by, andagreement with, the project Arborist.

1.4 Any situation that requires entry into the “root protection zones” of a tree intended forretention must be brought to the attention of the Project Arborist regarding theadoption/amendment of suitable tree protection measures.

1.5 As unforeseen tree losses may compromise project planning permissions, it is imperative thatissues relating to tree protection or tree damage be brought to the immediate attention of theproject Arborist for review and possible discussion with the relevant planning authority.

2.0) Works Sequence

2.1 No construction related works or mechanised site access will occur until the agreed level oftree protection, in accordance with the “Tree Protection Plan”, is completed.

2.2 The only exception to the above will relate to the undertaking of tree works including treefelling and cutting as defined in the Arboricultural report.

2.3 The Project Arborist will oversee and liaise with the tree works contractor regarding the natureand extent of tree/woodland access to facilitate felling works.

2.4 On completion of the felling works, the tree management plan will be reviewed by the ProjectArborist to address changed context, land use, rates of occupation and use and to account forpotential impacts upon the newly built environment, thereby amending (if necessary) the“preliminary Management Recommendations” stipulated in the original Tree Survey.

2.5 Any revised pruning/cutting works will be agreed with the local authority and applied at theearliest possible opportunity.


2.6 After the completion of primary tree clearance but prior to the commencement of constructionworks, all “Construction Exclusion” and “Protective” fencing must be erected and “signed-off” as complete by the Project Arborist.

2.7 Only on completion of all construction works will any/all tree protective measures beremoved, and only then in a manner, that does not compromise the “Protection Zones”. Thismust be completed in a “Progressive” manner, with each section being removed whilstutilizing protection systems still in situ. Such works must be agreed and overseen by ProjectArborist.

2.8 At construction works completion stage, all retained trees will be reviewed regarding thecondition and longer-term management recommendations and regarding site hand-over.

3.0) Tree Protection

3.1 All tree protection measures must be agreed, overseen and verified by the Project Arboristprior to works commencement and regarding maintenance for the duration of site works

3.2 Tree protection will be based upon drawings “D3-TPP-Dalguise-03-20” (Constructionversion) that relates to all trees for retention, as well as the location of all tree protectionmeasures.

3.3 Unless specifically stipulated by the project Arborist, the default minimum range of protectivefencing or construction exclusion fencing is the range stipulated in the primary tree survey forthat tree and within the “RPA” (root protection area) column.

3.4 If entry into the “RPA” (Root Protection Area) zones becomes unavoidable, ground protectionsystems agreed with the project Arborist, that allow for the relocation of the “ConstructionExclusion Fencing”, will provide for an extension of accessible ground space.

3.5 All construction, works or access areas must be enclosed and defined by protective fencing,this comprising the “Construction Exclusion Zone”

3.6 Such a fence must be fit for purpose and commensurate with the nature of activity expectedupon the site and should be 2.00 metres in height, constructed of robust materials and besuitably braced to withstand impact and may include sheet panels attached to timber posts orweld-mesh panels supported upon a scaffold bar system. All footings must be firm andimmobile and must not use mobile rubber or cement footings, (an illustration (Fig 1-facsimileof BS5837: 2012, is appended to this document to illustrate a possible option for theconstruction of the protective fencing)

3.7 The fence should be affixed with notification signs such as “TREE PROTECTION AREA -KEEP OUT”

3.8 Where applicable, structures such as “lock-ups”, offices or other temporary site building, notrequiring excavation or underground ducting, might be positioned such as to comprise part ofthe “Construction Exclusion Zone” fencing. All remaining fencing must be continuous withsuch features and effectively prevents access to protected ground.

3.9 No amendment, alteration, relocation or removal of the tree protection fencing shall occurwithout prior liaison and approval from the Project Arborist.

4.0) Provision of Ground Protection (If Required)

4.1 No vehicular/mechanised access whatsoever will be allowed onto unprotected ground.4.2 Ground protection can comprise the use of proprietary materials/structures or procedures that

avoid ground damage/disturbance/compaction, or the use of procedures that avoid such effectse.g. manual/pedestrian installation procedures.

4.3 Any system utilised must effectively spread load-weight, avoid compaction, maintaindrainage/percolation/aeration and be installed in a manner that avoids these issues.

4.4 Newly provided access will be strictly limited to the area of the new structure4.5 Where proprietary ground protection systems are utilised, it is imperative that the

manufacturer’s specifications and recommendations are adhered to in full regarding the


provision and installation of this type of ground protection.4.6 Protection installation will require a progressive laying down of ground protection, with

previously laid material providing vehicular access to the next zone will be accepted as anapproved methodology.

5.0) Works within “RPA” Zone

5.1 Only works and construction practices, agreed with the Project Arborist prior tocommencement, will be allowed in the “RPA” area.

5.2 The “RPA” zone associated with all retained trees must be protected from the effects ofconstruction works.

5.3 Amended tree protection measures as agreed with the Project Arborist and including therelocation of fencing and the provision of ground protection will be installed in accordancewith the tree protection measures prior to commencement.

5.4 All works will be undertaken under the supervision and guidance of the Project Arborist whowill have the authority to stop works if activities are considered such as to have the potentialto damage trees.

5.5 Preference must be given to manual labour and techniques within the fenced “RPA” zone.5.6 On completion of the required works, the area will be inspected by the Project Arborist

regarding the reinstatement of the original protection and the relocation of the protectivefencing to a position relating to the original “RPA” area.

6.0) Service Installation

6.1 The “Project Arborist” must be consulted for advice and procedural recommendations, inrespect of any installation of services within or requiring entry into the “Root Protection Area”of any tree intended for retention.

6.2 Any such works found to be unavoidable, must be undertaken with special care, incorporatingthe recommendations of both “BS5837: 2012 and the National joint utility groups, guidelinesfor the planning, installation and maintenance of utility services in proximity to trees (NJUG10)

6.3 No open trenching will be allowed. All works must be commensurate with the preservationof the affected tree root system.

6.4 Preference will be given to trench-less techniques including Mole-piping, Directional-drillingmanual hydro-trenching (high-pressure water), “Air-Spade” or broken-trench techniques.

6.5 All works carried out within the “RPA” zone or “Construction Exclusion Zone” must beagreed with and supervised by the Project Arborist.

7.0) Tree Management and Works

7.1 All tree works should be undertaken under the guidance of the project Arborist7.2 The primary site clearance and felling should be undertaken at the earliest stage of the overall

development works, to enable the re-assessment of all ostensibly retainable trees in respect ofpossible amendments to the “Preliminary Management Recommendations” and to account forcontext changes and construction access and/or other issues coming to light.

7.3 All Tree Works must adopt safe work procedures and must be undertaken by staff suitablytrained for the purpose at hand and compliant with all legislative, safety and insurancerequirements.

7.4 Additional works including formative pruning, crown reduction etc., may be nominated forvarious trees in the interests of mitigating the potential effects of exposure and isolation.

7.5 All additional works will be agreed with the local authority and/or other stakeholders andapplied at the earliest possible opportunity.


7.6 All Tree Surgery/Pruning works will be undertaken under the guidance of the Project Arborist;the precise nature and extent of work being agreed before commencement.

7.7 On completion of site works, the retained tree population will be reviewed and re-evaluatedregarding its ongoing condition and the likely requirements of any ongoing or futuremonitoring or management needs.

8.0) Demolition

8.1 All demolition procedures must be agreed and overseen by the Project Arborist or othersuitably skilled staff to monitor for damage and to protect exposed roots/cut-trim exposedroots/oversee backfilling of exposed roots.

8.2 Where access into unprotected “RPA” zone becomes unavoidable then suitable groundprotection, provided in accordance with an engineer’s direction and agreed with the ProjectArborist will be installed.

8.3 Care will be taken to avoid damage to soil volumes beneath and adjoining demolishedstructures that may contain tree root material.

8.4 Whilst existing foundations/structures may provide temporary protected access to areas withinthe “RPA” zone, preference must be given to the location of demolition plant outside of the“RPA” zone.

8.5 Where tree(s) exist near a structure to be demolished then the demolition should be undertakeninwards within the footprint of the existing building (Top Down, Pull Back).

8.6 Underground structures (services etc.) within the “RPA” zone should be reviewed withregards to decommissioning and retention in situ in the interest of avoiding tree damage.

8.7 Preference should be given to the retention existing sub-bases where hard surfaces areremoved, particularly if the hard surface is to be replaced.

9.0) Ancillary Precautions

9.1 The methodologies as set out in this document apply to all undertakers of work upon oradjoining the site as may require access to the “Construction Exclusion Zone” or the “RPA”area of any tree.

9.2 This document will be disseminated to all persons requiring access to the work site.9.3 All persons undertaking works either before or after the principal development (site

investigation works, Landscape Contractors) are subject to the above requirements9.4 Works outside the “Construction Exclusion Zone” must be controlled to create no potential

secondary hazard to tree health.9.5 Large loads accessing the site must be reviewed regarding clearance and potential tree

damage.9.6 Care must be taken regarding materials that may contaminate the ground. No concrete

mixings, diesel or fuel, washings or any other liquid material may be discharged within 10metres of a tree.

9.7 No fires can be lit within 5 metres of any tree canopy extent.9.8 No tree will be used for support regarding cables, signs etc.9.9 The trees should be reviewed on a regular basis throughout the development process and on

completion. At that time, additional recommendations regarding tree management may berequired.

9.10 Any issue that has the potential to affect site trees must be brought to the attention of theProject Arborist for review and comment.

9.11 Any circumstances that become known whilst the development project is ongoing that eitherinvolves trees or access to/works within the construction exclusion zone must be brought tothe attention of the Project Arborist for evaluation and advice regarding approach andmethodology.


9.12 It is likely that liaison/agreement will be required with the Local Planning Authority regardingcompliance with, as well as the verification of the required tree protection measures.


Appendix 2 - Tree Survey

Nature of Survey

The criteria put forward in “BS5837:2012 – Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition andConstruction – Recommendations” have provided a basis for this report.

The data collected has been represented in table form as “Table 1” within “Appendix 1” to thisreport. This appendix includes a Survey Methodology, Survey Key, Survey Abbreviations, ConditionCategory Definitions and a brief resume of the typical application of Tree Protection measures asdefined within the above standard and as relates to the “RPA” zones defined both within the surveytable and on the “TCP” drawing.

The survey, its findings and management recommendations relate to the site and the conditionsthereon at the time of the survey. It relates to a “do nothing” or “as is” scenario and intends to providean impartial representation of the sites tree population, regardless of any possible development works.It is likely that changes in site usage, development or other environmental changes will require anamendment of a tree’s potential retention status and its preliminary management recommendationsand in some instances, may require the re-classification of a tree’s suitability for retention.

Drawing References

The survey must be read with the “Tree Constraints Plan” drawing “D1-TCP-Dalguise-03-20”regarding the representation of tree positions, crown forms, “RPA” extents and colour reference tocategory systems. Trees omitted from the supplied drawing may be “sketched in” to “D1-TCP-Dalguise-03-20”. Any such trees should be located and plotted by professional means to identify theconstraints such trees have upon the site.

A green coloured outline represents each tree crown. It is scaled to represent the north, east, southand west crown radii as denoted in the survey table. Each tree (categories A-green, B-blue and C-grey only) have been apportioned a “Root Protection Area” (RPA see below) denoted as a dashedorange circle.

The development of a Tree Constraints Plan (TCP) provides a design tool regarding treeretention. Such a plan combines the topographical land survey drawing with additional informationas provided by the tree survey. The aspects of the tree’s existence recorded on the “TCP” are, firstly,the tree canopies, represented by the four cardinal compass point radii (Sp: R in survey Table 1).Secondly, and following paragraphs 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 of BS5837: 2012, we represent each tree’s“Root Protection Area” (RPA). For design purposes, it approximates the position of the treeprotection fencing to be erected before the commencement of any site works, thus excluding all siteactivities other than those dealt with by way of the “Arboricultural Implication Assessment” and“Arboricultural Method Statement”.

The “Tree Constraints Plan” (TCP) depicts the extent and location of constraints, placed uponthe site by the trees. The “TCP” represents both the true canopy form (north, east, south and westradii) but also the “RPA” as defined above. These constraints are provided to advise regarding thedesign and layout of a proposed development.

Survey Intent and Context

This document intends to highlight the extent and nature of the material of Arboricultural intereston the site in question.


Survey Data Collection and Methodology

The SurveyThe original survey was carried out in March and May and July of 2019 and February of 2020.

This survey portion of the overall report is not an Implication Assessment though but provided someof the basic information regarding its compilation. The compilation of this survey was guided by therecommendations of BS 5837: 2012. This survey typically includes trees of stem diameters exceeding150mm at approximately 1.50 metres from ground level. The survey relates to current site conditions,setting and context.

Each tree in the survey has a consecutive number that relates directly to the survey text.Measurements are metric and defined in metres and millimetres. All trees referred to in the surveytext have been measured to provide information regarding canopy height and canopy spread (north,east, south and west radii), level of canopy base and stem diameter at 1.50 meters from ground level.The dimensions provided are intended to provide a reasonable representation of a tree’s size and form.While efforts are made to maintain accuracy, visual obstruction, especially regarding trees in groups,requires that some tree dimensions are estimated only.

Inspection and Evaluation Limitations and DisclaimersThe information set out in this report relates to the review of a tree population on the site in

question. As such, the information provided is based on a general review of trees and does notconstitute a detailed review of any one of the individual specimens. Such an evaluation (tree report)would require the gathering of substantially more information than that dealt with in this survey.

The survey is not a safety assessment and the parameters reviewed within this survey contextwould be substantially deficient in extent to provide for a reliable safety assessment. The survey isintended to provide a general and qualitative review to assist in gauging the suitability of an individualtree for retention within a development context. All trees are subject to impromptu failure anddamage. The assessment of risk as may be presented by a tree requires the review of numerous factorsmore than those noted herein and as such, remains outside the scope of this document and any attemptto use the information herein for such proposes will render the information invalid.

A competent and experienced Arborist has completed all inspection and tree assessment. Theinspection involves visual assessment only, which has been carried out from ground level. No belowground, internal, invasive or aerial (climbing) inspection has been carried out.

Trees are living organisms whose health, condition and safety can change rapidly. All treesshould be re-evaluated regarding their condition on an annual basis or after substantial trauma such astorm event, other damage or injury. The results and recommendations of this survey will requirereview and reassessment after one year from the date of execution. This survey does not constitute areview of tree or site safety. Attempts to use the contents herein for such purposes will render thecontents invalid.

SeasonalityThe original survey was carried out during the spring and summer periods. Some of the signs,

typically symptomatic of ill-health or defect within a tree, may not have been available to view at thetime of the survey or may have been obscured by seasonality related factors. Some of the fruitingbodies of various fungi, parasitic upon or causing decay or disease in trees, may have been out ofseason and unavailable to view. This survey can only comment upon symptoms of ill-health or defectsvisible at the time of the inspection.


Survey KeySpecies.............................. Refers to the specific tree speciesAge……………………… Referred to in generalized categories including: -Y - Young………….… A young and typically small tree specimen.S/M - Semi-Mature……... A young tree, having attained dimensions that allow it to be regarded

independently of its neighbours but typically, would be less than 50% of itsultimate size.

E/M - Early-Mature……... A specimen, typically 50% - 100% of ultimate dimensions but with substantialcapacity for mass and dimensional increase remaining.

M - Mature……………. A specimen of dimensions typical of a full-grown specimen of its species. Futuregrowth would tend to be extremely slow with little if any dimensional increase.

O/M - Over-Mature……... An old specimen of a species having already attained or exceeded its naturallyexpected longevity.

V - Veteran…………. An extremely old, veteran specimen of a species, usually of low vigour andtypically subject to rapid decline and deterioration or of very limited futurelongevity.

Tree Dimensions ………. All dimensions are in meters. See notes regarding limitation of accuracy.Ht.……………….………. Tree HeightCH………………………. Lowest canopy heightN, E, S, W………………. Tree Canopy Spread measured by radii at north, east, south and westDia.……………………… Stem diameter at approx. 1.50m from ground level.RPA……………………... Root Protection Area, as a radius measured from the tree’s stem centre.Con Physical ConditionG Good……………. A specimen of generally good form and healthG/F Good/Fair……….F Fair……………… A specimen with defects or ill health that can be either rectified or managed

typically allowing for retentionF/P Fair/Poor………...P Poor……………... A specimen whom through defect, disease attack or reduced vigour has limited

longevity or maybe un-safeD Dead……………. A dead treeStructural Condition Information on structural form, defects, damage, injury or disease supported by

the treePMR – PreliminaryManagementRecommendations

Recommendation for Arboricultural actions or works considered necessary at thetime of the inspection and relating to the existing site context and tree condition.Works considered as urgent will be noted.

Retention PeriodS – Short………………… Typically, 0 -10 yearsM – Medium……………. Typically, 10 -20 yearsL – Long………………… Typically, 20 – 40 yearsL+………………………. Typically, more than 40 yearsCategory System………. The Category System is intended to quantify a tree regarding its Arboricultural

value as well as a combination of its structural and physical health.Category U……………… Typically relates to trees that are dead, dying or dangerous. Such trees may

present a threat or suffer from a defect or disease that is considered irremediable.Category A……………… A typically a good quality specimen, which is considered to make a substantial

Arboricultural contributionCategory B………………. Typically including trees regarded as being of moderate qualityCategory C………………. Typically including generally poor-quality trees that may be of only limited value.

The above categories are further subdivided regarding the nature of their values orqualities.

Sub-Category 1…………. Values such as species interest, species context, landscape design or prominentaspect.

Sub-Category 2…………. Mainly cumulative landscape values such as woods, groups, avenues, lines.Sub-Category 3…………. Mainly cultural values such as conservation, commemorative or historical links.


Table 1 – Tree Data Table

No. Species Age Con Ht CH N E S W Stm Dia RPA Structural Condition PMR Yrs Cat

A Sycamore(Acerpseudoplatanus)

E/M F/P

14

.00

2.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

Heavily unbalanced throughsuppression and affected by extensivebark damage loss and wounding onlower western stem. Supports Ivycover. Is of dubious sustainability.

S C2

B Lime(Tilia europea)

S/M F

7.5

0

0.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

1 19

7

2.3

7

Young and still vigorous but slightlydistorted as result of suppression.

M C

C Beech(Fagus sylvatica)

M G/F

20

.00

8.0

0

4.0

0

7.0

0

7.0

0

6.0

0

1 89

1

10

.70

A large specimen of reasonablevigour and vitality. Ancient pruningand limb loss wounds exhibitevidence of localised and apparentlysuperficial decay.

Review regardingretention context.

L B1-2

D Horse Chestnut(Aesculushippocastanum)

M F

19

.00

1.5

0

5.5

0

6.5

0

7.0

0

2.0

0

1 99

3

11

.92

Appears to be of good reasonablecorrection of good vigour andvitality. Tree has undergonesubstantial cutting back and reductiontype works in recent past with notablesucker regeneration. Ivy isdeveloping about primary stem andmiddle-crown.

Is likely to requireongoing reductionworks over time.

L C1-2

E Horse Chestnut(Aesculushippocastanum)

M F

16

.00

2.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

1 74

8

8.9

8

Heavily cut in past with much ofcurrent canopy comprising suckerregeneration. Ivy is developing aboutmiddle crown.

Review regardingretention contextand likely need forongoing crownreduction works.

L C2

F Beech(Fagus sylvatica)

M G/F

21

.00

2.5

0

7.0

0

6.5

0

10

.00

9.0

0

1 10

38

12

.45

A particularly large specimenshowing signs of recent management.Vigour and vitality appearsreasonable. Ivy is developing onlower stem.


L B1-2



G Bay Laurel(Laurus noblis)

M F

7.0

0

1.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

1.5

0

1.0

0

2 39

8

4.7

7

Heavily distorted but maintaininggood vigour and vitality. Comprisestypical element of drive sideshrubbery. May respond well tocutting back.

M B2

H Lime(Tilia europea)

M G/F

19

.00

0.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

1 68

4

8.2

1

Lower stem is heavily obscured bydense sucker regeneration preventingdetailed review at present. Highercrown has undergone prior crownreduction works with much of highercrown comprising suckerregeneration.

Review on regularbasis.

L B1-2

I Sycamore(Acerpseudoplatanus)

M G/F

18

.00

2.5

0

5.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

1 84

4

10

.12

Appears to be maintaining goodvigour and vitality. Ivy has beenpreviously dealt with. Tree exhibitsevidence of having undergone recentpruning works.

L B1-2

J Common Yew(Taxus baccata)

S/M F

6.0

0

1.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 34

7

4.1

6

Young and still vigorous, comprisinga typical element of drive sideshrubbery.

L B1

K Common Yew(Taxus baccata)

S/M F

8.0

0

0.0

0

2.0

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

1.5

0

1 38

5

4.6

2

Appears to be of reduced vigour withlimited foliage retention, raisingconcerns regarding health status andsustainability.

Clean-out andreview on regularbasis regardingongoing suitabilityfor retention.

M C1

L Bay Laurel(Laurus noblis)

M F

7.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

1 24

8

2.9

8

An outgrown element of drive sideshrubbery.

L B2



DS DrivesideShrubberyCherry Laurel(Prunuslaurocerasus)Euonymus(Euonymus Sp.)Spotted Laurel(Aucuba japonica),Common YewPrivet(Ligustrumovalifolium)Bay Laurel(Laurus noblis),Holly(Ilex aquifolium)Griselinia(Griselinialittoralis)Portuguese Laurel(Prunus lusitanica)

M-E/M

F

3.0

0-6

.00

0.0

0

Contiguous

m/s

23

9

2.8

6

Both sides of the driveway furnishedwith broadly continuous andcontiguous shrubbery includingCherry Laurel, Euonymus, SpottedLaurel, Yew, Privet, Bay Laurel,Holly, Griselinia and PortugueseLaurel.The effect at present is broadlycontinuous creating a generallyinformal but nonetheless managedhedge like thicket on both sides of thedriveway. Whilst continuity is good,there is variability both in respect ofheight and density, presumed to be afactor of larger emergent trees.

L C2

1 Sycamore(Acerpseudoplatanus)

M G

18

.00

3.5

0

6.0

0

5.0

0

3.0

0

5.0

0

1 71

6

8.5

9

Slightly unbalanced and north-west.Lower southern crown supports dead-wood possibly attributable to shadingout. General vigour and vitalityappear good though Ivy is developingat lower levels.

L B2


E/M G/F

16

.00

4.5

0

2.0

0

3.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1 34

1

4.0

9

A young and slender specimen,drawn-up by suppression. Ivy isbeginning to develop on principalstem.

Cut Ivy. L B2



3 Monterey Cypress(Cupressusmacrocarpa)

E/M P

10

.00

1.5

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

1 27

1

3.2

5

Comprises part of an original hedge.Is heavily suppressed with canopyretention limited to higher levelsonly. Is of poor quality and dubioussustainability.

S C2


S/M D

5.5

0

1.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

0.5

0

1.5

0

1 17

5

2.1

0

A failed element of prior hedge. Remove. N/A U


E/M P

10

.00

2.0

0

2.0

0

3.5

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 24

8

2.9

8

Comprises part of an original driveside hedge. It chronically suppressedwith limited viable crown remainingat higher levels. Is of dubioussustainability.

S C2


E/M P

10

.00

2.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 24

5

2.9

4

Comprises part of an original driveside hedge. It chronically suppressedwith limited viable crown remainingat higher levels. Is of dubioussustainability.

S C2


E/M F

11

.00

2.0

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

1 32

8

3.9

3

Part of an original hedge. Heavilysuppressed and suffering mechanicaldamage. Is considered of dubioussustainability.

S C2


E/M F/P

10

.00

1.5

0

2.5

0

3.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1 34

7

4.1

6A relic of prior hedge. Is distortedand has already suffered mechanicalbreakage. Is of dubious sustainability.

S C2

9 Norway Maple(Acer platanoides)

S/M P

9.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

5.0

0

3.0

0

1 28

0

3.3

6

Suppressed beneath canopy of largerneighbours. Supports notableimbalance to south. Appears bemaintaining reasonable vigour andvitality but principal stem is affectedby substantial lesion on northern facewith early evidence of surface decay.Is suitable only for limited retention.

Cut Ivy and reviewregarding retentioncontext.

S C2



10 Leyland Cypress(Cuppressocyparisleylandii)

E/M F

10

.00

4.2

5

3.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Part of a broader alignment. Exists inconjunction with additionalsuppressed elements of recentplanting.


M C2


S/M P

8.0

0

0.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1 17

5

2.1

0

A failed element of the prior planting. Remove. N/A U


M F

16

.00

0.0

0

5.0

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

1 51

6

6.1

9

A large specimen remaining from abroader planting. Remains dominant.Species issues should be consideredprior to decision regarding retention.

M C2


S/M F

6.5

0

0.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1 17

5

2.1

0

A failed element of the prior planting. M C2


M G/F

20

.00

3.5

0

8.0

0

5.0

0

0.0

0

4.5

0

1 74

8

8.9

8

One-sided and heavily unbalanced tonorth. Crown vigour appears fair butvariable.


L B2


M G/F

21

.00

7.0

0

7.0

0

5.5

0

8.5

0

5.5

0

1 81

5

9.7

8

Crown vigour and vitality appearsvariable with evidence of substantialdead-wood at higher levels raisingconcerns regarding health status andsustainability.

Clean-out andreview regardingretention context.

M B2


M F

19

.00

5.0

0

7.5

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1 73

9

8.8

6Apparently vigorous notwithstandingreduce crown density. Ivy is notableon printable stem.


M B2


E/M F

14

.00

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

5.5

0

4.0

0

1 37

6

4.5

1

Suppressed and of reduced vigourwith notable damage to southerncanopy. Is of dubious sustainability.


S C2


E/M G/F

14

.00

2.5

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

6.0

0

4.0

0

1 38

8

4.6

6

Tree supports minor imbalance tosouth. Higher crown is slightlydistorted suggesting possible earlylife damage. General vigour andvitality are good.

Clean-out cut Ivy. L B2



19 Austrian Pine(Pinus nigra)

M G/F

22

.00

12

.00

0.0

0

3.0

0

8.0

0

4.5

0

1 52

2

6.2

6

Substantially unbalanced to southbecause of position beneath canopyof larger adjoining specimen. Entirestem is obscured by dense Ivy cover.General vigour and vitality appearfair.

Cut Ivy and re-evaluate.

M C1-2


M G/F

26

.00

12

.00

6.0

0

7.0

0

4.5

0

5.5

0

1 71

6

8.5

9

A large specimen of apparently goodvigour. Crown supports some dead-wood on lower stem is obscured bydeveloping Ivy cover.

Cut Ivy and Clean-out. Reviewregarding retentioncontext.

L B1-2


M D

16

.00

5.0

0

5.5

0

2.0

0

1.0

0

2.0

0

1 73

9

8.8

6

Completely dead and in need ofimmediate removal.

Remove. N/A U


E/M G/F

14

.00

3.5

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

5.5

0

4.5

0

1 37

9

4.5

5

Young and still vigorous thoughsupporting elements of twiggydecline within crown. Heavy Ivycover obscures principal stem fromview.

Cut Ivy andrereview.

L B2

23 Holly(Ilex aquifolium)

M P

5.5

0

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

3 37

2

4.4

7

A once large shrubby mass hassuffered widespread mechanicalfailure and damage by breakage ofadjoining trees. Is of poor quality anddubious suitability for retention.

Review regardingsuitability forretention.

S C2

24 Wild Cherry(Prunus avium)

M F

13

.00

0.0

0

5.0

0

6.5

0

4.0

0

5.5

0

1 40

4

4.8

5A broad and spreading specimenwhose canopy descends to groundlevel. Vigour and vitality appear goodthough much of principal stem andmiddle crown is obscured by denseIvy cover.


L B2


M P

18

.00

3.0

0

6.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

1 51

6

6.1

9

In an advanced state of decline withextensive dieback throughout canopythough no specific cause was noted attime of review.

Remove. N/A U




M P

19

.00

5.5

0

4.5

0

6.0

0

6.5

0

3.5

0

1 56

7

6.8

0

In an advanced state of decline withmuch of higher and western crownalready dead. Is Unsuitable forretention.

Remove. N/A U

27 Lawson Cypress(Chamaecyparislawsoniana)

E/M F

6.5

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

1.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1 18

5

2.2

2

Suppressed element of prior hedge. Review regardingretention context.

S C2

28 Lombardy Poplar(Populus nigra“Italica”)

M F

21

.00

6.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 66

8

8.0

2

Tall and columnar, typical for variety.His be maintaining good vigour andvitality. Consideration should begiven to far reaching and potentiallyinvasive root systems.

L B2


E/M G/F

9.0

0

1.0

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

2 40

1

4.8

1

Heavily suppressed element of anoriginal hedge. Is of dubiousindependent retention merit.


M C2


M G/F

21

.00

1.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

1 38

8

4.6

6

Tall and columnar, typical forvariety. His be maintaining goodvigour and vitality. Considerationshould be given to far reaching andpotentially invasive root systems.

M C2


E/M F/P

8.5

0

1.5

0

1.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 36

9

4.4

3

Heavily suppressed and one-sided. Isof dubious retention merit.

S C2


S/M F

6.5

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

2 22

9

2.7

5Heavily suppressed element of priorhedge.


S C2


E/M P

11

.00

3.5

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

1 26

7

3.2

1

A poor-quality specimen whereoriginal apex has been lost. Is heavilysuppressed and dubioussustainability.


S C2


E/M D

5.0

0

1.0

0

0.5

0

1.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

2 20

7

2.4

8

Previously failed presumably becauseof suppression.

Remove. N/A U




S/M G/F

9.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

2.0

0

1 20

7

2.4

8

Slightly distorted through suppressionbut maintaining reasonable vigourand vitality.


L C2

36 Scots Pine(Pinus sylvestris)

M F

23

.00

10

.00

6.5

0

8.0

0

5.5

0

4.0

0

1 76

4

9.1

7

Slightly unbalanced and of variableCrown vigour. This large specimensupporting both dead-wood andevidence of prior mechanical damageand limb loss. Ivy is developing onlower stem.

Cut Ivy and clean-out. Reviewregarding retentioncontext.

M B2


S/M F

8.0

0

1.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

0.0

0

3.0

0

1 33

4

4.0

1

Chronically unbalanced with sweptbase. Is of dubious sustainability.

Consider earlyremoval.

N/A U

38 Cider gum(Eucalyptus gunnii)

S/M F/P

7.5

0

0.0

0

5.0

0

2.5

0

0.0

0

1.0

0

1 21

6

2.6

0

Heavily unbalanced to north-eastbecause of suppression. Tree isconsidered unsustainable.

Remove. N/A U

39 Ash(Fraxinusexcelsior)

E/M F/P

14

.00

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

3.5

0

1 37

6

4.5

1

Typically unbalanced to east. Hasundergone prior cutting withwounding and apparent bark necrosisat 5 m. Mechanical form isconsidered flawed.


S C2


O/M P

6.5

0

0.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

1 42

0

5.0

4

A once larger Cherry has sufferedchronic failure and subsequent decayof primary stem. Spurious suckeringis occurring from ground leveltogether with elderberry regeneration,but specimen is consideredUnsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U

41 Ornamental Cherry(Prunus variety)

M F/P

4.5

0

1.5

0

1.0

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Heavily distorted with southernportion of crown having sustainedprior mechanical damage. Vigour isvariable with evidence of folia blight.Is of dubious sustainability.

S C2




M F/P

19

.00

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

1 59

8

7.1

8

Once larger tree has sufferedsubstantial mechanical damage toeastern portion of crown. Vigour andvitality whilst fair are below thatexpected retrieve this age suggestingdubious sustainability.

Review regardingretention contextand limitedsustainability.

S C2

43 Portuguese Laurel(Prunus lusitanica)

M G/F

7.0

0

2.0

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

4.5

0

1 34

4

4.1

3

Part of a broader group andcomprising a composite canopy withnear neighbours. Review regardingretention context.

L B2


M F

5.5

0

0.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

2 36

6

4.3

9

Distorted because of suppression butmaintaining reasonable vigour.Comprises part of a composite groupwith near neighbours.


M C2


M G/F

7.0

0

1.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

1 37

2

4.4

7

Comprises part of composite groupwith near neighbours.

Review withregarding retentioncontext.

L B2

46 Blue Gum(Eucalyptusglobulus)

M G/F

23

.00

2.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

5.0

0

1 65

3

7.8

3

A broadly columnar specimensupporting minor imbalance to north-west. General vigour and vitalityappear good though primary Sp stemis obscured by dense Ivy coverpreventing full review at this time.


L B1-2

47 Blue Gum(Eucalyptusglobulus)

M G/F

21

.00

6.0

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

1 37

6

4.5

1Tall and columnar, a visibly goodvigour and vitality though principalstem is heavily obscured by dense Ivycover.


L B2


S/M F/P

9.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

1 20

4

2.4

4

Young specimen distorted by diebackassociated with grey squirrel feeding.Is of dubious sustainability.

S C2


M G/F

16

.00

3.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

1 49

3

5.9

2

Slightly suppressed by positionadjoining other large trees butappears be maintaining good vigourand vitality. Ivy is developing onprincipal stem.


L B2



50 Scots Pine(Pinus sylvestris)

M F

14

.00

7.0

0

3.0

0

5.5

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

1 45

2

5.4

2

Typically unbalanced to east. Hasundergone substantial prior pruningand exhibits evidence of historicstorm damage resulting in multiplelarge wounds. Distorted crown formmay be predisposed to ongoingdamage. General vigour and vitalityremain good.


M C2


M G/F

7.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

2 37

6

4.5

1

2 twin-stemmed specimens thatadjoin and combine to create a singlecrown form. Vigour and vitalityremain good.

L B2

52 Silver Birch(Betula pendula)

E/M G/F

13

.00

3.0

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 21

6

2.6

0

Slightly suppressed and supportingextensive Ivy cover.


L B2

53 Cider gum(Eucalyptus gunnii)

E/M G/F

20

.00

7.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

1 40

7

4.8

8

Typically unbalanced to north.Asserts immense potential forcontinued growth over time. Principalstem supports developing Ivy cover.

L B2

54 Deodar Cedar(Cedrus deodara)

M D

20

.00

6.0

0

6.0

0

6.0

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

1 74

8

8.9

8

Completely dead and in need ofimmediate removal.

Removeimmediately.

N/A U

55 Beech(Fagus sylvatica)

M G/F

19

.00

2.0

0

5.0

0

6.0

0

6.0

0

7.0

0

1 84

0

10

.08

Apparently vigorous but supportingdouble compression fork scenariobetween 2.00 and 3.00 metres.


L B2


M F/P

6.0

0

0.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

2 35

7

4.2

8

Once larger specimen has beensubstantially cut back with southernstem removed to stump. Is of poorquality and dubious sustainability.

S C2


M F/P

5.0

0

0.0

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

3 22

9

2.7

5

Suppressed, distorted and of dubioussustainability.


S C2



58 Copper Beech(Fagus sylvatica“Purpurea”)

M G/F

20

.00

2.5

0

6.0

0

7.5

0

8.0

0

7.5

0

1 91

0

10

.92

A large specimen of apparently goodvigour and vitality. Entire principalstem and middle crown is obscuredby dense Ivy cover preventingdetailed review at present.


L B1-2


S/M G/F

6.5

0

0.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 18

5

2.2

2

Young and vigorous but seesdeveloping Ivy cover on principalstem.


L B2

60 Douglas Fir(Pseudotsugamenziesii)

E/M G/F

15

.00

1.5

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

4.0

0

1 47

1

5.6

5

Appears to be of good vigour andvitality though principal stem isobscured by dense Ivy cover. Crownsupports some dead-wood.

Clean-out and cutIvy.

L B2

61 Wych Elm(Ulmus glabra)

S/M G/F

6.5

0

1.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

1 18

5

2.2

2

Young and vigorous but at risk ofattack by Dutch Elm disease.

Review on regularbasis.

S C2


S/M F/P

7.0

0

0.5

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

1 19

7

2.3

7

Suppressed because of positionbeneath canopy of larger tree.


S C2

63 Oak(Quercus robur)

M G/F

21

.00

3.0

0

7.0

0

7.5

0

9.0

0

6.0

0

1 84

0

10

.08

Appears be maintaining reasonablevigour and vitality. Tree has sufferedminor localised storm damage.

Cut Ivy and reviewregularly.

L B2


M P

24

.00

5.0

0

4.5

0

8.0

0

12

.00

6.0

0

1 10

03

12

.03

A large specimen exhibits evidenceof Ganoderma attack at ground level.This decay causing agent isirreversible and will underminesustainability raising safety andsustainability issues.

N/A U


E/M F

5.0

0

2.0

0

1.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

1 17

5

2.1

0

Heavily suppressed with minimalviable crown remaining.


N/A U

66 Hawthorn(Crataegusmonogyna)

E/M P

4.5

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 15

3

1.8

3

Heavily suppressed and retaininglimited viable crown.


N/A U




E/M G/F

12

.00

2.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 36

9

4.4

3

Young and vigorous with immensepotential for continued growth.Species is associated with multipleconcerns regarding longer termmanagement.


M C2


S/M F/P

9.5

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

1 21

6

2.6

0

Heavily suppressed, samecommenters above regardingsustainability.

S C2

69 Monterey Cypress(Cupressusmacrocarpa goldenform)

S/M G/F

8.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 29

9

3.5

9

Suppressed and north and north-eastern side and is one-sided to south.Asserts immense potential forcontinued growth though species isoften associated with sustainabilityissues.


M C2


E/M F/P

7.5

0

2.0

0

1.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

1 20

4

2.4

4

Tall and slender. Crown apex is ofreduced vigour raising concernsregarding sustainability.

Review regularlywith regardretention context.

S C2

71 M P

5.5

0

0.5

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

1 28

3

3.4

0

Heavily suppressed and is sufferingchronic decay of lower stem.Unsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U


E/M F

11

.00

0.0

0

1.5

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

A fragmented element of an originalhedge. Is of poor quality and isdubious sustainability.

S C2


E/M F/P

12

.00

0.5

0

3.5

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

1 31

2

3.7

4A fragmented element of an originalhedge. Is of poor quality and isdubious sustainability.

S C2


S/M G/F

12

.00

1.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

1 22

3

2.6

7

Part of broader spurious planting.Tree remains vigorous but is distortedthrough suppression by nearneighbours. Species associated withsustainability issues.


M C2




E/M F

13

.00

1.5

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

3.5

0

1 28

0

3.3

6

Part of broader spurious planting.Tree remains vigorous but is distortedthrough suppression by nearneighbours. Species associated withsustainability issues.

M C2


M F

17

.00

1.5

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

1 71

9

8.6

3

One-sided and unbalanced with muchof north-eastern crown defunctthrough shading out. Lower crownhas sustained notable damage.Species is associated withsustainability issues.


M C2


E/M F

10

.00

2.2

5

4.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

5.0

0

1 26

7

3.2

1

Heavily distorted through suppressionand typically unbalanced to south-west.

Clean-out reviewregarding retentioncontext.

M C2


M G/F

18

.00

4.0

0

7.0

0

7.0

0

5.0

0

7.5

0

1 73

9

8.8

6

A large specimen slightly unbalancedto north. General vigour and vitalityappear good notwithstandingproximity to recently built block wall.


L B2


E/M F

14

.00

1.5

0

6.5

0

5.0

0

3.5

0

4.5

0

1 54

8

6.5

7

Typically unbalanced to norththrough suppression. Vigour andvitality are fair but less than thatexpected retrieve this age. Speciesassociated with sustainability issues.


M C2


E/M G/F

10

.00

2.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

1 36

6

4.3

9Young and still vigorous thoughdistorted central crown suggestspossibility of early life damage.

Cut Ivy andrereview aftershedding.

L B2

81 Monterey Pine(Pinus radiata)

M F

21

.00

4.5

0

5.5

0

7.0

0

6.0

0

4.5

0

1 84

7

10

.16

A large specimen of variable vigourand large amounts of twiggy dead-wood raising concerns regardinghealth status. Principal stem isobscured by dense Ivy cover.

Review on regularbasis regardingsustainability.

M C2


E/M F

10

.00

1.7

5

4.5

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

1 29

3

3.5

1

Young and vigorous but suppressedby adjoining growth. Species raisessustainability issues.


M B2



83 Dawn Redwood(Metasequoiaglyptostroboides)

E/M G/F

13

.00

2.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

1 28

6

3.4

4

Young and still vigorous butbecoming suppressed by positionadjoining larger conifers and othertrees.


L B2


M G/F

17

.00

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

1 38

5

4.6

2

Heavily suppressed and hasdeveloped one-sided crown formbecause of proximity to nearneighbours. General vigour andvitality remain good.


L B2


M F

21

.00

5.5

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

1 10

03

12

.03

A tall and columnar specimen thatappears to have undergone priorpruning on north-eastern side ofcrown. Vigour and vitality are fairthough crown does support somedead-wood. Spurious growthshrubbery obscures much of basalregion.

Re-review onceaccess is improved.

L B2


S/M F

9.0

0

0.0

0

3.0

0

4.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

1 27

1

3.2

5

Heavily suppressed because ofposition adjoining neighbouring trees.Is likely to prove unsustainable incurrent position.

S C2


E/M F

10

.00

0.0

0

3.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

3.0

0

1 33

4

4.0

1

Heavily suppressed but maintainingreasonable vigour and vitality.Species is associated withsustainability issues.


M C2


E/M F

11

.00

1.5

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1 32

8

3.9

3

Young and still vigorous but is at riskof contracting Dutch Elm disease.Sustainability is questionable.

Review regularly. M B2


M G/F

17

.00

2.0

0

2.0

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

3.5

0

1 71

6

8.5

9

A large specimen typicallyunbalanced to south-east. Generalvigour and vitality remain reasonablethough much of principal stem isobscured by Ivy cover, preventingreview at this time.

Cut Ivy and re-review.

L B2




E/M F

12

.00

4.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

1 28

3

3.4

0

Young and still vigorous thoughmiddle crown is obscured by denseIvy cover.


L B2

92 Cherry Laurel(Prunuslaurocerasus)

M F

8.0

0

0.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

4.5

0

6 39

8

4.7

7

Large multi-stemmed groupcomprising sucker regeneration fromthe stump of a historic plant. Ismechanically poor but may allow forrejuvenation.

S C2


E/M P

13

.00

3.5

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

1 59

2

7.1

0

Multi-stemmed from 1.50 msuggesting prior cutting and re-suckering. Lower stump is subject toUstulina attack and chronic decay. Isunsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U


M F/P

22

.00

0.0

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

8.5

0

6.5

0

1 99

3

11

.92

A large specimen supporting typicalimbalance to south. Crown hasundergone substantial and widespreadmechanical failure that is typical forspecies at maturity. Continuemechanical failure must be expected.Tree is of dubious retention merit.


N/A U


M G/F

18

.00

2.0

0

3.0

0

6.0

0

7.5

0

5.0

0

1 90

4

10

.85

A relatively large specimenexhibiting evidence of good vigourand vitality at present. tree supportnotable imbalance that may beenough to raise concerns regardingsafety.

L B2

96 Weymouth Pine(Pinus strobus)

S/M F

9.0

0

1.0

0

3.0

0

1.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

1 30

6

3.6

7

Chronically unbalanced to south-westand of dubious sustainability.

S C2


E/M G/F

15

.00

4.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

1 49

3

5.9

2

Young and still vigorous but slightlydistorted and exhibiting evidence ofprior limb loss. Prior Ivy coverappears to have been managed withmuch of Ivy dying away.


M B2




S/M F

8.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

1.0

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

1 26

1

3.1

3

Heavily suppressed and one sided butis maintaining reasonable vigour andvitality.


M B2


M D

6.0

0

0.0

0

5.0

0

0.0

0

5.0

0

14

.00

1 46

2

5.5

4

Has collapsed in a westerly direction. Remove. N/A U


M G/F

26

.00

3.0

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

12

.00

9.0

0

1 99

0

11

.88

Large specimen with notableimbalance to south-west. Generalvigour and vitality appear good withno evidence of pathogen attack atpresent. Ivy is beginning to developon principal stem.

Review regularly. L B1-2


M F

8.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

1 24

8

2.9

8

Heavily suppressed but appears bemaintaining reasonable vigour andvitality. Would be suitable forretention as part of woodland understory.

L B2


S/M P

12

.00

4.0

0

2.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

2.0

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Chronically distorted, appears likelyto have sustained notable mechanicaldamage. Is of dubious retention merit.

S C2


E/M F

15

.00

4.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

2.5

0

4.5

0

1 47

4

5.6

9

Notably suppressed and typicallyunbalanced to north. Principal stem isobscured by notable Ivydevelopment. Visible elements ofcrown suggest good vigour andvitality.


M C2

104 Blue Atlas Cedar(Cedrus atlantica)

E/M G/F

13

.00

1.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

5.0

0

1 34

1

4.0

9

Has been brutally affected anddamage by failure of adjoiningMonterey Cypress. Is consideredunsustainable and Unsuitable forretention.

Remove. N/A U




M F/P

19

.00

2.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

1 66

8

8.0

2

A large specimen of reasonablevigour but with distorted crown formand evidence of substantial woundingand damage to principal stem wheredecay is now visually obvious. Treeis of limited sustainability.


S C2


M F

20

.00

5.0

0

5.5

0

87

.50

8.0

0

5.0

0

1 12

29

14

.74

A particularly large and agedspecimen. Much of principal stem isobscured by Ivy cover preventingdetailed review. Nonetheless,substantial cavity development isnoted. Tree is of limited retentionmerit and retention would likelyrequire structural pruning works.

Review regardingretention contextand suitability forretention.

M C2

107 Small Leaf Lime(Tilia cordata)

E/M F

14

.00

2.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

5.0

0

3.0

0

1 38

2

4.5

8

Slightly suppressed and drawn-up,minor imbalance to south-east.General vigour and vitality appeargood though much primary stem isobscured by dense Ivy cover.


L B2

108 Hybrid Black Poplar(Populus xCanadensis)

M G/F

26

.00

10

.00

3.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

1 33

7

4.0

5

A tall and drawn up specimen. Tree islarge enough to be exposed atpresent. Turns exist over recent lossand uprooting of large MontereyCypress located immediately to southWest of stem and potential this mighthave had for disturbing root system.Exposed aspect and prior localuprooting suggest tree is unsuitablefor retention.

Remove. N/A U


M D

6.0

0

0.0

0

4.0

0

0.0

0

15

.00

2.0

0

1 78

0

9.3

6

Has collapsed in a westerly direction,towards Blue Atlas Cedar

Remove. N/A U


E/M F/P

12

.00

4.0

0

4.0

0

0.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Wholly one-sided and heavilyaffected by collapse of adjoiningcypress. Is Unsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U




M F

18

.00

3.0

0

6.0

0

5.0

0

3.0

0

4.5

0

1 73

9

8.8

6

Heavily one-sided and typicallyunbalanced to north. General vigourand vitality appear good howevermuch of principal stem is obscuredby Ivy cover preventing detailedreview. Crown morphology issuggestive of possible prior failure atcirca 6.00 m.

Cut Ivy andrereview after Ivyshedding.

M C2

112 Horse Chestnut(Aesculushippocastanum)

M F

21

.00

2.5

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

6.0

0

6.0

0

1 10

22

12

.26

A large specimen of a species knownto support a brittle crowns structure.Principal stem is heavily obscured byIvy preventing detailed review atpresent. General vigour and vitalityare fair but is variable suggestingpossible pathological issues.


M C2


M F

24

.00

5.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

1 73

9

8.8

6

Large specimen of tall stature nowexposed by loss of near neighbours.General vigour and vitality appeargood. Ivy obscured lower stempreventing detailed review at present.

Review regardingretention contextconsidering issuesof brittle nature anddevelopment of farreaching andinvasive rootsystems. Mayrequire structuralpruning.

L B1-2


E/M F

13

.00

1.5

0

2.0

0

0.0

0

5.0

0

7.5

0

1 46

2

5.5

4

Heavily unbalanced to west as resultof suppression. Is of dubioussustainability particularly if isolatedor exposed.

M C2


S/M F

9.0

0

0.0

0

1.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

1 23

9

2.8

6

Suppressed drawn up and typicallyunbalanced to west. Much ofprincipal stem is obscured by denseIvy cover.

Cut Ivy and review. M C2




E/M F

10

.00

2.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

4.5

0

1 46

2

5.5

4

A particularly bushy crown emanatesfrom a central trunk raising concernregarding regrowth from a priorstump. Current review is impossiblebecause of dense central Ivy mass.


M C2

TL1aTL1b

Tree Line 1 (A andb)

Leyland Cypress(Cuppressocyparisleylandii)

E/M F

13

.00

0.0

0

Spread9.00m

1 31

8

3.8

2

A continuous alignment presumed tohave been installed as a screen orshelter belt. Individual trees remainvigorous but exhibit signs of norecent management or maintenanceand accordingly have becomeoutgrown. Trees are taking uponindividual tree dimensions however,proximity to one another within thealignment has seen chronic crowndistortions and the development offan-like crown profile. The speciesassociated with sustainability andmanagement issues, in this caseexacerbated because of a lack ofmanagement over time. Whilst thetrees provide substantive alignment atpresent, this will not be sustainable,and the alignment cannot bemanaged. Accordingly, alignmentshould be regarded as beingunsustainable.

S C2

117 Judas Tree(Cercis siliquastrum)

E/M P

6.0

0

0.0

0

5.0

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

3.5

0

1 20

7

2.4

8

Young, vigorous but compromised bymajor split to stem at 0.75 m.

Remove. N/A U

117a Pittosporum(Pittosporumtenuifolium)

E/M F

4.5

0

0.7

5

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 15

3

1.8

3

Young and vigorous, the shrubbyspecimen.

L B2

118 Weeping Birch(Betula youngii)

S/M F

4.0

0

1.5

0

2.5

0

1.0

0

0.5

0

2.0

0

1 15

9

1.9

1

Distorted and unbalanced to north-west.

M C2




S/M G/F

12

.00

2.0

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 20

4

2.4

4

Slightly suppressed by proximity ofadjoining cypress but is maintaininggood vigour and vitality.

L B2


E/M G/F

11

.00

1.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

1 51

6

6.1

9

Young and vigorous with immensepotential for continued growth overtime. Review considering mature sizeand species predisposition towardsstorm damage.

L B2

120a Pittosporum(Pittosporumtenuifolium)

M F

9.0

0

1.5

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

1.5

0

1 24

8

2.9

8

Vigorous but suppressed byproximity of adjoining building andhas developed one-sided format.


M C2


M F/P

22

.00

1.5

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

1 56

7

6.8

0

Particularly tall however upper 50%of crown is of notably reduced vigourwith evidence of twiggy decline,dieback and storm damage suggestinglikely health issues.

Review regardingretention contextand on regular basisif retained.

S C1-2

122 Common Yew(Taxus baccata)

E/M F

9.5

0

1.0

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

1 38

5

4.6

2

Slightly suppressed being locatedbeneath canopy of larger neighbours.Vigour is fair.

M B2


M P

18

.00

2.5

0

6.0

0

7.0

0

5.5

0

4.0

0

1 84

4

10

.12

Distorted, misshapen and supportedon damaged stem now widelyaffected by posture liner attack.Substantial hollow exists at 2.00 m.Trees at risk of failure.

Remove. N/A U


E/M F

12

.00

0.0

0

5.5

0

2.5

0

1.5

0

2.5

0

1 37

6

4.5

1

Heavily suppressed and unbalancedto north. Is of dubious sustainability.Should only be regarded as suitablefor retention as part of the and thenonly for interim purposes.

S C2



TL2 Tree Line 2Leyland Cypress(Cuppressocyparisleylandii)

E/M F

12

.00

1.5

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

1 39

8

4.7

7

A short alignment of trees presumedhave been installed for screening orshelter purposes. Their location,being little more than 1.00 m from ablock-built boundary wall raisesconcerns under “able A1BS5837:2012” in respect of futuregrowth and likelihood of causingstructural damage to wall.Additionally, the nature of the trees,their rapid growth rates and broadlyunderstood management issuessuggest their sustainability is minimalat best. There juxtaposition with theadjoining woodland has seen amassive disparity in growth withmuch of the growth orientated to theWest, across the boundary and thustrespassing in the adjoining property.These trees should be regarded asbeing of minimal suitability forretention and dubious sustainability.

S C2


E/M F/P

5.5

0

0.0

0

4.5

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1 22

6

2.7

1

Suppression is lead to heavyimbalance to north. Vigour andvitality are variable raising concernsregarding longer term sustainability.

Review regularly. S C2


M G/F

24

.00

7.0

0

7.0

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

1 78

0

9.3

6

A tall specimen of reasonable vigourand vitality but supporting notabledead-wood and a substantial forkunion at 11.00 m.


L B1-2


M P

19

.00

2.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

1 43

0

5.1

6

Distorted, previously damaged andsubject to apical dieback. Isunsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U




M F

20

.00

10

.00

0.0

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

0.0

0

1 54

8

6.5

7

Notably distorted with crownextending to east and south only. Mayprove suitable for retention inconjunction with adjoining Austrianpine.

Clean-out. andreview regardingJoan retentioncontext.

L C1-2

129 Eucalyptus(Eucalyptus variety)

S/M F

13

.00

6.0

0

1.5

0

1.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 17

5

2.1

0

Tall and particularly spindly butmaintaining reasonable vigour andvitality.

review regardingretention contextparticularly ifexposed.

M C2


S/M F

8.5

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 23

9

2.8

6

Young and still vigorous withimmense potential for continuedgrowth notwithstanding suppressedposition.

Review regularly. L B2

131 Ash(Fraxinusexcelsior)

M F

17

.00

5.0

0

5.0

0

7.0

0

6.0

0

4.0

0

1 53

5

6.4

2

Slightly distorted and supportingseveral wounds on lower stem.Specimen may not suit retention inisolation without structural pruningworks.


M B2


S/M F

10

.00

3.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

1 27

4

3.2

9

Heavily divided from below 0.50 m.Higher crown exhibit evidence ofearly life bark stripping probablyattributable to grey squirrel feeding.

Review regularly. M C2


M G/F

21

.00

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

1 54

8

6.5

7Young and still vigorous withimmense potential for continuedgrowth over time.

L B1-2


M F

22

.00

9.0

0

6.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

7.0

0

1 86

6

10

.39

Large specimen of highly variablevigour and vitality with substantialevidence of dead-wood developmentand prior dieback. Concerns existregarding sustainability andlikelihood of continued decline.

Clean-out. andreview bothregarding retentioncontext and onregular basisregarding ongoingsuitability retention.

S C1-2




M G/F

23

.00

7.0

0

3.5

0

7.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

1 78

0

9.3

6

Slightly one-sided and typicallyunbalanced to east. General vigourand vitality appear good thoughcrown supports substantial dead-wood.

Clean-out. andreview regardingretention context.

L B1-2


S/M F

9.0

0

0.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Heavily suppressed and distortedthrough position beneath canopy oflarger neighbours and adjoiningcypress line.


M C2


M G/F

26

.00

13

.00

5.0

0

3.5

0

6.0

0

4.0

0

1 84

4

10

.12

A tall specimen with higher crownsupported on triple-stemmed systemfrom circa 14.00 m. Concerns existrelating to possible propensitytowards mechanical failure andcrown splitting.vigour and vitality are fair but belowthat expected retrieve this age.

M C1-2

138 Oak(Quercus robur)

E/M G

12

.00

2.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

1 32

2

3.8

6

Slightly suppressed through positionbeneath canopy of larger trees but ismaintaining good vigour.

Clean-out. L B2


M G/F

21

.00

13

.00

5.0

0

3.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

1 75

8

9.0

9

Distorted and has developed flat-topped crown profile. Vigour andvitality are fair but below thatexpected for tree of this age. Crownsupports notable dead-wood.

Clean-out. reviewregularly.

M B1-2


M G/F

22

.00

10

.00

4.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

1.5

0

1 76

4

9.1

7

A tall and narrow crown specimen ofapparently good vigour and vitality.

Clean-out. L B1-2


M G/F

20

.00

5.0

0

1.0

0

4.0

0

7.0

0

4.5

0

1 79

9

9.5

9

Heavily unbalanced to south becauseof scaffold limb extending acrossboundary wall. Vigour and vitalityare fair but less than that expectedretrieve this age. Crown supportssome dead-wood.

Clean-out. Considerstructural pruning toreduce weight ofsouthern portion ofcrown that extendacross boundary.Review regularly.

M C1-2




M G/F

21

.00

8.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

1 79

6

9.5

5

Is maintaining reasonable vigour andvitality but supports notable dead-wood.

Clean-out. L B2


E/M F

7.0

0-9

.00

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 23

9

2.8

6

Suppression to north has seen greatercrown development to south and thusthe development of a notabletrespass. Distortions with crownstructure suggests that priordecapitation and height control hasbeen applied as has the periodiccurtailment of limbs overhang theadjoining property. These trees are alllocated at little more than 0.50 mfrom the boundary wall raisedsubstantial concern regardingsustainability considering table “A1 –BS 5837 – 2012” as their potential forgrowth will inevitably lead toboundary wall damage. Accordingly,and considering species relatedmanagement issues, it is advised thatthese trees are not sustainable beyondthe short-term.

S C2


M F

21

.00

5.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

6.0

0

2.0

0

1 72

6

8.7

1A notably distorted specimen affectedby post horn effect seated at 5.00 mwhere original apical stem has beenlost and divergent dual stem hasdeveloped. Concerns exist regardingnature of damage and potential fordecay seat at fork at position as wellas mechanical integrity of broadercrown considering overhang ofadjoining property. Vigour andvitality are fair but less than thatexpected retrieve this age.

Review regardingretention contextand need forstructural pruning.

S C1-2




M F

26

.00

14

.00

6.0

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

5.0

0

1 86

6

10

.39

A large and dominating specimenwithin the broader alignment. Vigouris fair but less than that expectedretrieve this age with evidence ofsmall diameter dead-wooddevelopment.

Clean-out. andreview annually.

M B1-2


M G/F

20

.00

7.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

2.5

0

1 49

3

5.9

2

A small specimen within broaderalignment is slightly suppressed bynear neighbours. Vigour and vitalityremain fair.

Clean-out. removedead-wood.

L B1-2


M G

20

.00

8.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

3.0

0

1 48

1

5.7

7

Of fair but variable crown vigour,fractional less than that expectedretrieve this age. Crown supportsnotable dead-wood.

Clean-out. reviewregarding retentioncontext.

L B1-2


M F

22

.00

13

.00

5.0

0

6.5

0

5.5

0

4.0

0

1 79

9

9.5

9

One sided and unbalanced to east.Vigour and vitality are variable andnotably less than expected retrievethis age and indeed near neighbours.Eastern side of crown has sufferedrecent dramatic mechanical failureand limb breakage, debris whichremains caught within crown.

Clean-out. removeexisting debris anddead-wood. Reviewannually regardingongoingdeterioration inrespect ofsustainability.

M C1-2

148 Cut leaf Beech(Fagus sylvaticaasplenifolia)

E/M G

12

.00

1.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

1 51

6

6.1

9Young and vigorous with substantialgrowth potential remaining. Crown isin perfect with some elements ofrevision that might be dealt with byway of pruning.

L B2

149 Paper Bark Birch(Betula papyrifera)

E/M F

10

.00

1.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

1 31

2

3.7

4

Badly suppressed by proximity toneighbouring larger trees. Vigour andvitality are reduced though cause isunknown.


150 Himalayan Birch(Betula utilis)

E/M G

12

.00

1.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

1 42

0

5.0

4

Relatively young and still vigorous. L B2



151 Ornamental Apple(Malus variety)

E/M F

5.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

1 20

7

2.4

8

Slightly distorted and suffering fromfolia blight at present.

Clean-out. andreview annually.

L B2


E/M G/F

13

.00

1.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

1 29

0

3.4

8

Young and vigorous. L B2


E/M G

11

.00

1.2

5

3.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

1 26

1

3.1

3

Young and vigorous. Affected bybird development on lower stem.

Clean-out. L B2

154 Winter FloweringCherry(Prunus subhirtella“Autumnalis”)

E/M F

5.0

0

1.2

5

4.5

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1 28

0

3.3

6

Has developed broad and spreading,typically flat-topped Crown. Vigourand vitality are fair, but specimen isaffected by typical twig blightassociated with species.

Review regularlyand Clean-out.

M C2


E/M G/F

14

.00

1.0

0

3.5

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

1 66

8

8.0

2

Slightly distorted at lower levelsthrough proximity to near neighboursbut is maintaining good vigour andvitality.

L A2


E/M G/F

12

.00

1.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 56

3

6.7

6

Badly distorted through proximity tonear neighbours but is maintaininggood vigour and vitality.

L B2


M G/F

5.5

0

0.0

0

2.5

0

4.5

0

6.0

0

4.5

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

A broader group supported upon 2stems, northern stem of which issubstantially broken and decayed. Isof dubious retention merit.

S C2


M G/F

16

.00

3.5

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

1 34

1

4.0

9

Young and still vigorous. L B2


E/M G/F

12

.00

2.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 24

8

2.9

8

Slightly distorted and suppressed atlower levels by proximity toadjoining laurels. Vigour and vitalityremain good.

L B2


E/M F

5.0

0

1.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 17

5

2.1

0

Becoming suppressed by joiningLaurel but is maintaining reasonablevigour and vitality.

L B2



161 Hazel(Corylus avellana)

E/M G/F

6.0

0

1.2

5

2.5

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 25

8

3.0

9

Young and vigorous comprisingtypical element of broader shrubbery.

L B2


M F

5.0

0

1.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

1 37

6

4.5

1

Spreading and flat-topped. Is affectedby Twiggy decline typical of species.

Cut Ivy, Clean-out.and reviewregularly.

M C2


M F

4.5

0

0.7

5

3.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 19

4

2.3

3

Slightly unbalanced and encroachedupon by adjoining plans. Ismaintaining reasonable vigour andvitality.


M C2


E/M F

5.5

0

1.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

4.0

0

2.5

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Suppressed and slightly distortedthough maintaining reasonablevigour.


M C2

165 Crack Willow(Salix fragilis)

E/M F

14

.00

1.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

2 59

2

7.1

0

Heavily forked at 0.75 m. Highersouthern crown has suffered visiblestorm damage. Vigour and vitalityremain good though tree may be illsuited to retention in some contexts.

Consider rapidgrowth rates, brittlenature anddevelopment ofinvasive and far-reaching rootsystem.

M C2

166 Snake Bark Maple(Acer capillipes)

E/M G

6.5

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

2.5

0

1.5

0

1 23

9

2.8

6

Suppression by adjoining hazels islead to development of one-sidednature typically unbalanced to east.General vigour and vitality remaingood.


M B2

HG1 Hazel Group 1Hazel(Corylus avellana)

M G/F

5.0

0-6

.00

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 23

9

2.8

6

A close-knit Grove of hazels creatinga disbursed, informal almost hedgelike affect. Individual plants remainof good vigour and vitality and can bemanaged by rejuvenation afterCoppicing if required.


L B2




E/M F

13

.00

0.0

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

5.5

0

4.5

0

3 71

6

8.5

9

Growth habit is to east as result ofsuppression with broadly one-sidedcrown development. Tree is multi-stemmed from low level. Concernsexist regarding longer termsustainability considering speciestypical issues.


M C2


M F

16

.00

2.5

0

5.0

0

7.0

0

4.5

0

3.0

0

1 53

5

6.4

2

Heavily one-sided and typicallyunbalanced and north-east. Remainsvigorous with Ivy developing onprincipal stem.

Cut Ivy and reviewretention context.

M B2


E/M F

15

.00

5.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

3.0

0

1 32

5

3.9

0

Drawn up and slightly distorted but ismaintaining reasonable vigour andvitality notwithstanding Ivy cover.


M B2


M G/F

26

.00

9.0

0

7.0

0

10

.00

6.0

0

2.5

0

1 86

3

10

.35

Wholly one-sided and typicallyunbalanced to east. Vigour andvitality are fair though crown doessupport some dead-wood.


L B2


E/M F

13

.00

3.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

2.0

0

1 37

6

4.5

1

Heavily suppressed and notablydistorted because of position beneathcanopy of adjoining pine. Vigourremains fair considering scenario.

Clean-out., cut Ivyand reviewregarding retentioncontext.

M C2


M F

18

.00

0.0

0

7.0

0

5.5

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

1 84

4

10

.12

Typically unbalanced to east becauseof suppression. Vigour and vitalityare fair.


L B2

173 Western Hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla)

S/M F

9.0

0

0.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1.5

0

1 33

4

4.0

1

Notably suppressed but apparentlymaintaining reasonable vigour but isnotably suppressed with minimalcanopy remaining at lower levels andivy affecting higher crown. Is ofdubious sustainability.

S C2


E/M F

13

.00

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 42

0

5.0

4

young and still vigorous but heavilysuppressed particularly at lowerlevels. Viable crown is limited tohigher levels.

Review regularly.And with regardretention context.

M C2



175 SwedishWhitebeam(Sorbus intermedia)

M P

10

.00

1.5

0

5.0

0

6.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

1 43

0

5.1

6

Heavily unbalanced to east andaffected by chronic cavitydevelopment on western side of stem.Tree is of questionable systemstability and dubious sustainability.


N/A U


E/M G/F

13

.00

2.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 38

5

4.6

2

Badly suppressed by proximity ofnear neighbours, particularly at lowerlevels. Higher crown is maintaininggood vigour and vitality.

L B2


E/M F

17

.00

2.0

0

4.5

0

5.5

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

1 48

4

5.8

1

Heavily distorted and typicallyunbalanced to east with multi-stemscenario from circa 2.500 msuggesting early life damage. Crownvigour and vitality remains good.


M C2


E/M P

5.5

0

0.0

0

2.0

0

5.5

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

3 36

6

4.3

9

Triple stemmed from ground levelwith evidence of partial failure. Isunsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U


M F

6.0

0

0.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Distorted and having suffered earlylife damage. Is of dubious retentionmerit.

S C2

180 Whitebeam(Sorbus aria)

E/M G/F

10

.00

2.5

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

2.5

0

1.0

0

1 32

5

3.9

0

Heavily unbalanced to north-east,presumably because of suppression.Vigour and vitality are fair.


M C2

181 Weeping Ash(Fraxinus excelsior“Pendula”)

S/M F

3.0

0

0.0

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

1.0

0

1 17

5

2.1

0Slightly suppressed and unbalancedto east. Vigour remains good.

L B2


M G/F

11

.00

2.0

0

7.0

0

7.0

0

7.5

0

7.0

0

1 72

3

8.6

7

A squat and spreading specimen ofapparently good vigour and vitalitynotwithstanding support of minordead-wood.

Clean-out. L A2


S/M F

7.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1 19

7

2.3

7

A relatively young and recentinstallation. Vigour is below thatexpected retrieve this age raisingsome concern regardingsustainability.

Review annually. M C2



184 Deodar Cedar(Cedrus deodara)

M G/F

19

.00

0.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

1 66

8

8.0

2

A relatively young and still vigorousspecimen with immense potential forcontinued growth. Is already and willbecome further suppressed to east byadjoining Walnut.

L B1-2

185 Brewer Spruce(Picea Breweriana)

S/M G/F

6.0

0

0.0

0

1.7

5

1.7

5

1.7

5

1.7

5

1 21

6

2.6

0

Young and vigorous, recentinstallation. Will become encroachedupon and suppressed by adjoiningwalnut.

L B2

186 Black Walnut(Juglans nigra)

M G/F

19

.00

0.0

0

7.0

0

7.0

0

7.0

0

8.0

0

1 59

5

7.1

4

A strong and still vigorous specimenwhose overall form has been affectedby proximity of near neighbours,particularly to south and west.

L B1-2


M G/F

21

.00

0.0

0

5.0

0

6.0

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

1 88

5

10

.62

An already large specimen of slightlydistorted form because of proximityto near neighbours. Tree assertspotential for an increase in size overtime.

Review regularly. L B1-2


M F/P

18

.00

2.0

0

6.0

0

7.0

0

6.0

0

10

.00

1 10

98

13

.18

A particularly distorted specimensupported on 3-way fork system from2.00 m. Support three-way forksystem from 2.00 m. Crown isnotably distorted suggestingsubstantial prior intervention thoughwhether this was natural or pruned isnot known. Basal region suggestspossible grafted specimen andsubsequent reversion. Crownsupports some dead-wood andevidence of prior storm damage. Noteis also made of localised limbremoval wound is now subject todecay.

Review regardingretention contextand suitability forretention.

M C2




M G/F

16

.00

1.0

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

1 42

0

5.0

4

Notably distorted with much ofcrown space being in cooperatewithin that of adjoining beech.General vigour and vitality remainreasonable.


TL4 Tree Line 4Lawson Cypress(Chamaecyparislawsoniana)

E/M G/F

6.0

0-6

.50

0.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 20

7

2.4

8

A close-knit and L-shaped alignmentof Cypresses adjoining the easternand southern edges of a tennis courtarea, presumed to have been installedfor screening purposes. Thealignment utilises alternating colourforms of green and blue-greencypress. Trees have effectivelycoalesced to create a high hedgeeffect. Issues will arise over timeregarding management relating to allcypresses though at present theircondition remains reasonably goodand potentially suitable for retention.

reviewed regardretention context.

L B2


M F

6.0

0

0.0

0

5.0

0

3.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

A large sprawling shrub. M C2


M F

10

.00

3.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

1 40

7

4.8

9Slightly suppressed but maintainingreasonable vigour notwithstandingsupport of dead-wood and Ivydevelopment on principal stem.

Cut Ivy and Clean-out. Reviewregularly.

M C2

192 Variegated Holly(Ilex aquifolium)

M F

6.0

0

0.0

0

4.5

0

2.5

0

1.0

0

2.5

0

1 20

4

2.4

4

Heavily unbalanced to northsuggesting either instability chronicsuppression.


N/A U


E/M P

7.0

0

1.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

1 32

8

3.9

3

Heavily divided from near groundlevel and affected by chronic decayfungi. Is unsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U




M G/F

20

.00

8.0

0

5.0

0

7.0

0

6.5

0

7.0

0

1 74

8

8.9

8

Large specimen having developedhigh-level spreading crown. Vigourand vitality remain reasonable thoughcrown supports extensive dead-wood.


L B1-2


S/M F

7.0

0

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 93

6

11

.23

Young and vigorous but locatedbeneath canopy of larger neighboursthat are already causing suppression.

M C2


E/M P

9.0

0

3.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

2.0

0

1 33

4

4.0

1

Heavily suppressed and distortedwith notable Ivy development.Middle-crown is subject to decay.Tree is unsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U


M G/F

22

.00

7.0

0

4.0

0

7.0

0

6.5

0

3.0

0

1 84

4

10

.12

Large specimen typically unbalancedto south-east. Vigour and vitality arefair though dead-wood is notedwithin crown.


L B2


E/M F

18

.00

5.0

0

1.0

0

3.0

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

1 45

2

5.4

2

Drawn up and typically unbalanced tosouth-west. Is heavily divided from2.500 m. Lower crown supportsnotable dead-wood.


M B2

199 Holm Oak(Quercus ilex)

E/M F

11

.00

0.0

0

6.0

0

5.0

0

3.0

0

6.0

0

1 43

9

5.2

7

A typically one-sided and unbalancedto north because of proximity to nearneighbours. Has been affected bypartial collapse of adjoining homeoak. Appears be maintainingreasonable vigour and vitality.


M C2


M P

13

.00

0.0

0

6.0

0

7.0

0

6.0

0

5.0

0

1 10

98

13

.18

A once larger tree has sufferedchronic failure and collapse withmuch of eastern and south-easterncrown comprising fallen limbs.Primary stem bases subject tosubstantial wounding and decay. Isunsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U




M F

18

.00

1.5

0

7.0

0

9.0

0

7.0

0

4.5

0

1 94

2

11

.31

Substantially one-sided and typicallyunbalanced to east as result ofsuppression. General vigour andvitality remain good. Eastern crownhas suffered recent and substantialstorm damage.

Clean-out. M C2


M F

18

.00

5.0

0

2.5

0

7.0

0

8.0

0

5.5

0

1 83

4

10

.01

Large specimen that is one-sided andunbalanced to south. General vigourand vitality appear good.



E/M F

10

.00

2.0

0

2.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

3.0

0

1 38

8

4.6

6

Heavily unbalanced to south-east asresult of proximity to nearneighbours. Remains vigorous but isof dubious sustainability.

M C2


E/M G/F

19

.00

2.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

3.5

0

1 46

5

5.5

8

Distorted through suppression andslightly unbalanced to north.

L B2

205 Ornamental Cherry(Prunus variety)

M D

10

.00

3.0

0

5.5

0

3.5

0

0.0

0

4.0

0

1 43

9

5.2

7

Completely dead and unbalanced. Removeimmediately.

N/A U


M G/F

19

.00

2.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 56

0

6.7

2

Young and still vigorous thoughbecoming suppressed by nearneighbours.



M G/F

19

.00

2.0

0

3.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

1 54

1

6.4

9Has suffered extensive middle andupper crown storm damage. Is ofdubious sustainability.


S C2


M F

19

.00

2.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1 53

5

6.4

2

Distorted and misshapen withelements of twiggy declinesuggesting canker damage. Tree waspreviously suppressed by nearneighbours but is becoming exposedthrough their loss.

Clean-out. removedead-wood andreview regularly.

M C2


M D

4.0

0

4.0

0

0.5

0

0.5

0

0.5

0

0.5

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

Exists as a decapitated stump. Remove. N/A U



211 Western BalsamPoplar(Populustrichocarpa)

E/M F

18

.00

4.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

1 37

9

4.5

5

Tall and slender with substantialpotential for continued growth overtime.

L B2


E/M F

16

.00

2.0

0

2.5

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

4.0

0

1 38

5

4.6

2

Young and vigorous with immensepotential for continued growth overtime.

L B2

213 Rough ArizonaCypress(Cypress arizonica)

E/M F

10

.00

1.5

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 32

5

3.9

0

Heavily suppressed being locatedbeneath canopy of larger neighbours.



M P

4.5

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 27

1

3.2

5

Chronically suppressed by almosttotal Ivy and clematis cover. Isunsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U


M P

15

.00

2.0

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

1 93

9

11

.27

Has sustained chronic crown failureresulting in major wound on easternside of stem at 1.00 m that is nowsubject to chronic decay. Entire treeis becoming affected by Polyporussquamosus. Is unsuitable forretention.

Remove. N/A U


M F/P

6.0

0

0.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

1 26

1

3.1

3

Suppressed and overshadowed byadjoining Sycamore. Is of dubiousretention merit.

S C2

217 Knife Acacia(Acaciacultriformis)

E/M P

5.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

1 32

5

3.9

0Chronically distorted and appears tohave suffered prior damage andpartial failure. Is of dubious retentionmerit.


N/A U


E/M F

7.0

0

1.2

5

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1 25

8

3.0

9

Young and relatively vigorous butarising from position adjoiningknown in underground infrastructureand masonry. Position isunsustainable in respect of ongoinggrowth.


N/A U




M F

6.0

0

1.7

5

3.5

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

3.0

0

1 38

2

4.5

8

Broad and spreading crown. Isaffected by species typical twiggydecline.


220 Handkerchief Tree(Davidia involucrata)

S/M G/F

5.0

0

0.5

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 21

6

2.6

0

A young, recently installed specimen. L B2


E/M F

10

.00

2.2

5

4.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

1 33

1

3.9

7

A dominant specimen within abroader shrubby mass. Appears bemaintaining good vigour and vitality.


M B2

TG1 Tree Group 1Chilean Myrtle(Luma apiculata)

E/M F/P

6.0

0-8

.00

0.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 27

1

3.2

5

A large contiguous shrubby massdominated by a combination of smalltrees and shrubbery. Has been subjectto chronic suppression and numerousindividuals are now substantiallydistorted. Isolation of individualsfrom within the group for retention islikely to prove difficult and will be ofdubious success.

S C2

222 Chilean Myrtle(Luma apiculata)

M F

5.0

0

1.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 20

7

2.4

8

A close-knit group of 4 individualstems combining to create a shrubbiermass.


M B2


M G/F

26

.00

7.0

0

5.0

0

6.5

0

6.0

0

5.0

0

1 82

8

9.9

3

A large and tall specimen ofapparently good vigour and vitality.crown supports some dead-wood andstature predisposes specimen topotential storm damage.


L B2


S/M F

12

.00

3.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1.5

0

1.0

0

1 38

8

4.6

6

Suppressed as result of positionbeneath canopy of larger neighbour.Is typically unbalanced and north-east. Is of questionable sustainability.


M C2


M P

6.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

1 23

6

2.8

3

Once larger specimen is in a state ofongoing decline with substantial foliathinning in evidence. Is of dubioussustainability.


N/A U




S/M F

8.5

0

2.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Heavily distorted and unbalanced tonorth-east because of positionadjoining larger neighbour. Middleand higher crown appears to havesuffered grey squirrel feeding damageand distortion in past. Is of dubioussustainability.

S C2

227 Pittosporum(Pittosporumtenuifolium)

M F

7.5

0

0.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

3.5

0

4.5

0

1 32

2

3.8

6

Large sprawling shrubby masssuppressed at lower levels by largergrowing neighbours.


M C2


M F

8.0

0

0.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Comprises typical element of shrubbyunder story. Is distorted andsuppressed but maintainingreasonable vigour and vitality.

M B2


M F/P

15

.00

4.5

0

5.0

0

6.0

0

6.0

0

4.0

0

1 38

8

4.6

6

Notably distorted and affected bysubstantial canker damage,particularly on middle-crown thatwill result in mechanical failure. Is ofdubious retention merit.


S C2


M G/F

19

.00

2.0

0

9.0

0

8.0

0

9.5

0

9.0

0

1 91

7

11

.00

A broad and spreading specimen ofapparently good vigour and vitality.Crown is compromised by multiplecompression fork unions that maypredispose tree to elevated risk ofcrown failure.


L B2


M D

3.5

0

1.0

0

0.5

0

1.5

0

1.0

0

0.5

0

1 81

2

9.7

4

Exists as a decayed and decapitatedstump.

Remove. N/A U




M F

13

.00

0.0

0

6.0

0

4.5

0

5.5

0

5.0

0

3 90

7

10

.89

A large, multi-stem specimen that hassuffered damage and limb loss inpast. Localised areas are subject todamage and decay though broadertree appears to be retaining goodvigour and vitality. Tree appears tohave been previously reduced.


M C2


E/M F

9.0

0-1

2.0

0

1.5

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

1 28

6

3.4

4

A close-knit alignment of treestypically located within 1.00 m of aboundary wall, thereby raisingsubstantial concerns in respect ofgrowth potential likelihood ofstructural damage to said wall.Additionally, suppression byadditional planting is to west andproximity to site boundary to east hasseen substantial development ofoverhang and trespass into adjoiningproperties. Species predispositionsand broadly accepted issues ofmanagement suggest that thisalignment is not sustainable overtime.

S C2


M F

17

.00

2.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

6.0

0

6.0

0

1 78

0

9.3

6Once larger specimen has sufferedmechanical failure, is affected bynumerous wounds many of which aresubject to decay including a middlecrown wound supporting fruitingbodies of Polyporus squamosus. Treeis now subject to irreversible decline.

Remove. N/A U


M F

21

.00

7.0

0

5.0

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

5.5

0

1 68

8

8.2

5

Is affected by chronic infection ofUstulina at ground level withadditional infection of Ganoderma atcirca 4.50 m. Is at risk of imminentfailure.

Removeimmediately.

N/A U



235 Beech M P

20

.00

8.0

0

6.0

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

7.0

0

1 99

3

11

.92

A large specimen affected by notabledegree of Ustulina on western side ofstem base. Tree is unsustainable.

Remove. N/A U


E/M F

13

.00

1.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

See general note for tree line 5. S C2

237 Snake Bark Maple(Acer capillipes)

S F

4.5

0

1.5

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 15

3

1.8

3

A small and little recently installedspecimen.

L B2


S/M G/F

10

.00

2.2

5

4.5

0

2.5

0

1.5

0

4.0

0

1 19

4

2.3

3

Distorted through suppression butmaintaining reasonable vigour andvitality.

M B2

239 Himalayan Birch(Betula utilis)

E/M G

9.0

0

2.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

4.0

0

1 20

4

2.4

4

Young and vigorous though slightlydistorted by suppression.

L B2

240 Schmitt’s Cherry(Prunus x schmittii)

E/M F

5.5

0

1.7

5

2.5

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

1 20

4

2.4

4

Slightly distorted throughsuppression. Appears to be sufferingearly leaf loss, possibly attributable toearly-season drought conditions.

Review on annualbasis.

M C2


M F

6.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 20

4

2.4

4

Slightly suppressed but maintainingreasonable vigour and vitality.

L B2


M G/F

19

.00

2.0

0

5.0

0

7.5

0

8.0

0

6.5

0

1 11

46

13

.75

Large specimen heavily divided at1.75 m. Buttress level distortionsuggest grafted specimenexacerbating concerns regardingcompression fork union andpropensity towards possible crownsplitting and failure.

Review regularly.consider installationof supportive cable.

L B2


M F

6.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 21

3

2.5

6

Badly suppressed but maintainingreasonable vigour and vitality.

L B2


M F

6.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Is of variable crown vigour. Review regularly. M C2




E/M F

9.0

0

2.2

5

3.0

0

2.5

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

1 44

6

5.3

5

Completely dead and substantiallydecayed.

Removeimmediately.

N/A U


M D

8.0

0

6.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

5.5

0

7.0

0

1 84

4

10

.12

Large specimen affected by chronicand extensive decay.

Removeimmediately.

N/A U


E/M P

8.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

1 82

8

9.9

3

Heavily suppressed and supportingextensive dead-wood.


M C2

248 Beech Stump(Fagus sylvatica)

M D

4.5

0

0.0

0

0.7

5

0.7

5

0.7

5

0.7

5

1 84

4

10

.12

Is substantially decayed. Remove. N/A U


M F/P

17

.00

2.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

5.5

0

1 66

8

8.0

2

Large specimen visibly in declinewith stag heading and diebackevident about crown periphery. Causeof decline is not apparent. Tree wouldappear to be of dubious sustainability.

Cut Ivy and clean-out. Review onannual basis inrespect ofsustainability andongoing suitabilityfor retention.

S C2


E/M F

9.0

0

4.5

0

3.0

0

4.5

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

1 24

2

2.9

0

Suppressed and broadly distorted.Appears vigorous at present howeverspecies predisposition to attack byDutch Elm disease which is commonwithin broader Dublin area suggestlimited sustainability.



M F/P

6.0

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

0.0

0

1.5

0

2.5

0

1 20

7

2.4

8

Heavily suppressed and of notablyreduced vigour thereby questioningsustainability.



E/M G/F

16

.00

3.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

6.0

0

6.0

0

1 87

2

10

.47

Relatively young and still vigorousbut is affected by extensive Ivycoverage.


L B2




E/M F

19

.00

7.0

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 37

6

4.5

1

A tall and spindly specimen withlimited canopy form. Much ofprimary stem is obscured by denseIvy cover. Vigour and vitality are fairbut variable.


M C2

254 Western RedCedar(Thuja plicata)

S/M F

8.0

0

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 19

7

2.3

7

Suppressed and distorted throughposition beneath larger neighboursbut is maintaining good vigour andvitality and asserts immense potentialfor continued growth over time.

L B2


M G/F

21

.00

5.5

0

6.5

0

7.0

0

7.0

0

7.0

0

1 91

0

10

.92

A particularly large broad crownedspecimen the becomes substantiallymulti-stemmed by 6.00 m. Vigourand vitality is fair but variable withcrown supporting substantial,typically small diameter dead-wood.

Cut Ivy and reviewon regular basis andregarding retentioncontext.

L B1-2

256 Sycamore Stump(Acerpseudoplatanus)

M D

6.0

0

0.0

0

0.7

5

0.7

5

0.7

5

0.7

5

1 78

0

9.3

6

Completely dead, decayed and inneed of removal.

Remove. N/A U


S/M G/F

12

.00

2.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

3.5

0

2.0

0

1 25

8

3.0

9


L B2

258 Willow Leaved Pear(Pyrus salicifolia)

M G/F

4.5

0

0.0

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

1 19

7

2.3

7Slightly suppressed on southern sidebut otherwise maintaining goodvigour and vitality.

L B2

TL6 Tree Line 6Lawson Cypress(Chamaecyparislawsoniana)

E/M G/F

5.0

0

0.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 18

0

2.2

0

A short alignment of cypressespresumably intended for screening orornamental purposes. Maintainingreasonable vigour and vitality.

L B2



259-261

Leyland Cypress(Cuppressocyparisleylandii)

E/M G/F

13

.00

1.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

3 trees growing in close-proximity toone another and effectively creating asingular canopy. Speciespredispositions towards managementdifficulties in made in later life andthus should be regarded as short-terminstallations only. Their proximity toan existing boundary wall structureequally raises concern regardinggrowth potential and likelihood ofstructural disturbance.

Review on regularbasis regardingsustainability andsuitability forretention.

S C2

262 Weymouth Pine(Pinus strobus)

E/M G/F

14

.00

1.5

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

1.0

0

1 49

0

5.8

8

Young and still vigorous withsubstantial potential for continuedgrowth over time.

L B2

TL7 Tree Line 7Hornbeam(Carpinus betulus)Red Oak(Quercus rubra)Norway Maple(Acer platanoides“Crimson King”)

Ornamental Cherry(Prunus variety)

S/M G

4.5

0-5

.0

1.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 14

3

1.7

2

A continuous alignment of youngtrees recently installed. Young agereflects good health though proximityto one another may raisesustainability issues in respect ofsuppression over time.

L B2



TL8 Tree Line 8Lombardy Poplar(Populus nigra“Italica”)

M F/P

17

.00

2.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 38

2

4.5

8

“Section a” comprises 3 hybrid blackpoplar's that are of particularly poorcondition having suffered widespreadcrown damage and appear to be instate of ongoing decline and dieback.These trees should be removedimmediately. “Section b” comprisesLombardy type black poplar's thatappear to be in slightly bettercondition. Nonetheless, issues arise inrespect of localised storm damageand known decay after priordecapitation. The soft timber treeswhilst responding well to pruningoften become progressively moresubject to mechanical failure as resultof the poor quality of the re-growththat develop after such pruning.Accordingly, much of the uppercrowns of these trees is of poorquality. Remaining vigorous, thoughthese trees should be regarded asbeing of dubious sustainability andminimal suitability for retention.

S C2


M F

19

.00

4.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

1 66

8

8.0

2Large specimen located adjoiningoutbuilding and boundary wall wherecontinued growth will result indamage over time. Tree is consideredunsustainable notwithstandingspecies typical predisposition towardsdamage that render it of dubiouscontextual suitability for retention.


N/A U


M G/F

17

.00

2.5

0

6.5

0

6.0

0

6.0

0

5.5

0

1 92

9

11

.15

Has developed a broad and spreadingcrown system. Vigour and vitalityappear good notwithstanding smallamount of dead-wood.

Cut Ivy and removebasal suckers.

L B2



265 Italian Cypress(Cupressussempervirens)

S/M F

9.0

0

1.2

5

2.5

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

3.0

0

1 22

6

2.7

1

Slightly unbalanced to West butmaintaining good vigour and vitality.

L B2

266 Strawberry Tree(Arbutus unedo)

M G

6.5

0

1.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1 37

2

4.4

7

Young and still vigorousnotwithstanding minor suppressionfrom east and adjoining cypresshedge.

L B2

267 Magnolia(Magnolia Sp.)

M G/F

5.5

0

1.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

1 38

8

4.6

6

A broad and spreading specimen ofapparently good vigour and vitality.

L B2

268 Domestic Apple(Malus variety)

M F

4.5

0

1.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 20

4

2.4

4

Is maintaining reasonable vigour andvitality.

L B2

269 Domestic Apple(Malus variety)

M P

5.0

0

0.5

0

2.5

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

3.5

0

1 45

2

5.4

2

Affected by chronic decay. Remove. N/A U




E/M F

12

.00

-14.0

0

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 24

8

2.9

8

Trees appear to have been decapitatedon several occasions in the pastleading to exacerbated Crown spread.General vigour and vitality appeargood however proximity to boundarywall, likelihood of their route growthrelated damage to that wall andsustainability issues commonlyassociated with this species suggestthat the alignment is not sustainablebeyond the short-term. Considerationshould be given to replacementplanting.Note is made that towards thesouthern end of the alignmentsubstantial cutting appears to havebeen undertaken by neighbourspresumably to alleviate what is an ex-extensive degree of overhang andtrespass resulting from the treesproximity to the apparent boundaryline.

S C2

270 Griselinia(Griselinia littoralis)

M F

5.5

0

0.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

1 37

9

4.5

5

A large shrubby mass extending fromposition beneath and adjoiningcypress alignment. Remains of goodvigour and vitality but is of whollydistorted form.


M C2


M F

8.0

0-

10

.00

1.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

1 22

3

2.6

7

Effectively a continuation of TreeLine 9. Have been previouslydecapitated and stand visibly shorterthan Tree Line 9. Same issues arise.

M C2

271 Yellow Buckeye(Aesculus Sp.)

S/M G/F

9.0

0

1.0

0

5.0

0

2.0

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

1 29

3

3.5

1

Heavily encroached upon byadjoining cypresses and hasdeveloped one-sided effect, typicallyunbalanced to north-west. Generalvigour and vitality remain good.

L B2




S/M F

8.0

0

0.5

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

4.5

0

1 32

8

3.9

3

Typically unbalanced to north-west.Has been affected by leaf actionfoliar blight but appears bemaintaining reasonable vigour andvitality.

Cut Ivy. L B2


E/M F

19

.00

4.5

0

1.5

0

4.5

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Tall and columnar, typical of species.Is substantially exposed raising someconcern regarding potential forbreakage.


M C2


M G/F

14

.00

2.0

0

7.0

0

6.0

0

6.5

0

6.5

0

1 74

8

8.9

8

Still young and vigorous. Heavilydivided at 2.00 m.

Cut Ivy and review. L B2


S/M F

7.0

0

2.2

5

4.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 26

7

3.2

1

Heavily suppressed as resultproximity to adjoining trees bothwithin and outside of site. Supportsextensive Ivy cover that obscuresmuch of middle-crown. Appears bemaintaining reasonable vigour but isof poor quality.

M C2


S/M F/P

10

.00

1.5

0

5.0

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 25

8

3.0

9

Previously broken and heavily cut atlower levels presumably in respect ofoverhang of adjoining boundary. Is ofreduced quality but remains vigorous.

M C2


A/M F

12

.00

2.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 29

9

3.5

9Suppressed and drawn up because ofproximity to near neighbours.


M C2

278 Lodgepole Pine(Pinus contorta)

E/M F

13

.00

3.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

Suppressed and substantiallyobscured by dense Ivy cover.

Cut Ivy, Clean-out.and rereview.

M C2


E/M F

20

.00

6.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

1 52

2

6.2

6

A large and dominating specimen forarea. Appears to be vigorous thoughentire stem and middle-crown isobscure by dense Ivy cover.


L B1-2



280 Walnut(Juglans regia)

S/M F

9.0

0

2.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

1 28

0

3.3

6

Suppressed and distorted throughproximity to near neighbours.Appears be maintaining reasonablevigour and vitality.


M C2

281 Strawberry Tree(Arbutus unedo)

E/M F/P

9.0

0

4.5

0

2.5

0

1.5

0

0.0

0

2.0

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Drawn up and unbalanced throughsuppression.


M C2

282 Service Tree(Sorbus torminalis)

S/M F/P

9.0

0

1.5

0

4.0

0

1.5

0

0.0

0

1.5

0

1 26

1

3.1

3

Suppressed and drawn up. Supportsextensive Ivy cover.


S C2


E/N F

11

.00

2.2

5

5.0

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

5.0

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

One-sided and typically unbalancedand north-west. Middle-crown isobscure by dense Ivy cover.

cut Ivy andrereview.

M C2

284 Rauli(Nothofagus procera)

S/M P

7.0

0

1.0

0

4.5

0

2.0

0

0.0

0

1.0

0

1 19

7

2.3

7

Chronically unbalanced andunsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U

285 Variegated LeylandCypress(Cuppressocyparisleylandii)

S/M F

7.0

0

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 38

5

4.6

2

Young and still vigorous but heavilysuppressed.


M C2

286 Crack Willow(Salix fragilis)

M F/P

13

.00

1.5

0

9.0

0

5.0

0

0.0

0

4.0

0

1 45

2

5.4

2

Supports chronic imbalance to north.Is potentially unstable. Is heavilyobscured by dense Ivy cover. Is ofquestionable retention merit.

Consider removaland replacement.

S C2

287 Grey Alder(Alnus incana)

E/M F

17

.00

2.5

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

1 42

0

5.0

4Large and vigorous specimen heavilydivided at 2.50 m. Higher crownraises concern regarding reducedvigour and early foliage loss.retention.

Cut Ivy and reviewannually regardingsustainability andsuitability for

S C2

288 Pine(Pinus Sp.)

S/M F

12

.00

0.5

0

2.0

0

1.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

0

1 22

9

2.7

5

Tall and columned. Almost whollyobscured by dense Ivy cover.


S C2


M G/F

21

.00

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

1 46

2

5.5

4


L B2




S/M F/P

7.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

2.0

0

1 23

6

2.8

3

Previously decapitated and heavilysuppressed by dense Ivy cover.


S C2


S/M F/P

6.5

0

2.2

5

3.0

0

3.0

0

4.0

0

1.5

0

1 24

8

2.9

8

Heavily suppressed because ofposition beneath canopy of adjoiningMonterey Pine. Is of dubiousretention merit.

Consider removaland replacement.

S C2


M G

21

.00

0.5

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

5.5

0

4.5

0

1 74

8

8.9

8

Tall, upright and of good vigour.Asserts immense potential forcontinued growth over time.

L B1-2

294 Red Oak(Quercus rubra)

S/M F

9.0

0

1.0

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

3.5

0

1 20

7

2.4

8

Young and vigorous but becomingsuppressed by adjoining trees.

L B2


E/M F

14

.00

1.0

0

4.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

3.0

0

1 38

2

4.5

8

Raises species typical sustainabilityissues considering difficulties relatingto management in mid and later life.


S C2


E/M F

14

.00

1.0

0

4.0

0

2.5

0

5.0

0

3.5

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

Raises species typical sustainabilityissues considering difficulties relatingto management in mid and later life.


S C2

297 Rough ArizonaCypress(Cupressusarizonica)

E/M F

13

.00

0.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

1 36

6

4.3

9

One-sided and suppressed byproximity to near neighbour. Raisesspecies typical sustainability issuesfor made in later life.

M C2

298 Rough ArizonaCypress(Cupressusarizonica)

E/M F

16

.00

0.0

0

5.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

1 74

8

8.9

8One-sided and suppressed byproximity to near neighbour. Raisesspecies typical sustainability issuesfor made in later life.

M C2


E/M P

13

.00

5.0

0

1.0

0

5.0

0

2.0

0

0.0

0

1 32

5

3.9

0

Heavily distorted and would not besuitable for retention if isolated orexposed.

S C2


E/M F/P

19

.00

2.5

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

1 68

8

8.2

5

Large specimen with immensepotential for continued growth overtime. Supports notable imbalance tosouth-east, towards site boundary.


S C1-2




E/M F

15

.00

2.5

0

5.0

0

6.0

0

4.5

0

3.0

0

1 46

2

5.5

4

On balance and distorted throughproximity to near neighbours. Vigourremains good suggesting potential forcontinued growth.

Cut Ivy. L B2


M F

20

.00

3.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

1 51

6

6.1

9

Drawn up with limited high crownwith primary stem supportingextensive Ivy cover.


L B2


M G/F

22

.00

4.0

0

10

.00

8.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

1 91

0

10

.92

Tree supports chronic widespreadinfection of Ganoderma near groundlevel indicating substantial internaldecay. Is unsuitable for retention.

Remove. N/A U


M F

23

.00

3.0

0

8.0

0

5.5

0

5.0

0

6.0

0

1 86

9

10

.43

A large specimen supporting minorimbalance to North. General vigourand vitality appear reasonable.Middle-crown supports notable Ivycover.


L B1-2


S/M P

7.0

0

0.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 30

6

3.6

7

Heavily suppressed and approachingdeath.

Remove. N/A U


E/M F

16

.00

0.5

0

2.5

0

4.5

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

1 49

3

5.9

2

Tall and drawn up as result ofsuppression. Specimen raises speciestypical issues regarding managementin mid in later life.

M C2

307 Lodgepole Pine(Pinus contorta)

E/M F

15

.00

3.0

0

1.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

1.5

0

1 25

8

3.0

9Heavily suppressed and drawn upwith viable crown limited to southernside of stem.


M C2


E/M D

13

.00

2.0

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 21

6

2.6

0

Completely dead and in need ofremoval.

N/A U


E/M F/P

10

.00

1.5

0

5.5

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

2 43

0

5.1

6

Multi-stem from ground level and ofpoor mechanical form. Arises fromposition within 1.00 m a block-builtboundary wall raising concernsregarding growth related potential fordamage over time.


S C2




E/M F

9.0

0

1.7

5

3.0

0

2.0

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

1 34

1

4.0

9

Slightly distorted through suppressionand located at circa 1.00 m fromboundary wall raising potential forgrowth related damage over time.

Cut Ivy and reviewregard retentioncontext.

M C2


M F

21

.00

3.0

0

6.5

0

5.0

0

2.5

0

4.0

0

1 54

8

6.5

7

Distorted and typically unbalanced tonorth. Vigour and vitality appeargood though primary stem isobscured by dense Ivy cover.

Cut Ivy, clearundergrowth and wereview regardingretention context.

M B1-2


E/M F

10

.00

0.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 27

1

3.2

5

Entire lower crown is enveloped inBramble thicket preventing detailedreview but having caused extensivesuppression.

Clear undergrowthand rereview.

M C2

313 Red Oak(Quercus rubra)

S/M F

9.0

0

1.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

1 25

8

3.0

9

Young and vigorous. Seesdevelopment of Ivy at lower levels.

L B2

314 Mulberry(Morus nigra)

M F

8.0

0

0.0

0

5.0

0

4.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 26

7

3.2

1

Heavily suppressed and typicallyunbalanced and north because ofposition beneath and adjoiningneighbouring trees. This bemaintaining reasonable vigour andvitality.

L B2


S/M G/F

10

.00

3.0

0

2.5

0

1.5

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

1 21

6

2.6

0

Young and vigorous with immensepotential for continued growth.

L B2


M F

28

.00

2.0

0

4.5

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

1 95

5

11

.46

Two adjoining stems combine tocreate a single crown form. Vigourand vitality remain good withminimal visible evidence of stormdamage however exposed aspectraises concern in respect of lack ofadjoining shelter.

Cut Ivy andrereview. Reviewregarding retentioncontext includingsize of trees anddevelopment of farreaching andinvasive rootsystems.

M C1-2




E/M F

14

.00

2.0

0

3.5

0

3.5

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

1 38

8

4.6

6

Heavily suppressed at lower levelsbut apparently maintainingreasonable vigour and vitality.Asserts substantial potential forcontinued growth over time.

L B2


E/M F

13

.00

1.2

5

3.5

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

2.0

0

1 37

9

4.5

5

Presumed have been installed forscreening purposes. Greatlyoverhangs adjoining boundary islocated close enough to boundarywall to raise concerns regardinggrowth related damage over time.

Review regardingsustainability andsuitability forretention.

S C2


E/M F

9.0

0

1.2

5

4.5

0

2.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

1 36

9

4.4

3

Presumed have been installed forscreening purposes. Greatlyoverhangs adjoining boundary islocated close enough to boundarywall to raise concerns regardinggrowth related damage over time.

S C2


M F

17

.00

2.0

0

7.0

0

5.5

0

5.0

0

6.5

0

3 99

3

9.9

3

Large multi-stemmed groupapparently self-set and arising fromposition close to boundary wall wherecontinued growth will result indamage over time. General vigourand vitality remain reasonable.

Review regardingretention contextand sustainability.

S C2

A Turkey Oak(Quercus cerris)

M G/F

19

.00

1.5

0

7.0

0

6.0

0

6.0

0

7.0

0

1 91

0

10

.92

A large, apparently vigorousspecimen. Multi-stem stature anddistortions about middle crownsuggest possible early lifedecapitation.

L B1-2

B Monterey Pine(Pinus radiata)

M F

19

.00

3.0

0

6.0

0

5.5

0

7.0

0

8.0

0

1 10

38

12

.45

A large specimen of reduced vigourand evidence of deadwooddevelopment as well as localisedstorm damage.

Cleanout removedeadwood andreview regularlyregarding vigourstatus.

M C1-2



C Ornamental Cherry(Prunus variety)

E/M F

4.5

0

1.5

0

4.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

1 30

6

3.6

7


D Austrian Pine(Pinus nigra)

M G/F

17

.00

7.0

0

5.0

0

6.5

0

6.0

0

5.0

0

1 74

8

8.9

8

Appears to be maintaining goodvigour and vitality notwithstandingsupport of deadwood within crown.

L B1-2

E Field Maple(Acer campestre)

S/M G/F

5.0

0

1.7

5

2.5

0

1.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 20

7

2.4

8


F Beech(Fagus sylvatica)

S/M G

9.0

0

1.7

5

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 22

9

2.7

5


G Sycamore(Acerpseudoplatanus)

M F

15

.00

5.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

1 49

7

5.9

6

Appears to be of reduced vigour.Middle crown is obscured by denseIvy cover. Tree has sustainedlocalised prior damage.

Clean-out and cutIvy.

L B2

H Monterey Cypress(Cupressusmacrocarpa)

M G/F

17

.00

3.0

0

5.5

0

4.0

0

5.0

0

5.5

0

1 91

0

10

.92

Large, slightly one-sided specimen ofreasonable vigour. Concerns existregarding contextual issues andmanagement over time.

Review regularly. - L B2

I Lime(Tilia europea)

E/M G/F

14

.00

1.0

0

4.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

1 34

4

4.1

3


J Lime(Tilia europea)

M G/F

17

.00

2.0

0

4.5

0

4.0

0

3.5

0

4.0

0

1 66

8

8.0

2Vigorous but potentiallycompromised by compression fork at3.00 m.

Review regularly. L B2

K Holly(Ilex aquifolium)

E/M G

5.0

0

2.0

0

1.7

5

1.7

5

1.7

5

1.7

5

1 19

1

2.2

9


L Holly(Ilex aquifolium)

M F

5.5

0

2.2

5

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

2.0

0

1 18

5

2.2

2

Of reduced vigour and vitality withevidence of early life damage.


M Sycamore(Acerpseudoplatanus)

S/M G

9.0

0

3.5

0

3.0

0

2.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 20

7

2.4

8




N Bay Laurel(Laurus noblis)

M G/F

6.0

0

1.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3 43

3

5.1

9

A large specimen within a broaderspread of shrubbery.

L B2

O Sycamore(Acerpseudoplatanus)

M F

16

.00

2.0

0

5.0

0

4.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

1 74

8

8.9

8

Notably one-sided and typicallyunbalanced to north. Vigour andvitality are impaired with evidence ofhigher crown damage and dieback.

Cut Ivy and reviewregularly.

M C2

P Sycamore(Acerpseudoplatanus)

S/M G

9.0

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 24

8

2.9

8


Q Sycamore(Acerpseudoplatanus)

S/M G/F

7.0

0

2.5

0

1.7

5

1.7

5

1.7

5

1.7

5

1 17

5

2.1

0


R Ash(Fraxinus excelsior)

S/M G

9.0

0

3.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 24

8

2.9

8


S Sycamore(Acerpseudoplatanus)

M F/P

8.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

3.0

0

2.5

0

2.5

0

1 75

1

9.0

1

Appears to comprise a stump nowsupporting sucker regeneration. Is ofdubious sustainability. Consider existas much of stump top is obscure bydense Ivy cover.

Cut Ivy and re-review.

S C2

SM Shrub MassPortuguese Laurel(Prunus lusitanica)

M F

4.0

0-6

.00

0.0

0

Contiguous

m/s

28

0

3.3

6

A continuous belt of shrubseffectively defining the edge of theopen space. Unkempt creating aninformal hedge like affect.

L C2

Dalguise | Planning, Architecture, Engineering | Dublin - … › uploads › RFrkP3fY ›...

Documents

Transcript of Dalguise | Planning, Architecture, Engineering | Dublin - … › uploads › RFrkP3fY ›...