C(212°0-10406) UL

onnick Tree Care

Connick Tree Consultants

Specialist in Arboricultural Assessment

BS5837 ARBORICULTURAL REPORT,

ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT

& METHOD STATEMENT

OUR REFERENCE 1 1 5 1 76/TT

CLIENT Mr David Cl i pperto n , 56 Bu rlands , Lang l ey G reen ,

Crawl ey , West Sussex , RH 1 1 7LG

SITE 2nd ! f i e ld St Margaret 's Scout G roup , Fri ston Walk , ! fi e ld ,

Crawl ey , W Sussex

REPORT BY Tom Thompson M .Arbo r .A. , BSc . (Hons) Arb , MSc . eFor

DATE 30th J u ne 20 1 2

CONNICK TREE CARE

NEW POND FARM, WOODHATCH ROAD, REIGATE, SURREY RH2 7QH

01737 859754

www.ConnickTreeCare.co.uk

onnick Tree Care

2nd !field St Margaret's Scout Group, Friston Walk, !field, Crawley, W

Sussex

Application Ref No Unknown Demolition of existing scout hut and

replacement with a new larger building

Report produced by

Tom Thompson M.Arbor.A., BSc. (Hons) Arb MSc. eFor

Arboricultural Consultant

CONNICK TREE CARE

NEW POND FARM, WOODHATCH ROAD, REIGATE, SURREY RH2 7QH

01737 859754

www.ConnickTreeCare.co.uk

Signed

Date 30th June 2012

Page 1

1:11111111R/Mi/WiAMMINI

onniek Tree Care

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Site Details 5

3 Tree Details 7

4 Tree Constraints 8

5 Tree Protection 9

6 Site Levels 11

7 Services 11

8 Tree Surgery 11

9 Phasing of Works 12

10 Additional Precautions 12

11 Hard Surfaces 13

12 Reporting Procedures 13

13 Arboricultural Implications Assessment 14

14 Method Statement for the Ground Protection and Foundation Design 15

Appendix I Tree Survey and Key

Appendix II Tree Protection Fencing

APPENDIX III Qualifications and Experience

Page 2

onnick Tree Care

1 Introduction

1.1 Terms of Reference

1.1.1 Connick Tree Care was commissioned by Mr David Clipperton of 2' 'field

St Margaret's Scout Group to undertake a tree survey and prepare an

arboricultural report in accordance with British Standard 5837 (2012) Trees

in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction.

This report includes a Tree Survey, an Arboricultural Implications

Assessment (AIA) and Method Statements for the protection of the retained

tree and for working within any root protection area (RPA) at 2nd Ifield St

Margaret's Scout Group, Friston Walk, lfield, Crawley, Sussex.

1.1.2The site was surveyed by Tom Thompson on Friday 25thMay in the

afternoon. The relative quantitative and qualitative tree data was recorded

in order to assess the condition of the trees, their value, and any constraints

that they pose to the prospective development and where necessary the

tree protection measures and construction methods required to ensure their

safe retention.

1.1.3 The tree information recorded relates to the tree condition, age, safe useful

life expectancy, location, canopy spread, canopy height and tree height and

direction of first significant branch as well as any work that is required.

1.2 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF COPYRIGHT:

1.2.1All rights in this report are reserved. No part of it may be reproduced or

transmitted, in any form or by any means without our written permission. Its

contents and format are for the exclusive use of 2' lfield St Margaret's

Scout Group and their associates. It may not be sold, lent out or divulged to

any third party not directly involved in this situation without the written

consent of Connick Tree Care.

This report contains all my advice and opinions and any representation

and/or statements that have or may have been made which are not

specifically and expressly included in this report should not be relied upon

and no responsibility is taken for the accuracy of such statements.

Page 3

onnkk Tree Care

The Inspections were carried out on the basis of ground level, Visual Tree

Assessment (VTA) examination of external features of each individual tree.

Binoculars were used to assess the aerial parts. The report and

recommendations relate to the condition of the trees and their relationship

to their surroundings at the time of inspection only. All measurements,

proportions and assessments of age are approximate.

Visual assessment, in accordance with accepted arboricultural practice,

was based on apparent vitality (leaf cover, extension growth), presence of

deadwood and die back, fractured and detached limbs, evidence of

excessive basal movement and external indications of stem and basal

decay likely to affect the structural condition of the tree. No decay detection

equipment either invasive or non-invasive was employed.

Trees are living organisms whose health and condition can change rapidly.

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are only valid for one

year. This report will be invalidated if there are any changes to the site as it

stands at present, e.g. building of extensions, excavation works, importing

of soils, extreme weather events etc.

1.2.2The survey findings are of a preliminary nature with regard to assessment

of risk of direct damage (by contact) from trees to built structures. No soil

samples were taken or trial pits were dug, therefore no risk assessment was

carried out with regard to subsidence (indirect damage). No parts of the

drainage or service systems were inspected on site as I am not qualified to

do so.

If you, or your advisers, have at your disposal any information to suggest

that the property is or has been suffering any tree related structural defect, I

would ask that you release the information to us. All relevant data is

presented within this report together with any recommendations for further

analysis, as appropriate.

1.2.3A principle aspect of tree inspections in relation to proposed developments

is an assessment of the risk posed by the tree in proximity to people or

property. Generally tree risk will increase with the age of the trees. The

benefits afforded by the trees will also increase with age. The management

recommendations will be guided by an analysis of the risk posed by the

trees and the benefits afforded by them.

Page 4

CIIM=1.111.11111E111111.1111.1.1111LAMMIIIIIIMINIE

on,nkic Tree Care

1.3 Documentation

1.3.1 The following documentation was provided when the work was

commissioned.

>Letter/Email to confirm commission of the work.

>Plan of the site indicating site perimeter.

>3 PDF drawings of the proposed site

2 Site Details

2nd lfield St Margaret's Scout Group, Friston Walk, lfield, Crawley, W

Sussex

2.1 Description (including levels)

This is currently a smaller scout hut on the site with associated parking

areas and open space.

2.2 Tree Protection

2.2.1 The Local Planning Authority has not yet been contacted to establish

whether any Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covers any of the trees, or to

determine if the site is situated within a Conservation Area (CA). It would

be necessary to determine whether either of these planning controls are in

operation before commencement of any works.

2.2.2 Exemptions and Actions

There are a number of exemptions when this notification or permission are

not required. They are detailed below:

> Removal of an imminent threat to people or property

> Removal of dead trees

Page 5

Crc onnkk Tree Care

2.3 Soils

There is no information provided about the soils and there was no

investigation undertaken.

2.4 Development Proposals

Demolition of the existing scout hut and the replacement of it with a new

larger building

3 Tree Details

3.1 As part of the tree survey a total of six trees and two groups of trees and

shrubs on the site or immediately adjacent to it was assessed. There

were recorded at T1-6 and G1-2. Details are shown in Appendix I.

3.2 An accurate topographical survey of the site was not provided. The tree

location was measured in relation to the site boundaries so the drawing

Visio Acorn A3 100050412 No 1-3 provided a good representation of the

tree location in relation to the site and the proposed and existing building.

3.3 The tree has been assessed and categories in relation to the methodology

in Table 1 of BS 5837 (2012) Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and

Construction.

3.4 There were no Category A trees

3.5 There were three Category B1 trees

3.6 There were five Category Cl trees

3.6 There were no Category U trees

3.7 There was one off site tree and a hedge affected by the proposed

development.

3.8 Proposed tree work

The only proposed pruning to facilitate this development is the crown lifting

of the Oak tree Ti over the existing building to a height of approximately

5m by removing one lower lateral limb back to the main stem and

removing the tertiary branches hanging down from the branches above it.

It is also recommended that T3 the DoOuglass Fir has the deadwood

removed. This is detailed in the tree survey in Appendix I.

onnick Tree Care

4 Tree Constraints

4.1 The root protection area (RPA) of the Oak tree Ti extends 11.40m from the

centre of the tree. There is a low branch at 4m to the South side, which is

proposed to be removed back to the main stem to allow the proposed

development. The next low branch is at 6.5m on the South side. The tree

canopy height is a similar height.

4.2 The root protection area (RPA) of the Yew tree T2 extends 3.10m from the

centre of the tree. There is a low branch at 2m to the South side. The

tree canopy height is 2m.

4.3 The root protection area (RPA) of the Fir tree T3 extends 7.90m from the

centre of the tree. There is a low branch at 9m to the South side. The

tree canopy height is 2m.

4.4 The root protection area (RPA) of the Sycamore tree 14 extends 6.40m

from the centre of the tree. There is a low branch at 4m to the South side.

The tree canopy height is 4m.

4.5 The root protection area (RPA) of the Sycamore tree T5 extends 4.20m

from the centre of the tree. There is a low branch at lm to the West side.

The tree canopy height is 2m.

4.6 The root protection area (RPA) of the Katsura tree T6 extends 1.20m from

the centre of the tree. There is a low branch at lm to the West side. The

tree canopy height is 2m.

4.7 The root protection area (RPA) of G1 extends 2.00m from the centre of the

trees/shrubs. There is a low branch at lm to the South side. The

trees/shrubs have a canopy height of lm.

4.8 The root protection area (RPA) of G2 extends 1.40m from the boundary

fence. The tree canopy is cut back to the boundary fence.

onnkk Tree Care

5 Tree Protection

5.1 Construction Exclusion Zone

5.1.1 The Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) required by the current edition

(2012) of BS 5837 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and

Construction relates to the stem diameter of each tree when measured at

a height of 1.5m from ground level. The CEZs are to be afforded

protection at all times and will be protected by fencing.

5.1.2 There shall be construction of foundations within the RPA of some

retained trees. Measures will be taken to prevent/minimise compaction to

the soil or severance of tree roots. These are detailed in the foundation

design and installation method statement.

5.2 Protective Fences

5.2.1 A protective fence shall be erected prior to the commencement of any site

works e.g. before any materials or machinery are brought on site,

development or the stripping of soil or demolition commences. The fence

shall have signs attached to it stating that this is a Construction

Exclusion Zone and that NO WORKS are permitted within the fence.

5.2.2 All tree protection fencing shall be regarded as sacrosanct and will not be

removed or altered without prior written consent of the Local Authority

Tree Officer.

5.2.3 The fence is required to be sited along the edge of the RPA's as shown on

the tree protection plan. There will be ground protection measures

installed between the fence and the edge of the new building to allow

access whilst ensuring protection of the RPA... These are detailed in 5.2.4

below. The fence shall comply with Figure 2 in BS 5837 2012 shown in

Appendix I and be fit for the purpose of excluding any construction activity.

5.2.4 Where there is access required for work space, vehicle or pedestrian

access routes or parking areas within the RPA of retained trees, these

areas must be protected by suitable ground protection measures. For

pedestrian movements within any CEZ then a single thickness scaffold

board on top of a compressible layer laid onto a geotextile fabric may be

acceptable to prevent compaction of the soil. This is detailed in the

method statement.

Page 9

CM.1111111111111111=E11/44111

onnick Tree Care

5.2.5 There is an existing permanent vehicle access routes within the RPA of

retained trees. These are to be used by lorries for site deliveries. This

represents a significant increase in the load within the RPA of T3 and T4.

As a result of this there is a need for ground protection measures in the

form of concrete slabs or secured road plates to distribute the load.

5.2.6 There are no new areas of planting to be protected during the construction

phase.

5.2.7 There shall be no access to the site other than from the road to the north.

This entrance will be used for the delivery of supplies.

5.2.8 The protective fence and ground protection measures may only be

removed following completion of all construction works and the removal of

the associated equipment and machinery.

5.3 Contractors car parking

There will be no parking or site deliveries within the tree protection areas.

5.4 Site Huts and Toilets

The position of the site office, compound and toilets will be agreed in

writing with the Local Authority Tree Officer prior to the commencement of

any permitted development works. Any re-siting of these facilities during

the course of proposed development will need to be approved in writing by

the Local Authority Tree Officer.

5.5 Storage Space

5.5.1 There will no spoil or construction material stored within the RPA of any

retained trees or shrubs on the site.

5.6 Hazardous Materials

5.6.1 No mixing or storage of materials will take place up a slope where they

may leak into a CEZ.

5.6.2 Materials which may contaminate the soil will not be discharged within

10m of any tree stem. When undertaking the mixing of materials, it is

essential that any slope of the ground does not allow contaminates to run

towards a tree root area.

Page 10

onnick Tree Care

6 Site Levels

6.1 It is not anticipated that there will be any alterations to the site levels within

the RPA of the retained tree other than the foundations of the proposed

new building and the parking bays which will be constructed using no-dig

techniques. These are fully detailed in the method statement.

6.2 If there is any excavation within the RPA of the retained trees appropriate

methods must be undertaken to ensure that any damage to the root

systems is kept to a minimum. This will include excavating using hand

tools only or using an air spade. Once exposed roots will be kept moisture

by placing hessian around them and they will be surrounded by sharp

sand prior to the replacement of any soil.

6.3 If there is a requirement to raise the soil level within the RPA this must be

undertaken in a way that ensures an adequate supply of water and

oxygen for the roots. This can be achieved with the use of a granular

material.

7 Services

7.1 It is proposed that all underground and above ground service runs will run

from the existing buildings and will not require any excavation within the

RPA of the retained tree.

8 Tree Surgery

8.1 All tree works considered necessary for health and safety reasons or to

facilitate the development will be agreed with the Local Authority Planning

Authority and undertaken in accordance with the planning conditions

attached to the planning consent. They will be undertaken in accordance

with British Standard 3998 (2010) Recommendations for Tree Works.

This will be undertaken by an arboricultural contractor approved by the

Local Authority Tree Officer.

8.2 If at any time additional pruning works are required permission must be

sought from the Local Planning Authority first and then carried out in

accordance with BS 3998 Recommendations for Tree Works 2010.

8.3 The only proposed pruning to facilitate this development is the crown

lifting of the Oak tree Ti over the existing building to a height of

approximately 5m by removing one lower lateral limb back to the main

stem and removing the tertiary branches hanging down from the branches

above it. It is also recommended that 13 the DoOuglass Fir has the

deadwood removed.

Page 11

onnick Tree Care

9 Phasing of Works

9.1 All agreed tree works will be undertaken prior to any site works

commencing.

9.2 Once the tree work is completed then the tree protection fencing and

ground protection measures will be installed. This will be undertaken prior

to the commencement of any construction or demolition works.

9.3 The Tree Officer will be notified of any unforeseen damage. The site will

be inspected regularly by a qualified or competent arboriculturalist.

9.4 It will be the responsibility of the main contractor to ensure that the

planning conditions attached to planning consent are adhered to at all

times and that a monitoring regime with regard to tree protection is

adopted on site. All operations will be monitored by the main contractor

except where specified otherwise in a method statement.

10 Additional Precautions

10.1 No fires will be lit within 20 metres of any tree stem and will take into

account fire size and wind direction so that, no flames come within 5m of

any foliage.

10.2 No notice boards, cables or other services will be attached to any tree.

10.3 No high-sided vehicles have access to the site therefore their movement

on the site is not an issue. Cranes may be used to lift some equipment

into the site. If this is the case method statement will have to be produced

accordingly and measures put in place to prevent any damage to the Ash

tree Ti.

10.4 The main contractor will be responsible for ensuring sub-contractors do

not carry out any process or operation that is likely to adversely impact

upon any tree on site.

10.5 There will be no use of herbicides is on this site.

10.6 Water will be available on site to flush any spills.

10.7 All building material storage and operations will not be conducted within

any of the CEZ's with the exception of the foundations of the proposed

new building. Full details of how this is to proceed and the ground

protection measures employed are detailed in the method statement.

Page 12

10.8 The main contractor will ensure the build sequence is appropriate to

ensure that no damage occurs to the trees during construction processes.

Protective fences will remain in position until completion of ALL

construction works on the site.

10.9 The fencing and signs must be maintained in position at all times and

checked on a regular basis by a member of site personnel designated that

responsibility.

11 Hard Surfaces

11.1 There are no hard surfaces proposed within the RPA of the retained trees.

The car parking bays shown on the proposed plans that are within the

RPA of the Douglas Fir T3, are already used as parking bays and there is

some hard core/road scalping already incorporated into this area. There

is not proposed to be any excavation here and there are to be no changes

to the existing surface.

12 Reporting Procedures

12.1 The site and associated development should be monitored / inspected

regularly by a competent arboriculturalist to ensure that the arboricultural

aspects of the planning permission are enforced and to deal with and

advise on any problems that may arise during the development process.

Should any problems arise during the development; the Arboriculturalist will

contact 2"d 'field St Margaret's Scout Group and the Local Planning

Authority the Local Planning Authority and appropriate action taken only

with their prior permission.

Page 13

onnick Tree Care

13 Arboricultural Implications Assessment

13.1 Effects of new buildings on amenity value on or near the site

13.1.1 All of the trees and shrubs are to be retained. There will be no significant

loss of amenity value on, or off, site as a result of the proposed

development.

13.2 Above and below ground constraints

13.2.1 There is the proposed construction of foundations within the Root

Protection Area (RPA) of the Oak tree Ti. This will be undertaken in

accordance with the method statement in Section 14 and specialist

engineering advice.

13.2.2 The proposed development will be taller than the existing scout hut. As a

result of this there will be a conflict with the lower branch of the Oak tree

Ti to the west. It is proposed to remove this back to the main stem and

remove the tertiary branches form the branch above it to provide

clearance for the new building. This will have a very limited impact on the

amenity value and appearance of the tree and the majority of the trees

canopy is already on the west side so it will not significantly affect the

stability or balance of the tree

13.2.3 There will be site access using the existing entrance way and adding extra

load within the RPA of retained trees. Temporary protection measures will

have to be installed in accordance with Section 5.2 to prevent further soil

compaction and root damage.

13.3 Construction processes of the proposed development

13.3.1 Development processes that lead to soil compaction in tree rooting zones

and physical damage to trees can adversely affect long-term tree health.

This can lead to unnecessary tree loss if not controlled properly on site

during construction phases.

13.3.2 The processes of construction are unlikely to have a detrimental effect

upon the health of the retained trees assuming recommendations made in

this report are adhered to at all times by the contractors e.g. the

positioning of a suitable fence between the retained trees and construction

activities is placed prior to commencement of works and remains intact

and in position throughout the duration of the project.

Page 14

1/ 1.11=11MIIIINMak

onni ck Tree Care

14 Method Statement for the Ground Protection and Foundation Design

All of the details specified in this method statement will need to be

supervised by an Arboricultural Consultant with suitable

qualifications and experience.

14.1 Ground Protection Measures

14.1.1 The ground protection measures will be for pedestrian work access only.

This will consist of a single thickness of scaffold boards placed either on

top of a driven scaffold frame so as to form a suspended walkway, or on

top of a compression-resistant layer (e.g. 100nnm minimum depth of

woodchip), laid onto a geotextile membrane. This is accordance with BS

5837 (2012) and is to prevent compaction to the underlying soil.

14.2 Foundation Designs

14.2.1 As the foundations are within the RPA of Ti there is a requirement for

foundation design that will not result in damage to the tree roots or

compaction of the underlying soil.

14.2.2 It is proposed to achieve this by using a simple 200mm thick raft design.

This raft must be of a no-dig design with the raft sitting on or above the

existing ground level, once the current slab foundation has been removed.

If there are pads required to help support this then the pads must also be

of no-dig design, sitting on or above the existing ground level once the

current slab has been removed.

Page 15

11/ MINMENIENNOffnlith

onmck Tree Care

14.2.3 If it is not possible for the engineers to design a specification that meets

these criteria then an alternative foundation design will have to be

employed.

14.2.4 This would need to be either a cantilever design or a pile and beam or pile

and raft design foundation. The cantilever design will be based on a strip

foundation outside of the RPA of the Oak tree Ti. The cantilevers, beams

or raft will be constructed above the existing ground level.

14.2.5 For the pile and beam or pile and raft system the piles should be sheathed

to prevent leaching of the cement into the soil and of the minimum

diameter required to support the structure. The proposed piles should be

excavated in order to prevent damage to any major tree roots. This will be

achieved by the use of an air spade to ensure the absence of significant

roots in the proposed pile locations. If roots are encountered then

alternative pile locations will have to be calculated and excavated to

ensure no significant tree roots are there.

14.2.6 No development or other operations shall commence on site until

foundations design details have been submitted and approved by the

Local Planning Authority and must be built in accordance with these

agreed details. This is in accordance with BS 5837(2012).

14.2.7 Specialist input on foundation design and the depth of foundations, pile

numbers and locations will be required from a structural engineer.

Page 16

onnick Tree Care

References and Bibliography

Anon, British Standard BS 5837 (2012), "Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction", British

Standards Institute. London.

Anon, British Standard BS 3998 (2010), "Recommendations for Tree Work", British Standards

Institute London

Biddle, P G, (1998), "Tree Root damage to Buildings", Willomead Publishing Ltd 2 Volumes,

376 & 299 pp

Building Research Establishment, BRE Digests 63, 64, 67, Soils & Foundations, 240, 241 & 242,

Low Rise Buildings on Shrinkable Clay Soils

Cutler, D F, (1995), "Interactions of Tree Roots & Buildings", In Watson, G , and Neely, D.,

(Eds.), Proceedings of Trees & Buildings Conference, Lisle, Illinois, ISA Publications

Cutler, D F. and I.B.K. Richardson, (1989) Tree Roots and Buildings. Longman Scientific and

technical 2nd Ed 71pp

DOE, "Tree Preservation Orders - A guide to the law and good practice", Department of

Environment, 1994.

Gasson, P.E and Cutler, D F (1990) Tree root plate morphology. Arboric Journal 14, 193-264

Forbes-Laird, J (2010) THREATS, Tree Hazard Risk Evaluation and Treatment System, A

method for identifying, recording & managing hazards from trees http //www.flac.uk.com/wo-

content/uoloads/2010/07/THREATS-GN-June-2010 pdf, Acessed 20/06/2012.

Harris, R.W (1983) Arboriculture; Care of trees, shrubs and vines in the landscape Prentice Hall,

London

Lonsdale L (1999) Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management HMSO

Mattheck, C and Breloer, H (1994) The body language of trees HMSO 240 pp

Matheny N P & J R.Clarke, (1994), "A photographic guide to the Evaluation of hazard trees in

urban areas, 2nd Edition, International Society of Arboriculture

National House Building Council, (1992) Building near trees NHBC Standards, Chapter 4.2

Philips D H and Burdekin, D A (1982) Diseases of forest and ornamental trees Macmillan

Press 435 pp

Shigo, A.L., (1986) A new tree biology Shigo & trees, associates, Durham, New Hampshire,

USA, 595 pp

Shigo, A L. (1991) Modern Arboriculture Shigo & trees, associates. Durham, New Hampshire,

USA , 490pp

Town & Country Planning Act Part VIII (1990) Issued by the Secretary of State for the

Environment, HMSO

Page 17

CliMIIIMENIIIM=1116-411=11111

IT. onnick Tree Care

Appendix I

Tree Survey Results

Tree Survey and Key

Lean !tame

Coffman

rime

I-0 19TM

tu rn

Esimsbad

Lffe

Remaining

Phis

Con

She

Con Ctionerds Tree Watts

Bt

5237

CM

Conflict will phone and power

Ines lant !recently pored by

service profiler. Contlol Per I

Flaw lo tie N. VI SID IM to

trice lo IN, 6m lo N bouncla iy 4

43rn rn tie camera tie

Remove low Midi

towards en:Mg Imi and ,

MOO ffl taagligierlay

950 4rn Soot 5 , 9 , 1 2, ex isting Good rut Sandi 5m Manatee bo clear rettt or

Ti CkelICSIS rcti ur Cat 27 11 .40 M & 4m a 100+ Gord Good tY piopoSed lo rtlibigi 15

3.7rn Ilo *Doe M W. 4 en lc tie

Oat. tam la tie N ice aid

10 n lo fts adsffogScoulta_

250 2e1 Sour! Topped al 4m, goo:I canopy

12 Taxes baccaa Yew 4 3.1 0 1 SPA & 2m i 1 00+ Good Good svread. No Acton Eiscpled C

231 lo N bouniary , 5en lo E

Sunday - 1rn lo dibrevsy1 l ni

lo exislbg Soma lia tioderAe

Pamdalauss 560 9m Sorel 1. 15. 4 , deadwoccl tamegti Ite MOM1,

73 mercies!! =pen 20 7 0 164 & 9en 4 40+ Far Good especia lly aver Itm diver/ay_ Remove deadwood B

Acer 530 4M Suit Zvi lo tie rIrtre, 15 .7m la the

T4 pamiapialanas Sycsmore 1 8 BAC EPA & 41in 7, 7 , 7 . 6 40+ Cool Good Said Mt Na Acton Regaled B

Sane Incloderl Oat 2t e n

190 1 40 tri tons_ Impact damage at irn

Acer 260 1 En West lo ?I & Vt _ Apra -I dlo! lo Scout

151 psuerlaplatarms Sycamore 1 3 420 SU & im 3 , ? , 4 . 4 40+ Good Good tut, 5rn lo coma* to gm:wel l:1rue. No ACCOCI REgobed C

CeCtitty rtim Katsina 10 13 1 m Wes1

la japorepom Tee 5_5 120 Y & 1 rai 2. 2. 2. 2 40+ Gaol Good No Acton Re moimd

Page 18

6T zged

3 PairbeVi LIDUPre MP VW IMI=910 saw 13 U22 ROO POOR -1-Crt acicel

Ill Xerl

1113

enatall

=QUO

PC3 Dr l. DZI—

cz prEm lziamBeuv

lialanDS

EMS ar€ BRAED3

"EMPLE165

warm

mu elegippasti

awe

ZS

3 Cai rbaN uolPY citi A e m e usi g 1 b u pi pa 13 005 roma ' +CrP Ilil- 2

MOS In I.

' VG Z

BMW,

Sni uml:Pc4I uillisclEfl

lautifis smuts° 'erompueth

Ettcurm

LS

1E3

an

SS

sxporin eau. spreuzuo3 103

1,2043

Iwo

9 kW

Pianism/4:E

eln

PEEIEUII9g

surtpuipn

daij 431M10

nick Tree Care

Key to BS5837 Survey Results

Age Class:

SM

EM

OM

V

Young — Recently planted or establishing tree that could be

transplanted without specialist equipment, i.e. up to 12-14cm

stem diameter.

Semi-Mature - An establishing tree which is still exhibiting

apical dominance and has significant growth potential

Early-Mature — A tree that is reaching its ultimate potential

height and losing apical dominance, whose growth rate is

slowing down but will still increase in stem diameter and crown

spread and has safe life expectancy remaining

Mature tree with limited potential for any increase in size but

with reasonable safe useful life expectancy

Over mature — A senescent or moribund specimen with a

limited safe useful life expectancy

Veteran — Trees of great age for species with important

biological, aesthetic, conservation or cultural value. Trees are

in a state of decline due to old age.

P = Physiological Good

Fair

Poor

S = Structural Good

Fair

Poor

Category of retention:

No significant health problems

Symptoms of ill health that can be remediated

Significant ill health

No significant defects

Significant defects that can be remediated

Significant defects no remedy

•

Removal

A High quality value

•

Moderate quality value

•

Low quality value

Dark red

Light green

Mid blue

Grey

b.d. = multi stemmed tree (measured just above root flare)

Page 20

Appendix II

igore 2 Default specification for protective barrier

Key

Standard scaffold Poles

2 Heavy gauge 2 m ta ll galvanized tube and welded mesh infal panels

3 Panels secured to uprights and cross-members with wire ties

4 Ground level

5 Uprights driven into the ground until secure (minimum depth 06 in)

6 Standard scaffold clamps

Figure 3 Examples of above-ground stabilizing systems

a) Stabilizer strut with base plate secured with ground pins -

b) Stabilizer strut mounted on block tray

Page 21

APPENDIX III — QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Tom Thompson BSc (Hons Arb), MSc eFor, MArborA Certified Arborist

1. QUALIFICATIONS

Subjects

International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arbonst

Professional Tree Inspection Course (LANTRA) Pass

BSc Hons Arboriculture

FdSc Arboriculture

MSc Environmental Forestry (MSc eFor)

BSc Hons Env Science (Conservation Management)

Environmental Studies

Forestry & Practical Environmental Skills

2. CAREER SUMMARY

Level

Pass

April - 2011

(2 1)

Distinction

Pass

(2.2)

Access Course

NVQ I & II

Dates

May — 2012

2008 - 2009

2004 - 2007

2001 - 2002

1997 - 2000

1996 - 1997

1996 — 1997

Tom Thompson began his career with trees in 1994 completing various practical forestry and

environmental courses with BTCV as well as undertaking various voluntary roles within this field

whilst studying to gain entry to university. During the completion a degree in Environmental

Science from the University of Surrey he spent six months working on sustainable forestry

operations in British Columbia, Canada He then spent one month on a forest based work camp

in Japan before commencing an MSc in Environmental Forestry at the University of Wales

Bangor

He then spent five years working in new woodland creation, firstly for ADAS in the National Forest

and then for 18 months with the Forestry Commission in Cobham, Kent During this time he

began a degree in Arboriculture through Myerscough College

This course enabled him to make the transition from forestry to arboriculture where he spent 5

years as a tree officer, firstly at St Albans and then more recently at King's Lynn and West

Norfolk He Joined Connick Tree Care in May 2012, where he now works as an Arboncultural

Consultant

Page 22

= onnick Tree Care

3. AREAS OF EXPERTISE

Tree hazard risk assessments for tree owners

Decay assessment and mapping

Mortgage and Insurance reports to assess the influence of trees on buildings

Pre-development site surveys and arboricultural implication studies

Tree management reports to prioritise maintenance programs

Tree related insurance claims

Diagnosis of tree disorders

General arboricultural advice

Woodland design for conservation

4. CONTINUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SELECTED CONTINUAL PERSONAL DEVELOMENT & TRAINING

BS 5837 20 1 2 & Tree Regs Changes Arboncul tu ral Assoc iat ion May 20 1 2

BS 3998 Changes to Standard London Tree Off icers Associ ation May 201 2

Bat Cou rse for Arboncu ltu ra l i sts AA & Bat Conservat ion Trust Apri l 20 1 2

Tree Biomechan ics (Germany) C laus Mattheck Oct 20 1 1

Des ig n i ng with Trees T Ki rkham & P Thu rman Sept 20 1 1

U rban Forest—C l imate Change , Shade & SUDS Pete r MacDonagh Sept 20 1 1

Arb Consu ltancy Report Wri t i ng Consu l t i ng Arb Soci ety J u l y 20 1 1

B55837 Sem i nar on new 20 1 1 draft Arb Associat ion & ICF June 20 1 1

BS3998 Road show present i ng 20 1 0 document A rb Associat ion May 20 1 1

New Pests and Diseases Advance David Rose Mar 20 1 1

Fungal Management Strateg ies Barcham Nursery Nov 20 1 0

Perfect Roots & Tree G rowth Gary Watson June 20 1 0

Fung i Recogn i ti on and Response T ree Li fe Tra i n i ng May 20 1 0

Vi sual Tree Assessment Claus Mattheck May 20 1 0

Arbori cu l tu re i n Plann ing Arb Sol ut i on Apri l 20 1 0

T rees and the Law Charles M inors Barcham Nursery Oct 2009

Tree Re l ated Subsidence T ree Life Trai n i ng Oct 2009

CAVAT as a management tool NATO Sept 2009

CAVAT Trai n i ng NATO Sept 2009

THREATS Tree Assessment J FL Arboricu l tu re Aug 2009

BS 5837 (Trees i n Relat ion to Construct i on ) T ree Life Trai n i ng J u l 2009

Trees and Hard Surfaces NATO J une 2009

BS 5837 (Trees i n Relat ion to Construct i on) R i chard N icho l son May 2009

Nat ive Wood land Pl an Adv isor F C Wal es 2002

5. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Arboricultural Association Professional Member

International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arbonst

Royal Forestry Society

since 2008

since 2012

since 1999

Page 23

CM/BIBIBMNIMMISk,4111111111111111