Ymd Boon Ltd

Job Ref. 20076 Stratford Upon Avon School

Pre-Development Tree Survey Report

Ymd Boon Ltd

Stratford-Upon-Avon High School

August 2020


1

STRATFORD UPON AVON HIGH SCHOOL

Site overview – courtesy of Google Earth

Status Name Date

Draft Martino Ginepro BSc, PTI, Tech Arbor A 14/08/2020

Reviewed John Condron, BSc, MSc, MCIEEM 18/08/2020

Issued (1) Martino Ginepro BSc, PTI, Tech Arbor A 18/08/2020

_________________________________________________________________________________

The recommendations contained in this Report represent Ecology Resources’ professional opinions, in exercising

the duty of care required of a suitably experienced and qualified Arboricultural Consultant / Surveyor. All data

recorded and recommendations made are based on observable factors present at the time of inspection. Unless

stated otherwise, the inspection consisted of a Stage 1 Visual Tree Assessment only. Where access limitations

such as vegetation, topography, fencing or other constraints impede a full inspection, appropriate notes will be

made within the survey schedule by the Arboricultural Surveyor. The report has been prepared by Ecology

Resources Ltd for the sole and exclusive use of the Client and for the specific purpose for which the inspection

was commissioned. Ecology Resources accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this

document other than by the client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. Use

of the Report by any other person is unauthorised and such use is at the sole risk of the user.

© Ecology Resources Ltd 2020


Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 1

3. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT .............................................................................................................. 1

4. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 2

5. SURVEY LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 2

6. TREE SURVEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 3

7. ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................... 4

8. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 4

9. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................. 5

10. KEY TO TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................... 6

11. TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................. 7

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX 1 – Tree CONSTRAINTS PLAN ............................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX 2 – Tree PROTECTION PLAN ................................................................................................. 16

APPENDIX 3 – TREES AND THE PLANNING SYSTEM ............................................................................... 18

APPENDIX 4 – Tree survey explanatory notes ....................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX 5 – GENERAL GUIDANCE NOTES FOR DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 23

Tables

TABLE 1 – CATEGORY GRADING BREAKDOWN ................................................................................................... 3

TABLE 2 – KEY TO SURVEY SCHEDULE .............................................................................................................. 6

TABLE 3 – TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................... 12


1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Ecology Resources Ltd has been instructed by Ymd Boon Ltd (“the Client”) to carry out a pre-

development arboricultural survey at Stratford-Upon-Avon High School (“the Site”). The

survey was undertaken on the 21st July 2020.

1.2 This survey and report have been completed by Martino Ginepro, who holds a LANTRA award

in Professional Tree Inspection, is a Technician member of the Arboricultural Association

(TechArborA), a certified user of QTRA (Quantified Tree Risk Assessment) and a professional

member of the Consulting Arborist Society (CAS), with over 4 years’ experience in tree

condition surveys in a variety of contexts.

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 The Site is an educational facility of relatively recent development situated in Stratford Upon

Avon, a market town in the county of Warwickshire, West Midlands. It is bound by Alcester

Road to north, by residential dwellings to the west, by Willows Drive to the east, by a primary

school to the south (Willows C of E) and by sports grounds to the south west. The wider

context is urban in character. National Grid reference at centroid is SP 19255 55097 and the

site’s postcode is CV37 9DH.

2.2 The client is proposing the following alterations to the current site layout:

a. Extension of the school’s dining room to the north-west of the main building

b. Relocation of the bin store (currently located within the area designated for dining

room extension)

c. Conversion of the car parking area to the east of the building (in the process of being

acquired) into playing courts.

d. Creation of multiple gaps along the school’s eastern perimeter, through the alteration

of the current fence layout and the selective removal of vegetation, to enable

connectivity with the car parking area to the east

e. Renewal of the perimeter fencing around the entirety of the cark-parking area to be

converted into playing courts.

3. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

3.1 This report has been produced in adherence with the criteria set out in BS5837: 2012, Trees

in the Context of Design, Demolition and Construction, to assess the arboricultural

implications associated with the proposed scheme.

3.2 At the time of instruction, it was understood that this document will form part of a formal

planning application and, as such, be open to public scrutiny and comment.


2

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 The trees’ condition has been assessed from ground level only using the Visual Tree

Assessment methodology1, focusing on:

• Structural condition - growth defects and their likelihood to induce failure;

• The identification of signs indicating ongoing decay and diseases;

• The review of Health and Safety implications;

• The prescription of remedial actions aimed to preserve structural integrity and ensure

longevity.

4.2 For survey purposes, the location of all the surveyed trees was GPS recorded using a Trimble

Catalyst with decimeter accuracy, via Fulcrum field data collection mobile app

(https://www.fulcrumapp.com/).

4.3 The Tree Constraints and Tree Protection Plans were produced availing of the Topographical

survey drawings provided by the client (20088-TOPO and J4425-TOPO). Drawing J4425-TOPO,

applicable to the eastern section of the site, did not include an updated tree layer. To

overcome this shortfall, the trees were plotted manually on CAD using the GPS coordinates

acquired in the field. To account for GPS positioning error, a 1.5m buffer was applied around

the Root Protection Area of all manually plotted trees. The GPS positioning error varied

between 0.5 and 1.5m, depending on the density of the canopy cover.

4.4 The surveyed trees and groups were assigned a unique alphanumerical reference (i.e. T1,G1)

and all the relevant parameters - including species, height, stem diameter, age class, overall

condition and structural defects – were recorded in the tree survey schedule (referenced in

Chapter 11).

4.5 Tree height has been measured using a Suunto Clinometer PM-5/360 PC and the stem

diameter was measured using a Richter DBH tape. Tree tags have not been applied given that

identification is deemed possible through consultation of the relevant site plans.

4.6 The trees have been assessed applying the criteria outlined in BS5837: 2012 ‘Trees in relation

to Design, Demolition & Construction’ to attribute a Retention Category and derive a Root

Protection Area (RPA); for clarification as to the meaning of these parameters, refer to

Appendix 5 – Tree Survey Explanatory Notes.

4.7 A Tree Constraints Plan and Tree Protection Plan (available Appendix 1) have been produced

to provide a visual representation of the extent of the RPA and assess the arboricultural

implications of the proposed alterations.

5. SURVEY LIMITATIONS

5.1 Access constraints (dense undergrowth) prevented a thorough assessment of the trees within

G1. This group was categorized as such because of its scrub-like character and the relative

homogeneity of the species mix. Whilst valuable as a linear green corridor, the majority of the

trees within it were not deemed of particular amenity value when looked at in isolation.

5.2 The DBH of T22 could not be measured due to dense bramble preventing access.

1 Mattheck C. and Breloer H.; The Body Language of Trees: A Handbook for Failure Analysis

https://www.fulcrumapp.com/


3

5.3 Trees are dynamic living organisms, whose health and condition can be subject to rapid

change depending on several external and internal factors (natural/anthropogenic damage

driving microbial infection, extreme weather events). The conclusions as to the health and

structural integrity contained herein relate to the trees as observed at the time of inspection

and did not rely on methods aimed to reveal asymptomatic internal decay (for example, using

decay detection equipment) as deemed unnecessary at the time of survey.

6. TREE SURVEY FINDINGS

6.1 A total of 45 no. trees and 2 groups have been assessed. Table 1, below, provides a

breakdown of the surveyed trees by category grading (see Appendix 5.2 for details).

Category Grading Individual Trees Groups of Trees Hedgerows

U Unsuitable for retention

1 n/a n/a

A

High Quality 1 n/a n/a

B

Moderate Quality 36 n/a n/a

C

Poor Quality 7 n/a 1

Table 1 – Category Grading Breakdown

6.2 The tree population on site reflects successive stages of development and ranges from young

to semi-mature; it is largely represented by horse chestnut, Norway maple, hornbeam and

wild cherry. Most of the surveyed trees were deemed in fair condition at the time of survey

and did not display signs of mechanical damage, which are often observed in trees growing

within an urban setting. Evidence of historic pruning was observed, seemingly delivered to

achieve clearance over car parking areas and pavements. The quality of the pruning cuts on

some of the trees was deemed poor (non-compliant with BS3998 specifications), leaving

wounds which cannot be compartimentalised.

6.3 Tree T22 is a semi-mature, likely self-seeded walnut growing between two hornbeam trees

(planted), whose canopy spread has been significantly constrained because shaded out by the

neighbouring trees. Irrespective of its physiological condition, which could not be duly

assessed due to the dense ivy-clad, the tree appears slender and with poor structure, as it

lacks space and light.

6.4 The stand located in the SW corner of the eastern section of the site features early-mature to

mature trees in fair condition including field maple, walnut and European ash (T30, T31, T32),

which are either unique or uncommon on site and therefore regarded as of relatively high

ecological and amenity value.

6.5 The stand of trees found in the NE corner of the eastern section (T1 to T8) provides a

woodland-type habitat and is deemed of high value in its heavily built-up setting.


4

6.6 The trees to the W of the building, where the extension of the dining room is proposed (T8 to

T18 and T38, T39) are all young to semi-mature and in fair condition, their planting dating

back to the development of the school.

7. ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

Having overlaid the Tree Constraints Plan (TCP20076-02) with the proposed site layout (J4584 and

J4586), it was concluded that:

7.1 The extension of the dining room and subsequent relocation of the bin store will involve the

loss of T9, T10, T11, T12, T39 and T45.

7.2 T18 will have to be removed as grown spontaneously in proximity to a manhole cover (likely

vegetative growth from T43).

7.3 The RPA of trees T9, T13 and T38 does not appear to be affected by the proposed layout;

however, the trees will be exposed to the risk of being damaged during construction works.

7.4 The bin store, in its proposed new location, appears to slightly encroach on the RPA of T42,

T43 and T44.

7.5 Specifications for the new fencing binding the perimeter of the eastern sector prescribe post

holes 700mm deep and 450mm in diameter. Post holes significantly encroach on the RPAs of

trees T1, T19, T20, T34, T35, T36, T37, all of which are due to be retained.

7.6 Opening the school’s eastern boundary to the car park to the east (to be converted to sport

grounds) will involve the removal of part of G1. From an arboricultural perspective, the loss of

some crack willows, elders and understory shrubs is not deemed significant as they are

widespread and common species; however, the group incorporates a mature crab apple

Malus spp. which is only representative of the species on site.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Where possible, the bin store should be shifted slightly to the south to avoid encroachment

on the RPA of T42, T43 and T44.

8.2 The removal of T18 is recommended given its self-set nature in an unsuitable location. The

tree had been felled in the past and has regrown from a stump.

8.3 G1 - The retention of the mature crab apple should be pursued where possible. Based on the

current drawings (J4616), it appears the proposed layout allows for the retention of a few

trees within the said group.

8.4 Fencing specifications should be reviewed in proximity to trees trees T1, T19, T20, T34, T35,

T36, T37 to minimise root damage where encroachment is deemed unavoidable.

8.5 In any case, post holes within the RPA retained trees should be dug using hand tools under

the supervision of a suitably qualified Arboricultural Clerk of Works (ACoW).

8.6 The retention of T9, T13, T18 and T38 may be possible with the implementation of the

protection measures shown in the Tree Protection Plan (TPP 20076-04).


5

9. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 Prior to undertaking tree works, the trees should be assessed for the presence of protected

wildlife species, to ensure compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

These include bats and birds, which are known to roost/nest in trees. It is anticipated that

none of the trees assessed on site (following a ground-based assessment) display bat habitat

potential. However, as the trees were inspected from ground-level only, it is possible that

habitat features concealed in the upper canopy were not identified at the time of survey.

9.2 The possibility of birds nesting in tree canopies, as well as the hedgerow, must be considered

if works are to be carried out during the bird-nesting season (late February to September

inclusive, weather dependent).

9.3 A bird activity survey should be carried out by a competent person within the 24-hour period

prior to the commencement works and then again, immediately prior to works start. Should

an active nest be found in any of the trees requiring work, suitable mitigation measures shall

be required to avoid committing an offence. This may include provision for postponement of

the works until such time as there is unequivocal evidence that the nest is no longer in use.


6

10. KEY TO TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE

The table below details the parameters recorded as part of this assessment and explains them.

Column Heading Explanation

Tree/Group Ref. Unique number/reference attributed to an individual tree

Group Quantity Number (or estimate) of trees found in the group

Tag Number Tag number/reference appended to the tree

Species Tree species (common English name)

Tree Height Tree height (either measured or in bands) in metres

Crown Spread Measured/estimated spread of the crown in metres, provided either

as N-S and E-W or to each of the cardinal points from the main stem.

Stem type Identified as either single or multi-stem.

DBH Diameter measured at breast height (1.5m from ground level)

FSB height and Direction First significant branch and direction of growth

Crown Clearance Existing height of tree canopy above ground level

Age Class Life stage of the tree, defined as: Y=Young; MA=Middle Aged;

M=Mature; OM=Over Mature; V=Veteran

Observations Brief description of the tree, including comments on physiological and

structural defects

ERC Estimated Remaining Contribution in years (see Appendix 2 for details)

Category Grading Recommendations for remedial works / management

Table 2 – Key to Survey Schedule


11. TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE

Tree / Group

Ref. Species

Height (m)

Crown Spread (m) Stem Type

DBH (mm)

FSB height

(m) FSB dir.

Crown Clearance

(m)

Age Class

Cat Grad

ERC Observations Recommendations for

Remedial Work N S E W

T1 Norway maple

17.94 5.3 7.3 1 5.3 Single stem

613 2.6 SW 1 M B 40+

Two codominant stems develop at 2.5m from a strong union with

well-developed bark ridge. Evidence of old pruning cuts, some flash with stem and not

fully occluded. Crown 3.5m over road, 3m over pavement. Crown

unbalanced as fully shaded by neighbouring tree to the NE.

Crown lift over pavement and road to

achieve statutory clearance

T2 Horse

chestnut 15.92 6 6 5 3

Multi stem

310 2 NW 1 M B 40+

Multi-stem at 0.4m (4 no. stems). Several poor pruning cuts

observed, resulting wounds not occluded. No evidence of

movement at first union. Overall good condition

Crown lift over pavement and monitor every 12 months at for

crown separation. Bracing may be

considered, given the sensitive location.

T3 Horse

chestnut 16.01 4 5 4 5

Single stem

644 1.5 S 0.3 M B 40+ Pruning wounds partially

occluded within the first 1.8m, overall, in fair condition

No work required at present

T4 Norway maple

11.50 0.5 3.2 2 1.5 Single stem

193 1.6 E 1.8 Y C 20+

Variegated, reverting to green in lower crown. Some minor

branches displaying flaking bark and dying back; approx. 10%

deadwood in crown. Shaded out to the north, slender.


T5 Norway maple

11.95 1 4 2 1.5 Single stem

245 1.9 NW 1.6 SM C 20+

Completely shaded out to the N, dead branches due to shading under 50mm. Flaking bark on

minor living branches. Main union at 2m supports 4 codominant

stems.

Crown growing towards pavement may need reducing within the

next 12 months.

T6 Norway maple

17.90 4 3 3.5 2 Single stem

391 1.5 E 1.8 EM B 40+

Evidence of old bark damage at base, facing S, included. Multiple flash pruning cuts, some partially included, some developed into rot holes. Crown displays good

vitality, minor deadwood; completely shaded out to the W;

variegated returning to green;

Crown lift over pavement and prune to

clear overhead lines.


8

branches encroaching on BT line; low over pavement

T7 Horse

chestnut 15.90 5 1.5 6.5 0

Single stem

438 2.5 E 0.1 EM C 20+

Tree leaning to the N, no crown to the SW; codominance at 2.1m,

bark ridge visible. East facing stem curved in pursuit of light.

Epicormic growth around taper. No evidence of other significant

biomechanical defects. Tree sheltered from SW winds by

neighbouring trees

Maintaining crown to current height and spread, to minimise

wind exposure.

T8 Horse

chestnut 16.00 6 6.5 5 6.5

Single stem

648 2 NW 0.3 M B 40+

Most prominent in group, low crown, brick included in first

union, 2 leaders growing parallel from a strong, U-shaped fork.

Squirrel dray observed at 8m on SE stem.


T9 Thuya spp. 6.45 1 1 1 0.8 Single stem

117 0.4 N 0.1 Y B 40+ Young tree, slender. Fair

condition. Shaded to the W by neighbouring cherry.

None

T10 Thuya spp. 6.45 1 0.6 1 1 Single stem

148 0.3 NW 0.2 Y B 40+ Young tree with no apparent

defects, good condition None

T11 Wild cherry 9.65 4 3 4 3 Single stem

211 1.9 E 0.2 SM B 40+ Main union at 2.5m supports 3 stems, all forks appear strong, crown displays good vitality.

None- if crown is raised, achieve it by reducing

length of branches instead of cutting to

source

T12 Wild cherry 9.10 5 4 3 3.5 Single stem

188 2.2 SW SM B 40+

Good condition, no defects observed on aerial parts of the tree. Evidence of root damage

caused by mowing.

As above

T13 Thuya spp. 4.71 1.5 1 1 1 Single stem

147 0.2 W 0.2 Y B 40+ Young healthy tree, no defects. Minimal dieback in crown (tips

browning) None

T14 Norway maple

8.68 2 2 2 2 Single stem

190 2.1 SE 1.7 Y B 40+ Young tree with no mechanical

defects, good condition None

T15 Norway maple

8.60 2.5 2 2 2 Single stem

164 2.5 NE 1.6 Y B 40+ No defects, fair condition None


9

T16 Norway maple

9.50 3 3 3 Single stem

240 1.7 SE 1.4 Y B 40+

Compression union, bark inclusion, bark ridge missing. No

other mechanical defects observed in canopy, good vitality

Reduce to source first branch to remove co-

dominance.

T17 Norway maple

9.50 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 Single stem

220 1.9 S 1.3 Y B 40+ Ivy clad; crossing branch at 2.5m

defacing S; good vitality

Remove crossing branch; sever ivy at base due to location

T18 Grey poplar 8.55 0.5 3 2 2 Multi stem

100 1.6 Y C >10

Likely grown vegetatively from root stock of parent tree to the N,

adjacent to manhole, regrowth from previously severed stump

Remove

T19 London plane 21.91 10 7.5 8 8 Single stem

720 2.7 SW 1.7 M A 40+

Prominent tree, balanced, widespread crown; FSB

substantial in diameter but within 0.3 ratio; base surrounded by

kerb, lifting.

Suggest removing kerb and redesign path to

improve rooting environment and

minimize risk of damage

T20 Norway maple

20.90 5 5 3.7 4 Single stem

440 2.2 SE 0.5 M B 40+

Ivy clad up to 8.8m, limited access due to location, unable to inspect

trunk thoroughly. Appears in good condition, crown displays

good vitality, no evidence of bark inclusions.

Sever ivy at base and strip off to 1m to enable

future inspection

T21 Hornbeam 12.90 4 3.5 4 4 Single stem

310 1.8 S 1.9 SM B 40+ Limited access; apparent good

condition Prune to clear

streetlights

T22 Walnut 12.90 1 0 2.5 2.5 Single stem

n/a 0.5 SM U >10

Tree completely shaded out by neighbouring trees, ivy-clad, slender and with unbalanced

canopy; DBH could not be measured due to access

limitations.

Remove

T23 Hornbeam 15.91 5.5 3 5 4 Single stem

350.4

2 N 1.5 EM B 40+ Ivy clad to 6m, unable to inspect

accurately. Appears in good condition


future inspection

T24 Hornbeam 15.40 2.5 2 4.5 3.5 Single stem

370 1.6 S 1.5 EM B 40+

Lightly ivy clad, codominant stems (2) developing at 1st union, 1.5m. Evidence of pruning, likely to thin crown. Tree appears in fair condition. Pigeon nest in

canopy

Sever ivy at base; crown lift to 1.8m (minor

branches only)

T25 Hornbeam 15.40 1.5 4.5 5 4 Single stem

317 1.9 NE 1.5 EM B 40+

Light ivy, fluting on main stem typical of species, pruning cuts partially included, overall good

condition

Sever ivy at base; crown lift to 1.8m (minor

branches only)


10

T26 Hornbeam 8.95 4 2 4 3.5 Single stem

320 1.8 SW 0.5 EM B 40+

ivy clad and epicormic growth prevented close inspection of

main stem. Crown displays good vitality and overall good

condition; pigeon nest in canopy, facing W.

Sever ivy at base; crown lift to 1.8m, removing

light branches and epicormic growth

T27 Hornbeam 14.07 4.5 2 6 3.5 Single stem

370 1.8 SW 1.8 EM B 40+

ivy clad/clematis prevented close inspection of main stem. Crown displays good vitality and overall good condition; squirrel damage

possible on some branches.

Sever ivy at base and strip off to 1m

T28 Hornbeam 14.00 3 2 5.5 3.5 Single stem

380 1.9 E 1.5 EM B 40+

ivy clad; large limb protruding at 2m to the E, competing with main

stem which forks up at 2.2m. Evidence of previous pruning, some proof cuts non included,

with tear wound. Possible cavity at 2m facing NE, shallow. Bird nests likely. Basal growth from

root stock. Overall fair condition.

Sever ivy at base and remove basal growth to

enable future inspection

T29 Hornbeam 13.00 2.5 4 5 4.5 Single stem

420 1.6 SW 1.8 EM B 40+

Ivy clad; large pruning wound (ca.240mm) facing E, likely

branch previously extending over car park. Exposed tissue. Possible bark inclusion at 2.5m; mild bark damage on limb facing SE. Crown

displays good vitality

Sever ivy at base and strip off to 1m, to

enable future inspection. Crown lift over footpath to 2.2m

T30 Field maple 13.00 3 2 1 3.5 Single stem

320 1.8 N 1.5 EM C 20+

ivy clad; inspected from adjacent footpath; no evidence of

significant defects, good crown vitality; ivy prevents closer

inspection. Crown shaded out to the E by neighbouring ash tree.

Sever ivy at base to enable future

inspection. Could be removed to afford more

space to walnut adjoining to the S,

although it is good to have diversity of species

in the mix

T31 Walnut 13.00 1.5 4.5 2 4.5 Single stem

485 2.5 S 3 M B 40+

Ivy clad; shaded out to the N by maple/ash; unbalanced. Minor

pruning cuts at 3m, S; good crown vitality

Severe ivy at base and strip off to 1m to enable

future inspection

T32 Common ash 15.19 5 3 3.5 3 Single stem

440 2.5 N EM B 40+

Ivy clad, codominant stem at 2.5m, union not visible due to ivy.

Appears in good condition, no evidence of dieback/crown

separation.


future inspection


11

T33 Norway maple

14.10 5 4 6 2.5 Single stem

445 1.9 NE 2 M B 40+

Ivy clad prevents inspection of first union, stem codominance

could conceal bark inclusion. No evidence of crown separation.

Unbalanced crown, but in good health.

Sever ivy at base and strip off to 1m to enable future inspection; prune

to clear streetlight

T34 Norway maple


434 1.8 SW M B 20+

Girdling roots; healthy crown with no visible defects. Large stems growing off main stem, one at

right angle. Wide, short canopy, no evidence of previous

reductions. Minor deadwood under 50mm. Low crown over pavement; slight lean to the SE

Crown lift over pavement to 2.2m

T35 Common ash 15.17 4 3 4 2 Single stem

280 5.5 W SM C 40+

Possibly self-seeded, slender in search of light. Crown starts at 7m. Overall fair condition but

unsuitable location

Might be best to remove to afford more space to neighbouring trees. The loss would

not open gap in canopy. Review

T36 Norway maple


320 1.7 E 1.7 EM C 20+

4 no. stems developing at 4m, forming a fan-like structure. Bark

ridge between unions, no apparent weakness but poor

structure. Evidence of old pruning cuts, some included,

some not. Tree shaded to the N and S.

Crown lift over pavement to 2.2 m

T37 Norway maple


350 1.8 N 1.7 EM B 40+

Multi sten at 1.8m, 2 larger stems and 1 developing in the middle,

shooting upward. Bark ridge between unions, no apparent weakness but poor structure. Evidence of old pruning cuts,

some included, some not. Tree shaded to the S.

Mistletoe. Widespread canopy

Crown lift over pavement to 2.2 m

T38 Wild cherry 8.81 3 3 4 4 Single stem

255 2 W EM B 20+ Root damage through mowing;

crown in good health, well balanced.

Avoid mowing to prevent root damage

(bark mulch area)

T39 Wild cherry 8.80 3 3.5 2.5 4 Single stem

225 1.9 S 1.2 EM B 40+ Tree in fair condition None


12

T40 Common lime 12.00 4 4 4 3.5 Single stem

315 EM B 40+ Tree in fair condition None

T41 Caucasian ash 11.00 3.5 3.5 3 3 Single stem


T42 Caucasian ash 8.00 2 3 2 2.5 Single stem


T43 Grey poplar 13.00 4 4 3 3.5 Single stem


T44 Norway maple

9.00 3 3 2.5 3 Single stem

220 Y B 40+ Tree in fair condition None

T45 Wild cherry 8.50 3.5 3.5 4 4 Single stem


G1

Crab Apple,Crack

willow,Elder,Goat willow, Lonicera, bramble,

other ornamental

shrub species, dogwood

Multi stem

EM,M,Y

B,C 40+

Stand of goat and crack willow with 1 crab apple and some elder. Currently unmanaged, previously

pollarded/coppiced. Bramble encroachment. Stands of lonicera

/spiraea (check), remnants of ornamental soft landscaping. Unable to access trees due to

bramble and dense undergrowth.

Re- pollard/coppice all willows; reduce crab apple by 2m; manage

undergrowth taking into account ecological

implications

G2

N.maple, cherry and

ash saplings, bramble,

hedge bindweed, rubus spp.,

common ivy, ornamental

shrubs

Multi stem

EM C >10 Introduced shrub, unmanaged and colonised by wild plants.

Birds likely nesting in it


Table 3 – Tree Survey Schedule


APPENDICES


APPENDIX 1 – TREE CONSTRAINTS PLAN


15


16

APPENDIX 2 – TREE PROTECTION PLAN


17


APPENDIX 3 – TREES AND THE PLANNING SYSTEM

(INCLUDES ENQUIRY ON CONSERVATION AREA/TPO)

Under the current UK planning system, local authorities have a statutory duty to consider the

protection and planting of trees when granting planning permission for proposed development. The

potential effect of development on trees, whether statutorily protected (e.g. by a tree preservation

order or by their inclusion within a conservation area) or not, is a material consideration that is

considered in dealing with planning applications.

Works to trees which are covered by Tree Preservation Orders [TPO’s] or are within a Conservation

Area [CA] require permission or consent from your Local Planning Authority [LPA].

It is an obligation to gain confirmation from the LPA of any TPO’s or CA’s on the site, and to follow the

necessary application procedure if tree surgery or indeed felling, is required in respect of protected

trees. Full planning consent will override the need for a separate application, providing that

arboricultural implications were included in the submission and subsequently approved by the local

authority.

An enquiry was made with Stratford-on-Avon District Council on the 4th August 2020 and confirmation

was given that the site does not lie within a Conservation Area and that none of the trees on site are

subject to a Preservation Order (see copy of email correspondence, below).


19


20

APPENDIX 4 – TREE SURVEY EXPLANATORY NOTES

4.1 ESTIMATED REMAINING CONTRIBUTION (ERC)

This parameter is aimed to provide an estimate of the remaining lifespan of a tree having taken into

consideration its overall condition, structural integrity and longevity typically expected by the

particular species.

ERC (years) DETAILS

<10

Tree presenting evidence of biomechanical defects and/or ongoing decline. Removal

generally recommended on Health & Safety grounds.

40+

Trees of high quality and value, capable of making a significant contribution to the area for

40 or more years. Retention and proper care highly recommended.

20+

Trees of moderate quality or value, capable of making a significant contribution to the area for

20 or more years. Retention and proper care highly recommended.

10+

Trees of low quality, adequate for retention for a minimum of 10 years expecting new planting to take place; or young trees that are less than 15 cm in diameter which should be considered for re-planting where they are expected to conflict with new/existing structures in the med-long

term.


4.2 TREE CATERGORY GRADING

This parameter defines the quality attributed to a particular tree, having taken into account its arboricultural, landscape and cultural value as described in the

cascade chart below.

CATEGORY ARBORICULTURAL VALUE LANDSCAPE VALUE CULTURAL VALUE (including Conservation)

U

• Trees that have a serious, irremediable, structural defect, such that their early loss is expected due to collapse, including those that will become unviable after removal of other R category trees (i.e. where, for whatever reason, the loss of companion shelter cannot be mitigated by pruning)

• Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, and irreversible overall decline

• Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other trees nearby (e.g. Dutch elm disease), or very low-quality trees suppressing adjacent trees of better quality

Habitat reinstatement may be appropriate (e.g. R category tree used as a bat roost: installation of bat box in nearby tree).

A

Trees that are particularly good examples of their species, especially if rare or unusual, or essential components of groups, or of formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (e.g. the dominant and/or principal trees within an avenue)

Trees, groups or woodlands which provide a definite screening or softening effect to the locality in relation to views into or out of the site, or those of particular visual importance (e.g. avenues or other arboricultural features assessed as groups)

Trees, groups or woodlands of significant conservation, historical, commemorative or other value (e.g. veteran trees or woodpasture)

B

Trees that might be included in the high category, but are downgraded because of impaired condition (e.g. presence of remediable defects including unsympathetic past management and minor storm damage)

Trees present in numbers, usually as groups or woodlands, such that they form distinct landscape features, thereby attracting a higher collective rating than they might as individuals but which are not, individually, essential components of formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (e.g. trees of moderate quality within an avenue that includes better, A category specimens), or trees situated mainly internally to the site, therefore individually having little visual impact on the wider locality

Trees with clearly identifiable conservation or other cultural benefits

C Trees not qualifying in higher categories

Trees present in groups or woodlands, but without this conferring on them significantly greater landscape value, and/or trees offering low or only temporary screening benefit

Trees with very limited conservation or other cultural benefits


4.3 ROOT PROTECTION AREA (RPA)

The RPA is a layout design tool indicating the minimum area around a tree deemed to contain sufficient roots and rooting volume to maintain the tree’s viability, where the protection of the roots and soil structure is treated as a priority. For single stem trees, the RPA should be calculated as an area equivalent to a circle with a radius 12 times the stem diameter. The table below details RPA for single-stem diameters ranging between 75 and 1250+ mm.


23

APPENDIX 5 – GENERAL GUIDANCE NOTES FOR DEVELOPMENT

Trees are a material consideration in the UK planning system because of the social, economic and

environmental benefits that they deliver in the built environment. With a view to preserving existing trees

as landscape assets and making optimal use of the site, it is advisable that the “Avoid-Mitigate-

Compensate” approach set out below is duly followed at design stage. It is important that existing,

established trees are acknowledged as an asset to development sites and as such, adequately preserved.

That due consideration is given to the positive financial impact that established trees have in the context of

new development.

Avoid

The site layout should always seek to avoid the RPA. Where possible, building lines should be at least 2m

outside the root protection area to provide working space for construction, thus minimising the chances of

causing damage. That said, suitable protection measures can be adopted where such clearance cannot be

achieved.

Mitigate

Where intrusion within the RPA is unavoidable, several measures are available to lessen the impact upon

the affected tree, such as:

• Foundations that avoid trenching, e.g. using screw piles, suspended floor slabs or casting at ground

level for lightweight structures such as bin and cycle stores.

• The designation of affected areas for parking, drives or hard surfaces by adopting construction

methods (i.e. root cellular confinement systems) that enable hard surfaces to be built above existing

soil levels.

• The installation of service runs that cannot be routed outside the root protection area(s) by thrust

boring, directional drilling, hand digging or any other methods that enable a controlled approach to the

task.

The feasibility of these methods shall always be reviewed by a qualified arboriculturist, whose supervision

may be required when some of the operations described above are undertaken.

Compensate

Where the removal of the trees on site is unavoidable, on-site replacement planting may ensure the

continuity of tree cover. To be successful, a replacement planting scheme must consider on-site ground

conditions (to inform enhancement where needed) several steps pre-planting and adequate maintenance

during establishment. Offsetting by planting off-site may be considered in some circumstances, subject to

the scrutiny of the Local Planning Authority; however, on-site replacement is generally regarded as the

preferred option in order to maintain tree-associated ecosystem services.

Ymd Boon Ltd

Documents

Transcript of Ymd Boon Ltd