appendix f9 - planning.welhat.gov.uk

Land to North East of Welwyn Garden City : Environmental Statement (March 2018)

14868682v1

Appendix F9

Arboricultural Report

Mariposa Investments & HCA

Former Panshanger Aerodrome, Welwyn Garden City

Arboricultural Assessment

December 2017

FPCR Environment and Design Ltd Registered Office: Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby DE74 2RH Company No. 07128076. [T] 01509 672772 [F] 01509 674565 [E] [email protected] [W] www.fpcr.co.uk This report is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on the condition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, either wholly or in part without the written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. Ordnance Survey material is used with permission of The Controller of HMSO, Crown copyright 100018896.

Rev Issue Status Prepared / Date Approved/Date

- Draft TCB / 16.02.2016 TJR / 19.02.16

A Draft TCB / 31.03.2016 TJR / 31.03.2016

Final TCB / 05.12.2017 CTT / 05.12.2017

Arboricultural Assessment fpcr

J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 1

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2

2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 3

3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 6

4.0 ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................10

5.0 TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ..................................................................................14

6.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................16

TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Trees by Retention Category

PLANS

Assessment Boundary Plan (5705-A-01)

Tree Survey Plan (5705-A-02.1 – 5705-A-02.4)

Tree Retention Plan (5705-A-03.1 – 5705-A-03.4)

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Tree Schedule

Appendix B: Protective Fencing Specifications


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report has been prepared by FPCR Environment and Design Limited on behalf of Mariposa Investments & HCA to present the findings of an arboricultural assessment and survey of trees located at former Panshanger Airfield, Garden Welywyn City (hereafter referred to as the site), OS Grid Ref TL 270 131, as shown in Figure 1. The survey was carried out on 8th January 2016.

1.2 The tree survey and assessment of existing trees has been carried out in accordance with the guidelines contained within British Standard 5837:2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations' (hereafter referred to as BS5837). The guidelines set out a structured assessment methodology to assist in determining which trees would be deemed either as being suitable or unsuitable for retention. The guidelines also provide recommendations for considering the relationship between existing trees and how those trees may integrate into designs for development; demolition operations and future construction processes so that a harmonious and sustainable relationship between any retained trees and built structures can be achieved.

1.3 The purpose of the report is therefore to firstly present the results of an assessment of the existing trees’ arboricultural value, based on their current condition and quality in accordance with the guidelines and to secondly provide an assessment of impact arising from the proposed development of the site.

1.4 This report has been produced to accompany a planning application for residential development and has included an assessment of any impact arising to the tree cover. The tree survey has therefore focused on any trees present within or bordering the site that may potentially be affected by the future proposals or will pose a constraint to any proposed development.

1.5 The site was situated to the north east of Panshanger, a district of Welwyn Garden City and comprised of three distinctively separate areas. The majority of the site comprised of land associated with Panshanger Airfield which included a grass landing strip, buildings and hard standing. Land to the west consisted of an area of open green space and roadside verges associated with Herns Lane, a single arable field parcel was also included to the north. Tree cover was predominantly confined to the boundaries although an area of new tree planting was situated centrally to the open green space. Two differing woodland parcels were also situated to the south. A broad range of species were present, across a wide range of ages which provided diverse areas of tree cover throughout the assessment area.

1.6 No direct consultation with the Local Planning Authority has taken place however it is understood having used the online search facility on the website for the Local Planning Authority, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council that there are no tree preservation orders and conservation areas that would apply to any trees present on, or in close proximity to the assessment site and therefore no statutory constraints would apply to the development in respect of trees.

1.7 It must be understood that should any specific tree protection be required, this would need to be separately considered where needs arise prior to the commencement of construction activity following approval of the application. This should be in the form of an arboricultural method statement produced in accordance with guidance in BS5837 and is beyond the scope of this arboricultural assessment.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 3

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 The survey of trees has been carried out in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter 4 of BS5837. The survey has been undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced arboriculturalist and has recorded information relating to all those trees within the site and those adjacent to the site which may be of influence to any proposals. Trees were assessed for their arboricultural quality and benefits within the context of the proposed development in a transparent, understandable and systematic way.

2.2 Trees have been assessed as groups or woodlands where it has been determined appropriate. The term group has been applied where trees form cohesive arboricultural features either aerodynamically, visually or culturally including biodiversity or habitat potential for example parkland or wood pasture. An assessment of individual trees within groups or woodlands has been made where a clear need to differentiate between them, for example, in order to highlight significant variation between attributes including physiological or structural condition or where a potential conflict may arise.

2.3 Trees have been divided into one of four categories based on Table 1 of BS5837, ‘Cascade chart for tree quality assessment’. For a tree to qualify under any given category it should fall within the scope of that category’s definition (see below). Category U trees are those which would be lost in the short term for reasons connected with their physiology or structural condition. They are, for this reason not considered in the planning process on arboricultural grounds. Categories A, B and C are applied to trees that should be of material considerations in the development process. Each category also having one of three further sub-categories (i, ii, iii) which are intended to reflect arboricultural, landscape and cultural or conservation values accordingly.

2.4 Category (U) – (Red): Trees which are unsuitable for retention and are in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years. Trees within this category are:

• Trees that have a serious irremediable structural defect such that their early loss is expected due to collapse and includes trees that will become unviable after removal of other category U trees.

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

• Trees that are infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/ or safety of other nearby trees or are very low quality trees suppressing adjacent trees of better quality.

• Certain category U trees can have existing or potential conservation value which may make it desirable to preserve.

2.5 Category (A) – (Green): Trees that are considered for retention and are of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years with potential to make a lasting contribution. Such trees may comprise:

• Sub category (i) trees that are particularly good examples of their species, especially if rare or unusual, or are essential components of groups such as formal or semi-formal arboricultural features for example the dominant and/or principal trees within an avenue.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 4

• Sub category (ii) trees, groups or woodlands of particular visual importance as arboricultural and / or landscape features.

• Sub category (iii) trees, groups or woodlands of significant conservation, historical, commemorative or other value for example veteran or wood pasture.

2.6 Category (B) – (Blue): Trees that are considered for retention and are of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years with potential to make a significant contribution. Such trees may comprise:

• Sub category (i) trees that might be included in category A but are downgraded because of impaired condition for example the presence of significant though remediable defects, including unsympathetic past management and storm damage.

• Sub category (ii) trees present in numbers, usually growing as groups or woodlands, such that they attract a higher collective rating than they might as individuals or trees occurring as collectives but situated so as to make little visual contribution to the wider locality.

• Sub category (iii) trees with material conservation or other cultural value.

2.7 Category (C) – (Grey): Trees that are considered for retention and are of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm. Such trees may comprise:

• Sub category (i) unremarkable trees of very limited merit or such impaired condition that they do not qualify in higher categories.

• Sub category (ii) trees present in groups or woodlands, but without this conferring on them significantly greater collective landscape value or trees offering low or only temporary / transient screening benefits.

• Sub category (iii) trees with no material conservation or other cultural value.

Tree Schedule

2.8 Appendix A presents details of any individual trees, groups, hedgerows and woodlands found during the assessment including heights, diameters at breast height, crown spread (given as a radial measurement from the stem), age class, comments as to the overall condition at the time of inspection, BS5837 category of quality and suitability for retention and the root protection area.

2.9 General observations particularly of structural and physiological condition for example the presence of any decay and physical defect and preliminary management recommendations have also been recorded where appropriate.

Hedgerows

2.10 For the purposes of this assessment, a hedgerow is described as any boundary line of trees or shrubs less than 5m wide at the base and are managed under a regular pruning regime. Hedgerows and substantial internal or boundary hedges (including evergreen screens) have been recorded including lateral spread, height and stem diameter(s). Where trees are present within a hedgerow that are significantly different in character from the remainder, these have been identified and recorded separately.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 5

2.11 A tree survey in accordance with BS5837 does not assess hedgerows against the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 or specifically from an ecological perspective, and is outside the scope of this assessment.

Other Considerations

2.12 Knowledge of soil type is not known at the time of this tree assessment. If a current soil survey of the site has taken place then it must be read in conjuction with the results of the tree survey. It may also be necessary to undertake further assessment and accurate positioning of woody species within hedgerows and tree groups to assist structural calculations for foundation design of structures in accordance with current building regulations.

Conditions of Tree Survey

2.13 The survey was completed from ground level only and from within the boundary of the site. Aerial inspection of trees was not undertaken at this stage. Investigations as to the internal condition of a tree have also not been undertaken as this is beyond the scope of this assessment. Evaluation of tree condition given within this assessment applies to the date of survey and cannot be assumed to remain unchanged. It may be necessary to review these within 12 months, in accordance with sound arboricultural practice.

Site Plans

2.1 The Assessment Boundary Plan identifies the extent of the requested assessment area. Trees positioned beyond this boundary may have been recorded where it is considered that they may pose a constraint upon any future development of the site.

2.2 The individual positions of trees and groups have been shown on the Tree Survey Plan. The positions of trees are based on a topographical / land survey, as far as possible, supplied by the client. Where topographical information has not identified the position of trees and hedgerows, their relation to any existing surrounding features has been plotted using a global positioning system and aerial photography to provide approximate locations. The crown spread, root protection area and shade pattern (where appropriate) are also indicated on this plan.

2.3 As part of this assessment, a Tree Retention Plan has been prepared to show the proposed layout in relation to the existing tree cover allowing an assessment of any potential conflicts. The plan also identifies which trees would be required to be removed or retained as part of the proposed development.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 6

Tree Constraints and Root Protection Areas

2.4 Below ground constraints to future development are represented by the area surrounding the tree that contains sufficient rooting volume for the specimen to have the best chance of survival in the long term. This is known as the root protection area. The root protection area has been calculated in accordance with section 4.6 of BS5837 and requires suitable protection in order for the tree to be successfully incorporated into any future scheme. Where applicable the shape of the root protection area has been modified to take into account the presence of any nearby obstacles (existing or past) which may have restricted root growth and the likely root distribution i.e. the presence of hard standing, structures and underground apparatus.

2.5 Where groups of trees have been assessed, the root protection area has been shown based on the maximum sized tree in any one group and so may exceed the root protection area required for some of the individual specimens within the group.

2.6 Above ground constraints have been considered such as the current and potential crown spread of the trees and an illustration of the shade pattern (where appropriate) has been plotted on the plans to indicate their potential area of shading influence.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 A total of twenty-seven individual trees, twenty-nine groups of trees, two woodlands and three hedgerows were surveyed as part of the arboricultural assessment. Trees were surveyed as individual trees and groups / blocks of trees where examples are clearly present as such per the description. Refer to Figure 2 – Tree Survey Plan and Appendix A – Tree Schedule for full details of the trees included in this assessment. The table below summarises the trees assessed. Several of the trees have been discussed in more detail following the table, owing to their physical condition or arboricultural significance.

Table 1: Summary of Trees by Retention Category

Individual Trees Total Groups of Trees Total

Category U - Unsuitable 0 0

Category A (High Quality / Value)

T9, T21 2 W1, W2 2

Category B (Moderate Quality / Value

T6, T8, T12, T13, T14, T15, T16, T23, T24, T26 10 G6, G8, G9, G10, G11,

G15, G19, G20, G21 9

Category C (Low Quality / Value) T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T7, T10,

T11, T17, T18, T19, T20, T22, T25, T27

15

G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G7, G12, G13, G14, G16, G17, G18, G22, G23, G24, G25, G26, G27, G28, G29, H1, H2, H3

23


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 7

Former Pansanger Airfield

3.2 Tree cover associated with the land that formed the airfield was restricted to the northern and south western boundaries. Tree cover to the south east was dominated by two wooded areas whilst tree cover to the north comprised of a number of differing groups of trees merged together to form a visual barrier between the site and land beyond.

3.3 Category B specimens collectively formed the majority of tree cover along the northern boundary and formed a linear feature which for the purpose of the survey has been separated into a number of differing groups based on form and structure. G6, G8, G9 and G10 consisted of early mature specimens of blackthorn Prunus spinosa, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and elder Sambucus nigra around mature examples of ash Fraxinus excelsior and English oak Quercus robur. Low and interlocking crowns housed broken branches, crossing branch material along with epicormic growth and dead wood. Groups were separated where trees displayed differing characteristics such as stem size or overall proportions; refer to Appendix A – Tree Schedule for full details.

3.4 G7 was also situated to the north and comprised of predominantly ash and wild cherry Prunus avium in multi stemmed forms, self-seeded blackthorn and hawthorn once again surrounded the larger specimens creating a dense appearance. G7 was considered to be low quality due to the sporadic, multi stemmed structure and was therefore downgraded accordingly to category C.

3.5 The south east of the site was dominated by two woodland parcels which formed Henry Wood, situated outside the site. Although this woodland is recorded as a single parcel there was a distinct difference in management and woodland structure and for the purpose of the assessment it was separated into W1 and W2. Specimens ranged from semi mature through to mature in proportions with a wide range of species.

3.6 W1 was typical in structure with mature specimens of English oak, hornbeam Carpinus betulus, ash and Scots pine Pinus sylvestris providing the upper canopy forming over an understory of elder and laurel Prunus laurocerasus. Specimens were observed up to 1000mm stem diameter with the majority of trees being single stem. W2 exhibited signs of past coppice management with large multi stemmed examples of hornbeam along with smaller numbers of single stemmed English oak and Scots pine however these were smaller in diameter indicating that these trees were also part of a woodland management scheme in the past. Additional species which included Norway maple Acer platanoides and silver birch Betula pendula were also present. Both W1 and W2 provided a prominent visual feature to the south and were both regarded as being high in quality and category A.

3.7 A number of buildings and concrete hard standings associated with the former airfield were situated to the south east. Due to the close proximity of these to Henry Wood a number of trees that were possibly original to the woodland were now situated within the airfield perimeter. T2 to T17 were all species that could possibly be associated with the woodland, comprising of English oak, hornbeam, horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum, and sweet chestnut Castanea sativa. The majority of these specimens were considered to be moderate in quality with bark wounds, branch stubs, epicormic growth and various proportions of dead wood commonly observed. Compacted ground was also present due to the presence of car park areas constructed out of concrete hard standing. With the exception of T9 the remaining tree cover was recorded as category C.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 8

3.8 T9 was a mature sweet chestnut and along with T21, a mature English oak situated along the access driveway to the east were regarded as being high in quality. Both trees displayed minor structural conditions such as branch stubs, epicormic growth and various proportions of dead material. Compacted ground was once again present in the form of concrete hard standing and overhead cables were situated adjacent to T21. Due to the prominent features these specimens provided both T9 and T21 were regarded as being retention category A.

3.9 A number of tree groups were also observed to the north of the access driveway to the airfield, around areas of hard standing which once supported buildings. G2 and G3 both comprised of multi stemmed forms of ash and sycamore surrounded by sporadic self-seeded hawthorn and English elm Ulmus procera. Crossing and rubbing stems were common due to the form of these trees and a number of specimens had recently failed at the base, possibly due to restricted root development caused by the presence of hard standing. G4 comprised of multi stemmed examples of ash, English oak and sycamore, evenly spaced within a grass verge along the access driveway. All three groups were considered to be low in quality and category C.

3.10 G14, comprised of various trees and hedgerows situated along the southern boundary which separated the airfield from the residential properties. A wide range of species were observed with a mixture of native types and species more typically found within an urban setting; refer to Appendix A – Tree Schedule for full details. Although the majority of these trees will not have a significant impact upon the assessment area their presence has been noted due to the boundary position. G14 was deemed to be category C.

Arable Land

3.11 A single arable field parcel was situated to the north of the assessment area with all associated tree cover confined to the boundaries due to its current use. G12 and G13 defined the eastern boundary and comprised of coppiced forms surrounded by dense vegetation and self-seeded material. Interlocking crowns housed crossing and rubbing branches with minor dead wood, dead trees and failed stems were also observed. Some areas had been previously managed in hedgerow form but a lapse in management had allowed material to become outgrown. A wide range of species typically found across the site were present however Due to the low quality present G12 and G13 were recorded as category C.

3.12 H2 was situated to the north west of the field and comprised of a single species hedgerow consisting of field maple. Annual management had created a compact and consolidated structure which separated the field parcel from the grass verge to the north.

3.13 G20 and G21 were both situated within the grass verge to the north. G20 contained semi to early mature specimens of ash, beech Fagus sylvatica, common lime Tilia x europaea, English oak, field maple and hawthorn, whilst G21 contained only early mature field maple. Crossing and rubbing branches were the only apparent structural condition within low and interlocking crowns. G22 was situated to the west of these two groups and formed part of the western boundary. Mature Lombardy poplar trees Populus nigra ‘Italica’ provided a visual feature with heights up to 28m. Basal suckers and crossing branches were covered by dense ivy growth. G20 and G21 were considered to be retention category B with G22 deemed to be lower in quality and category C.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 9

3.14 T27, a mature English oak was situated to the south west corner of the arable field. This specimen showed signs of declining health with extensive crown dieback and exposed heartwood. Bark wounds, branch socket cavities and branch stubs were also observed along with pruning wounds and past storm damage. Due to the limited future potential of T27 this tree was regarded as being retention category C.

Green Open Space

3.15 Land to the west comprised of an area of private green space associated with the Homes and Communities Agency. Tree cover observed across this area was predominantly semi mature in age and consisted of newly planted trees either individually or as large groups.

3.16 G18 comprised of specimens of ash, English oak, field maple and silver birch sporadically positioned throughout the green space or collectively along with blackthorn, elder and hawthorn. Trees did not display any major defects due to their young age although crossing and rubbing branches were commonly observed. Where trees had formed groups, thorny species had become outgrown around the edges. Specimens within G18 were considered to be low in quality and retention category C.

3.17 G19 comprised of a triangular shaped area of newly planted trees, central to the green space land. Species were identical to those in G18 and trees displayed similar characteristics due to them being planted at the same time. G18 had established a visually prominent feature within the local landscape and was therefore recorded as category B.

3.18 A row of mature Lombardy poplar trees were situated to the west, within a grass verge positioned outside of the assessment area. These specimens exhibited typical crown forms with basal suckers, epicormic growth and crossing, rubbing branches. Due to the visual feature these trees provided with heights up to 24m they were recorded as category B.

3.19 G16 and G17 were situated to the south of the green space. G16 defined the southern boundary and comprised of early mature hawthorn originally planted as a hedgerow within the grounds of the school to the south, which has become outgrown to a height of 6m. G17 consisted of a number of large goat willow Salix caprea along with the occasional silver birch. Crossing and rubbing branches along with epicormic growth and minor deadwood were observed. Both G16 and G17 were recorded as category C due to the low quality present.

3.20 T26, an early mature English oak was situated to the south east, adjacent to a boundary fence of a private residential property. Branch stubs and pruning wounds were noted due to recent crown lifting works and clearance of scrub understory. Epicormic growth was present throughout the crown with T26 being regarded as moderate quality and category B.

Tree Cover along Herns Lane

3.21 Tree cover was assessed along both sides of Herns Road to the west. For the purpose of the assessment trees were separated into seven tree groups, G23 to G29. All of the tree cover along Herns Road was similar in species and structure only being separated where either clear breaks in the groups or a division was observed due to roads or footpaths or where trees significantly differed in size.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 10

3.22 A wide range of species were recorded throughout the groups providing diverse areas of tree cover. Single and multi-stemmed forms created low interlocking crowns which housed and array of features such as bark wounds, included unions, crossing and rubbing branches with minor dead wood. Basal suckers and dense ivy had established in places and flail damage was also present where crowns encroached upon arable land.

3.23 Collectively G23 to G29 provides key screening and a green corridor along Herns Road however due to the lack in management specimens had become suppressed and etiolated in form and generally exhibited a low arboricultural quality. For this reason G23 to G29 were all regarded as retention category C.

4.0 ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 The following paragraphs present a summary of the tree survey and offers discussion of particular trees and groups recorded in the context of any proposed development in the form of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment in accordance with section 5.4 of BS5837. Any final tree retentions will need to be reconciled with the advice contained within this report.

4.2 The AIA has been based upon the Concept Masterplan and seeks to outline the potential impact that the proposals would have on the existing trees and vice versa. The above drawing shows the proposals for residential areas supported highway infrastructure, local centre, school and green open spaces. An overlay of the above layout has been incorporated in the Tree Retention Plan (Figure 3) to assist in identifying potential conflicts with the existing trees.

4.3 To facilitate the proposed development as per the above plan no significant tree loss will be required. The proposed built element of the development is to be positioned centrally within the parcels of land of which are devoid of tree cover. The existing trees on site situated around the site boundaries are to be retained and incorporated into the proposals within landscape buffer strips. Additional new tree planting has also been proposed throughout the proposed landscape scheme and areas of public open space which will increase tree cover on the site.

4.4 The proposed main vehicular access for the development is to be positioned to the west off Herns Road. In order to facilitate the access at this point a small section of G23 will need to be removed to provide the necessary opening for the access road and to satisfy any required visibility splays. The removal of this small section of tree cover should not constrain the development as the amount of loss overall would be considered of low proportions and the new tree and hedgerow planting proposed as part of the landscaping scheme for the development would more than suitably mitigate for the loss. G23 was recorded by the assessment as being of low arboricultural value due to its unmanaged form.

4.5 To facilitate the highway infrastructure as it moves through the site will require the removal of further, albeit minor, sections of tree cover from G17, G18, and G19. The removal of tree cover from these tree groups would be unavoidable if links between residential parcels are to be provided. The removal of these short sections however should not constrain the development, from an arboricultural perspective, as this material was generally considered to be of low quality. The material can be replaced with new tree planting as part of the supporting landscaping scheme for the development and this would be considered suitable to mitigate for the required losses.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 11

4.6 Due to the outline nature of the proposals at present, from an arboricultural perspective and in accordance with the guidance contained within British Standard 5837:2012 it will be necessary to pay close attention to the layouts of the residential parcels at the detailed design stage to ensure root protection areas of those trees selected for retention can be fully accommodated. Careful consideration will enable successful integration of the retained specimens into the scheme to ensure their survival and contribution to the site in the future.

4.7 This will be particularly important within the area of G10 and G19 to insure that the final positioning of the proposed highway does not encroach upon RPA’s

4.8 At this illustrative stage, to facilitate the proposed residential parcels the removal of areas of vegetation from within G18 to the west, along with T5, T6, T18 and T19 to the east will be required. This material was once again regarded as being low in quality.

4.9 Both G2 and G3 will need to be further assessed for their suitability for retention in relation to any proposed development within this area. The retention of suitable trees with G3 should be considered however the presence of hard standing and demolition material may pose a constraint to any retained trees.

4.10 The layout and design of any proposals to the south will need to be assessed in order not to impact upon the retained tree cover immediately to the south. These trees were a mixture of early mature and mature specimens associated with the woodland edge and airfield buildings. The presence of T9, a mature sweet chestnut of large proportions will need to be considered as the retention of this tree is of high importance.

4.11 The proposed development retains a large proportion of the boundary tree cover creating a maturity to the residential areas. New buffer strips and open space should ideally be planted with native tree species currently present on the site along with ornamental species being introduced to the focal green space area.

New Tree Planting

4.12 New tree planting will form an integral part of the new development however, proposals for new tree planting should be appropriate for the future use of the site and not just aim to improve the existing tree population.

4.13 As part of the development proposals an adequate quantity of structured tree planting has been demonstrated predominantly landscape buffer strips and areas of public open space. The purpose and function of this new tree planting should be understood from the start of any design stages so that key objectives from a landscape perspective can also be achieved.

4.14 The success of any landscaping scheme relies on making sure that there is adequate provision of an environment within which trees can thrive and reach their full potential. Planting trees with due care and consideration can, in the long term, provide a greater return on a schemes green investment and ensure trees remain healthy and grow to mature proportions. Healthy mature trees integrate well into the built environment; increase the maturity of the landscape; help provide a natural green and leafy urban environment in which people would want to reside whilst also benefiting local wildlife.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 12

4.15 The planting of trees within confined urban environments should consider the use of appropriately designed planting pits specifically engineered to promote tree health and longevity. The rooting environment will need to provide an adequate volume of quality soil for roots to suitably develop by calculating the amount of available soil volumes needed and selecting species whose mature size is compatible with the site. This is an integral component of the planning stage (Lindsey & Bassuk, 1991).

4.16 Wherever possible, following discussions with the developer and utility company’s common service trenches should be specified to minimise land take associated with underground service provision and facilitation access for future maintenance.

4.17 The landscaping scheme should consider the use of both native tree species (for their low maintenance requirements and nature conservation value) and ornamental species (for their contribution to urban design and amenity value). Species choices should be selected on the basis of their suitability for the final site use. Furthermore during the design process consultation should be made with the local planning authority to obtain information on their tree strategy and incorporate the planting proposals with any local policies and initiatives and/or biodiversity action plans (BAP).

4.18 Careful consideration would need to be given to the following: ultimate height and canopy spread, form, habit, density of crown, potential shading effect, colour, water demand, soil type and maintenance requirements in relation to both the built form of the new development and existing properties. Through careful species selection the landscape scheme shall reduce the risk of trees being removed in the future on the grounds of nuisance. Nuisance can be perceived in a number of ways and vary from person to person however most commonly, within the context of trees, low overhanging branches, excessive shading, seasonal leaf fall and the misinformed perception that trees close to buildings cause damage.

4.19 Tree planting should be avoided where they may obstruct overhead power lines or cables. Any underground apparatus should be ducted or otherwise protected at the time of construction to enable trees to be planted without resulting in future conflicts.

Tree Management

4.20 The layout of the development is currently reserved for subsequent approval. In the course of a reserved matters application pursuant to layout, a review of the relationship between the layout and the retained trees should be undertaken by a qualified arboriculturalist to prepare a schedule of tree works.

4.21 All retained trees should be subjected to sound arboricultural management as recommended within section 8.8.3 of BS5837 Post Development Management of Existing Trees, where there is a potential for public access in order to satisfy the landowner’s duty of care. Additionally inspections annually and following major storms should be carried out by an experienced arboriculturalist or arborist to identify any potential public health and safety risks and to agree remedial works as required.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 13

4.22 All tree works undertaken should comply with British Standard 3998:2010 and should therefore be carried out by skilled tree surgeons. It would be recommended that quotations for such work be obtained from Arboricultural Association Approved Contractors as this is the recognised authority for certification of tree work contractors.

4.23 All vegetation and, particularly, woody vegetation proposed for clearance should be removed outside of the bird-breeding season (March - September inclusive) as all birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended) whilst on the nest. Where this is not possible, vegetation should be checked for the presence of nesting birds prior to removal by an experienced ecologist.

General Design Principles in Relation to Retained Trees

4.24 In a subsequent reserved matters application for the approval of the final layout of the scheme, assessment of the distance of proposed development in relation to the calculated root protection area of retained trees should be made which will inform the final layout.

4.25 Ground investigation through the use of pneumatic excavation, such as an Air Spade and digging of trial pits, may be required should there be areas where it is not possible to modify the layout to avoid conflict with retained trees. Ground investigations would aim to determine the actual location of the physical roots without causing them damage in the process. Such an assessment would enable consideration of the practicality and suitability of certain ‘tree friendly’ construction methods and would better inform decision making for a design.

4.26 Further assessment of the impact to actual roots found during the ground investigations can then be made and solutions reached thus greatly reducing any potential future impacts on retained trees whilst allowing the development to proceed and minimising risks to future tree health. Ultimately the aim would be to reduce conflicts between trees and buildings, and achieve successful tree retention.

4.27 The use of “no-dig” construction methods should be considered prior to decisions being made as to the removal of each tree concerned, where conflicts between trees identified for retention and the layout arise. Such methods of construction and the use of industry led specialist engineering solutions i.e. three dimensional “load bearing” cellular confinement systems can be used particularly in the case of carriageways, footways and driveways in order to avoid unnecessary losses of trees.

4.28 The routing of below ground services should also be considered with regard to the retained trees as part of a subsequent reserved matters application pursuant to layout. As recommended by the guidance given in section 7.7 of BS5837 services, where possible, should not encroach within the root protection areas of retained trees. If below-ground services are proposed within a root protection area modifications to the alignment of the service route may need to be made in order to minimise adverse effects on root stability and overall tree-health.

4.29 Consideration may also need to be given to the potential for tree roots of newly planted trees and hedgerows to affect or compromise the future services. As far as feasible, it would be preferable that proposed services near both the existing and any new planting should be ducted for ease of access and maintenance and grouped together to minimise any future disturbance.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 14

5.0 TREE PROTECTION MEASURES

5.1 Retained trees will be adequately protected during works ensuring that the calculated root protection area for all retained trees can be appropriately protected through the erection of the requisite tree protection barriers. Measures to protect trees should follow the guidance in BS5837 and will be applied where necessary for the purpose of protecting trees within the site whilst allowing sufficient access for the implementation of the proposed layout. These have been broadly summarised below.

General Information and Recommendations

5.2 All trees retained on site will be protected by suitable barriers or ground protection measures around the calculated root protection area , crown spread of the tree or other defined constraints of this assessment as detailed by section 6 and 7 of BS5837.

5.3 Barriers will be erected prior to commencement of any construction work and before demolition including erection of any temporary structures. Once installed, the area protected by fencing or other barriers will be regarded as a construction exclusion zone. Fencing and barriers will not be removed or altered without prior consultation with the project arboriculturalist.

5.4 Any trees that are not to be retained as part of the proposals should be felled prior to the erection of protective barriers. Particular attention needs to be given by site contractors to minimise damage or disturbance to retained specimens.

5.5 Where it has been agreed, construction access may take place within the root protection area if suitable ground protection measures are in place. This may comprise single scaffold boards over a compressible layer laid onto a geo-textile membrane for pedestrian movements. Vehicular movements over the root protection area will require the calculation of expected loading and the use of proprietary protection systems.

5.6 Confirmation that tree protective fencing or other barriers have been set out correctly should be gained prior to the commencement of site activity.

Tree Protection Barriers

5.7 Tree protection fencing should be fit for the purpose of excluding any type of construction activity and suitable for the degree and proximity of works to retained trees. Barriers must be maintained to ensure that they remain rigid and complete for the duration of construction activities on site.

5.8 In most situations fencing should comprise typical construction fencing panels attached to scaffold poles driven vertically into the ground. For particular areas where construction activity is anticipated to be of a more intense nature supporting struts acting as a brace should be added and fixed into position through the application of metal pins driven into the ground to offer additional resistance against impacts. Where site circumstances and the risk to retained trees do not necessitate the default level of protection an alternative will be specified appropriate to the level / nature of anticipated construction activity. The recommended methods of fencing specifications for this site have been illustrated in Appendix B.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 15

5.9 It may be appropriate on some sites to use temporary site offices, hoardings and lower level barrier protection as components of the tree protection barriers. Details of the specific protection barriers for the site can be provided should the application be approved, as part of a site specific Arboricultural Method Statement for a Reserved Matters application and in accordance with the guidance contained within BS5837.

Ground Protection

5.10 Where it has been agreed, construction access may take place within the root protection area if suitable ground protection measures are in place. Guidance on examples of appropriate ground protection for several different scenarios is provided in section 6.2.3 of BS5837. The location of and design for temporary ground protection should be detailed as part of an Arboricultural Method Statement required by conditioning should planning permission be granted. In all cases, the objective is to avoid compaction of the soil which can arise from a single passage of a heavy vehicle, especially in wet conditions, so that tree root functions remain unimpaired.

Protection outside the exclusion zone

5.11 Once the areas around trees have been protected by the barriers, any works on the remaining site area may be commenced providing activities do not impinge on protected areas.

5.12 All weather notices should be attached to the protective fencing to indicate that construction activities are not permitted within the fenced area. The area within the protective barriers will then remain a construction exclusion zone throughout the duration of the construction phase of the proposed development. Protection fencing signs can be provided upon request.

5.13 Wide or tall loads etc should not come into contact with retained trees. Banksman should supervise transit of vehicles where they are in close proximity to retained trees.

5.14 Oil, bitumen, cement or other material that is potentially injurious to trees should not be stacked or discharged within 10m of a tree stem. No concrete should be mixed within 10m of a tree. Allowance should be made for the slope of ground to prevent materials running towards the tree.

5.15 No fires will be lit where flames are anticipated to extend to within 5m of tree foliage, branches or trunk, taking into consideration wind direction and size of fire.

5.16 Notice boards, telephone cables or other services should not be attached to any part of a retained tree.

5.17 Any trees which need to be felled adjacent to or are present within a continuous canopy of retained trees, must be removed with due care (it may be necessary to remove such trees in sections).

Protection of Trees Close to the Site

5.18 There were a number of trees located on the boundaries of the site. The root protection area and crown spread of these trees will need to be protected in the same way as all the retained trees within the site. All trees located outside the boundaries of the assessment site yet within close proximity to works should be adequately protected during the course of the development by barriers or ground protection around the calculated root protection area.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 16

5.19 Any trees which are to be retained and whose root protection areas may be affected by the development should be monitored, during and after construction, to identify any alterations in quality with time and to assess and undertake any remedial works required as a result.

Protection for Aerial Parts of Retained Trees

5.20 Where it is deemed necessary to operate a wide or tall load, plant bearing booms, jibs and counterweights or other such equipment as part of the construction works it is best advised that appropriate, but limited tree surgery, be carried out beforehand to remove any obstructive branches. Any such equipment would have potential to cause damage to parts of the crown material, i.e. low branches and limbs, of retained trees within the protective barriers. This is termed as ‘access facilitation pruning’ within BS5837. Any such pruning should be undertaken in accordance with a specification prepared by an arboriculturalist.

5.21 A pre-commencement site meeting with contractors who are responsible for operating machinery will be required, as described above, to firstly highlight the potential for damage occurring to tree crowns and to ensure that extra care is applied when manoeuvring machinery during such operations within close proximity to retained trees to avoid any contact.

5.22 In the event of having caused any branch or limb damage to retained trees it is strongly recommended that suitable tree surgery be carried out, in accordance with British Standard 3998:2010 and in agreement with the Local Planning Authority prior to correcting the damage, upon completion of development.

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 The site was situated to the north east of Panshanger, a district of Welwyn Garden City and comprised of three distinctively separate areas covering land associated with Panshanger Airfield , an area of open green space, a single arable field and roadside verges associated with Herns Lane. Tree cover was predominantly confined to the boundaries apart from an area of new tree planting situated centrally to the open green space. Two woodland parcels were also situated to the south. A broad range of species were present, across a wide range of ages which provided diverse areas of tree cover throughout the assessment area.

6.2 To facilitate the proposed development per the Illustrative Masterplan, no significant tree loss will be required with the proposed built element positioned centrally within each parcel of land. The existing trees on site situated around the site boundaries are to be retained and incorporated into the proposals within landscape buffer strips.

6.3 The proposed main vehicular access for the development is to be positioned to the west off Herns Road and will require the removal of low quality tree cover only. To facilitate the highway infrastructure, as it moves through the site, will require the removal of minor sections of tree cover. The removal of this tree cover should not constrain the development, from an arboricultural perspective, as this material was generally considered to be of low quality.

6.4 At this illustrative stage, to facilitate the proposed residential parcels the removal of areas of vegetation is again limited to material that is was once again regarded as being low in quality.


J:\5700\5705\ARB\5705AA.doc 17

6.5 At the detailed design stage the final layout should try and accommodate G2 and G3 where possible.

6.6 The proposed development retains a large proportion of the boundary tree cover creating a maturity to the residential areas. New buffer strips and open space should ideally be planted with native tree species currently present on the site along with ornamental species being introduced to the focal green space area.

6.7 In conclusion, the proposed development should be considered an ideal opportunity in terms of arboriculture to enhancing and increasing overall tree cover in the local area. This will be done without the loss of any currently arboriculturally significant trees thereby safeguarding visual amenity in the local area for future generations.

KEY

Assessment Boundary

Ordnance Survey material is used with the permission of The Controller of HMSO,

Crown copyright 100018896.

This drawing is the property of FPCR Environment and Design ltd and is issued on

the condition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person,

either wholly or in part with written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd.

rev date description by

CAD file:

client

project

drawing title

scale

drawing number

drawn date

rev

environmental assessment

arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design

FPCR Environment and Design Ltd

Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565

e: [email protected]

w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture


Former Panshanger Aerodrome

Welwyn Garden City

Assessment Boundary Plan

1:25000 @ A4 TCB Dec 2017

5705-A-01 -J:\5700\5705\ARB\Plans\Assessment Boundary Plan.dwg

C

W

C

F

F

W

Pond

Post

L

I

T

T

L

E

H

A

R

D

I

N

G

S

K

E

L

B

Y

S

H

A

R

D

I

N

G

S

H

IL

L

Y

F

IE

L

D

S

B

U

N

N

S

F

IE

L

D

Sta

El Sub Sta

El

Sub Sta

El

Sub

38

39

41

45

42

40

43

46

8

9

1

2

1

6

18

81

44

31

37

34

30

33

58

1

6

3

8

3

15

2

82

H

illy F

ie

ld

s

1

0

6

1

0

2

95

98

Jordans

36

8

65

2

84

44

5

4

1

1

0

6

2

6

8

7

6

83

84

5

7

7

3

and Mixed Infants

Springmead Junior

97

11

1

School

6

1

4

2

B

E

R

I

C

O

T

W

A

Y

W

E

S

T

C

O

T

T

12

1

6

1

7

9

8

5

8

6

1

4

10

U

nd

C

F

C

H

B

U

N

N

S

F

IE

L

D

107

2

6

2

2

99

19

2

5

H

E

R

N

S

L

A

N

E

T25(C)

T26(B)

H3(C)

G15(B)

G16(C)

G18(C)

G24(C)

G26(C)

G27(C)

G28(C)

G16(C)

G19(B)

G19(B)

G23(C)

G23(C)

G24(C)

G25(C)

G28(C)

G27(C)

G29(C)

G18(C)

G18(C)

G18(C)

G18(C)

G17(C)

NOTES

All dimensions to be verified on site. Do not scale this drawing, use figured dimensions

only. All discrepancies to be clarified with project Arboriculturalist. Drawing to be read in

conjunction with Arboricultural Assessment and Appendix A - Tree Schedule .

Drawing has been produced in colour and is based on digital information in .dwg format,

aerial images and/or GPS location where appropriate. A monochrome copy should not be

relied upon. The exact position of individual trees or species included as part of a tree

group, woodland or hedgerow should be checked and verified on site prior to any decisions

for foundation design, tree operations or construction activity being undertaken. Further

assessment may therefore be required where deemed necessary.

Trees are living organisms that change over time, the condition of all trees illustrated

herein, are to be checked by the project Arboriculturalist should works commence 12

months after the date of this survey.

SOME TREES MAY BE SUBJECT TO STATUTORY CONSTRAINTS. IT IS THEREFORE

ADVISED THAT NO WORKS SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO ANY TREES

ILLUSTRATED HEREIN WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE RELEVANT

AUTHORISATION TO DO SO UNLESS AGREED AS PER THE APPROVED PLANS

THROUGH PLANNING CONSENT.

This drawing is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on the

condition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, either

wholly or in part without written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. FPCR

Environment and Design Ltd accept no liability for third party use.

Ordnance Survey material is used with the permission of The Controller of HMSO, Crown

copyright 100018896.

- 03.02.2016 First Issue TCB


CAD file:

client

project

drawing title

scale

drawing number

drawn date

rev


arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design


Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565


w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture



Welwyn Garden City

TREE SURVEY PLAN

1:2500 @ A3 TCB February 2016

5705-A-02.1 -J:\5700\5705\ARB\Plans\Tree Survey Plan.dwg

Category U - Trees / Groups Unsuitable for Retention

(BS 5837:2012)

KEY

Category A - Trees / Groups of High Quality

(BS 5837:2012)

Category B - Trees / Groups of Moderate Quality

(BS 5837:2012)

Category C - Trees / Groups of Low Quality

(BS 5837:2012)

Root Protection Area (The RPA has been altered

where appropriate to reflect underground constraints)

Individual / Group Number and BS5837:2012 Category

T1 (A)

TG1 (A)

N

Indicative Shade Pattern (in accordance with

BS5837:2012 where appropriate)

Hedgerow

(Colour indicates BS5837:2012 Category)

0 50 100 150m

Scale 1:2500 @ A3

P

a

t

h

(

u

m

)

B

E

R

I

C

O

T

W

A

Y

W

E

S

T

C

O

T

T

W

E

S

T

C

O

T

T

Panshanger Aerodrome

2

2

1

2

1

6

2

1

1

1

7

2

4

9

1

1

1

4

1

0

C

o

C

o

n

s

t

,

C

P

&

E

D

B

d

y

F

F

F

F

D

e

f

D

e

f

U

n

d

C

H

Pond

M

O

N

E

Y

H

O

L

E

L

A

N

E

(disused)

Pit

El Sub Sta

3

Barn

The Old Dairy

North

South Barn

4

1

D

r

a

i

n

52.7m

P

a

t

h

(

u

m

)

B

1

0

0

0

H

E

R

N

S

L

A

N

E

B

1

0

0

0

D

r

a

i

n

Issues

South Lodge

T23(B)

T24(B)

T26(B)

T27(C)

H2(C)

G11(B)

G12(C)

G13(C)

G20(B)

G21(B)

G22(C)

G23(C)

G24(C)

G8(B)

G8(B)

G6(B)

G8(B)

G9(B)

G12(C)

G13(C)

G19(B)

G23(C)

G24(C)

G18(C)

G10(B)

G13(C)

G13(C)

NOTES


























CAD file:

client

project

drawing title

scale

drawing number

drawn date

rev


arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design


Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565


w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture

Mariposa Developments Ltd


Welwyn Garden City

TREE SURVEY PLAN




(BS 5837:2012)

KEY


(BS 5837:2012)


(BS 5837:2012)


(BS 5837:2012)




T1 (A)

TG1 (A)

N



Hedgerow


0 50 100 150m

Scale 1:2500 @ A3

LB

C

H

A

L

G

R

O

V

E

S

T

I

R

L

I

N

G

W

I

T

C

H

F

O

R

D

N

O

R

T

H

W

O

O

D

LE

YS

DO

WN

S

O

M

E

R

S

H

A

M

L

Y

S

A

N

D

E

R

W

A

Y

W

A

Y

SOMERSHAM

H

A

L

I

F

A

X

W

A

Y

Sub Sta

El

35

8

9 to 18

5

2

2

1

23

1

9

16

1

6

25

12

19

6

1

1

6

1

4

34

1

7

1

7

4

12

14

4

1

8

28

3

1

1

S

T

I

R

L

I

N

G

W

A

Y

H

A

L

I

F

A

X

STIRLING WAY

W

A

Y

M

E

N

D

L

E

S

H

A

M

AL

CO

NB

UR

Y

M

A

R

T

L

E

S

H

A

M

46

4

2

48

2

4

28

1

1

1

4

2

2

9

29

43

2

9

1

1

1

40

9

4

4

12

8

a

15

70

15

62

2

21

54

45

10

72

9

2

3

2

7

El Sub Sta

66

2

1

6

52

11

32

24

1

1

3

0

29

56

7

50

3

0

4

2

8

7

28

1

26

6

5

58

7

1

9

27

19

60

30

64

1

68

2

0

2

9

C

H

E

L

V

E

S

T

O

N

1

7

2

3

2

7

1

2

1

6

7

2

1

4

1

2

0

9

1

4

1

1

1

5

1

2

2

6

C

o

C

o

n

s

t

,

C

P

&

E

D

B

d

y

F

F

F

F

D

e

f

D

e

f

U

n

d

C

H

Pond

M

O

N

E

Y

H

O

L

E

L

A

N

E


3

5

The Old Dairy

South Barn

1

8

4

1

2

0

1

T1(C)

T5(C)

T6(B)

T17(C)

T18(C)

T19(C)

T20(C)

T23(B)

T24(B)

G2(C)

G11(B)

G14(C)

G6(B)

G8(B)

G8(B)

G6(B)

G8(B)

G9(B)

W1(A)

W2(A)

T15(B)

T11(C)

T10(C)

T9(A)

G6(B)

G7(C)

G10(B)

G13(C)

T16(B)

T2(C)

G1(C)

T3(C)

NOTES


























CAD file:

client

project

drawing title

scale

drawing number

drawn date

rev


arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design


Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565


w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture



Welwyn Garden City

TREE SURVEY PLAN




(BS 5837:2012)

KEY


(BS 5837:2012)


(BS 5837:2012)


(BS 5837:2012)




T1 (A)

TG1 (A)

N



Hedgerow


0 50 100 150m

Scale 1:2500 @ A3

S

T

I

R

L

I

N

G

W

A

Y

H

A

L

I

F

A

X

STIRLING WAY

W

A

Y

M

E

N

D

L

E

S

H

A

M

AL

CO

NB

UR

Y

M

A

R

T

L

E

S

H

A

M

46

4

2

48

1

0

2

4

28

1

1

1

4

1

8

1

1

2

9

29

43

2

9

1

1

40

9

4

4

12

8

a

15

70

15

62

21

54

45

10

72

9

2

3

2

7

El Sub Sta

66

2

1

6

52

11

32

1

7

24

1

3

0

29

56

50

3

0

4

2

8

7

28

1

26

6

5

58

7

1

9

27

19

60

30

64

1

68

2

0

2

9

F

F

F

F

D

e

f

Pond


3

5

4

1

1

T1(C)

T5(C)

T6(B)

T17(C)

T18(C)

T19(C)

T20(C)

T22(C)

T23(B)

H1(C)

G2(C)

G4(C)

G5(C)

G6(B)

G8(B)

G8(B)

G6(B)

W2(A)

W1(A)

W1(A)

W1(A)

W1(A)

W2(A)

W2(A)

W2(A)

T13(B)

T15(B)

T8(B)

T12(B)

T11(C)

T10(C)

T9(A)

G3(C)

T21(A)

T14(B)

T4(C)

G6(B)

G7(C)

T16(B)

T2(C)

G1(C)

T3(C)

NOTES


























CAD file:

client

project

drawing title

scale

drawing number

drawn date

rev


arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design


Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565


w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture



Welwyn Garden City

TREE SURVEY PLAN




(BS 5837:2012)

KEY


(BS 5837:2012)


(BS 5837:2012)


(BS 5837:2012)




T1 (A)

TG1 (A)

N



Hedgerow


0 50 100 150m

Scale 1:2500 @ A3

C

W

C

F

F

W

Pond

Post

L

I

T

T

L

E

H

A

R

D

I

N

G

S

K

E

L

B

Y

S

H

A

R

D

I

N

G

S

H

IL

L

Y

F

IE

L

D

S

B

U

N

N

S

F

IE

L

D

Sta

El Sub Sta

El

Sub Sta

El

Sub

38

39

41

45

42

40

43

46

8

9

1

2

1

6

18

81

44

31

37

34

30

33

58

1

6

3

8

3

15

2

82

H

illy F

ie

ld

s

1

0

6

1

0

2

95

98

Jordans

36

8

65

2

84

44

5

4

1

1

0

6

2

6

8

7

6

83

84

5

7

7

3

and Mixed Infants

Springmead Junior

97

11

1

School

6

1

4

2

B

E

R

I

C

O

T

W

A

Y

W

E

S

T

C

O

T

T

12

1

6

1

7

9

8

5

8

6

1

4

10

U

nd

C

F

C

H

B

U

N

N

S

F

IE

L

D

107

2

6

2

2

99

19

2

5

H

E

R

N

S

L

A

N

E

T25(C)

T26(B)

H3(C)

G15(B)

G16(C)

G18(C)

G24(C)

G26(C)

G27(C)

G28(C)

G16(C)

G19(B)

G19(B)

G23(C)

G23(C)

G24(C)

G25(C)

G28(C)

G27(C)

G29(C)

G18(C)

G18(C)

G18(C)

G18(C)

G17(C)

NOTES


























CAD file:

client

project

drawing title

scale

drawing number

drawn date

rev


arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design


Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565


w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture



Welwyn Garden City

TREE RETENTION PLAN

1:2500 @ A3 TCB Dec 2017

5705-A-03.1 -J:\5700\5705\ARB\Plans\Tree Retention Plan.dwg

KEY

N

Tree/Group to be Retained

Tree/Group to be removed to facilitate the proposals

Category U - Unsuitable for retention on

arboricultural grounds

Root Protection Area

(Shown for retained trees only)

Individual / Group Number and BS Category

T1 (A)

TG1 (A)

Indicative Shade Pattern (where appropriate)

Hedgerow Proposed to be Retained and

Incorporated into the New Development

Hedgerow Proposed to be Removed to Facilitate

the Development upon Approval of the Application

0 50 100 150m

Scale 1:2500 @ A3

P

a

t

h

(

u

m

)

B

E

R

I

C

O

T

W

A

Y

W

E

S

T

C

O

T

T

W

E

S

T

C

O

T

T


2

2

1

2

1

6

2

1

1

1

7

2

4

9

1

1

1

4

1

0

C

o

C

o

n

s

t

,

C

P

&

E

D

B

d

y

F

F

F

F

D

e

f

D

e

f

U

n

d

C

H

Pond

M

O

N

E

Y

H

O

L

E

L

A

N

E

(disused)

Pit

El Sub Sta

3

Barn

The Old Dairy

North

South Barn

4

1

D

r

a

i

n

52.7m

P

a

t

h

(

u

m

)

B

1

0

0

0

H

E

R

N

S

L

A

N

E

B

1

0

0

0

D

r

a

i

n

Issues

South Lodge

T23(B)

T24(B)

T26(B)

T27(C)

H2(C)

G11(B)

G12(C)

G13(C)

G20(B)

G21(B)

G22(C)

G23(C)

G24(C)

G8(B)

G8(B)

G6(B)

G8(B)

G9(B)

G12(C)

G13(C)

G19(B)

G23(C)

G24(C)

G18(C)

G13(C)

G13(C)

G10(B)

NOTES


























CAD file:

client

project

drawing title

scale

drawing number

drawn date

rev


arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design


Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565


w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture



Welwyn Garden City

TREE RETENTION PLAN

1:2500 @ A3 TCB Dec 2017


KEY

N








T1 (A)

TG1 (A)






0 50 100 150m

Scale 1:2500 @ A3

LB

C

H

A

L

G

R

O

V

E

S

T

I

R

L

I

N

G

W

I

T

C

H

F

O

R

D

N

O

R

T

H

W

O

O

D

LE

YS

DO

WN

S

O

M

E

R

S

H

A

M

L

Y

S

A

N

D

E

R

W

A

Y

W

A

Y

SOMERSHAM

H

A

L

I

F

A

X

W

A

Y

Sub Sta

El

35

8

9 to 18

5

2

2

1

23

1

9

16

1

6

25

12

19

6

1

1

6

1

4

34

1

7

1

7

4

12

14

4

1

8

28

3

1

1

S

T

I

R

L

I

N

G

W

A

Y

H

A

L

I

F

A

X

STIRLING WAY

W

A

Y

M

E

N

D

L

E

S

H

A

M

AL

CO

NB

UR

Y

M

A

R

T

L

E

S

H

A

M

46

4

2

48

2

4

28

1

1

1

4

2

2

9

29

43

2

9

1

1

1

40

9

4

4

12

8

a

15

70

15

62

2

21

54

45

10

72

9

2

3

2

7

El Sub Sta

66

2

1

6

52

11

32

24

1

1

3

0

29

56

7

50

3

0

4

2

8

7

28

1

26

6

5

58

7

1

9

27

19

60

30

64

1

68

2

0

2

9

C

H

E

L

V

E

S

T

O

N

1

7

2

3

2

7

1

2

1

6

7

2

1

4

1

2

0

9

1

4

1

1

1

5

1

2

2

6

C

o

C

o

n

s

t

,

C

P

&

E

D

B

d

y

F

F

F

F

D

e

f

D

e

f

U

n

d

C

H

Pond

M

O

N

E

Y

H

O

L

E

L

A

N

E


3

5

The Old Dairy

South Barn

1

8

4

1

2

0

1

T1(C)

T5(C)

T6(B)

T17(C)

T18(C)

T19(C)

T20(C)

T23(B)

T24(B)

G2(C)

G11(B)

G14(C)

G6(B)

G8(B)

G8(B)

G6(B)

G8(B)

G9(B)

W1(A)

W2(A)

T15(B)

T11(C)

T10(C)

T9(A)

G6(B)

G7(C)

G13(C)

T16(B)

T2(C)

G1(C)

T3(C)

G10(B)

NOTES


























CAD file:

client

project

drawing title

scale

drawing number

drawn date

rev


arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design


Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565


w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture



Welwyn Garden City

TREE RETENTION PLAN

1:2500 @ A3 TCB Dec 2017


KEY

N








T1 (A)

TG1 (A)






0 50 100 150m

Scale 1:2500 @ A3

S

T

I

R

L

I

N

G

W

A

Y

H

A

L

I

F

A

X

STIRLING WAY

W

A

Y

M

E

N

D

L

E

S

H

A

M

AL

CO

NB

UR

Y

M

A

R

T

L

E

S

H

A

M

46

4

2

48

1

0

2

4

28

1

1

1

4

1

8

1

1

2

9

29

43

2

9

1

1

40

9

4

4

12

8

a

15

70

15

62

21

54

45

10

72

9

2

3

2

7

El Sub Sta

66

2

1

6

52

11

32

1

7

24

1

3

0

29

56

50

3

0

4

2

8

7

28

1

26

6

5

58

7

1

9

27

19

60

30

64

1

68

2

0

2

9

F

F

F

F

D

e

f

Pond


3

5

4

1

1

T1(C)

T5(C)

T6(B)

T17(C)

T18(C)

T19(C)

T20(C)

T22(C)

T23(B)

H1(C)

G2(C)

G4(C)

G5(C)

G6(B)

G8(B)

G8(B)

G6(B)

W2(A)

W1(A)

W1(A)

W1(A)

W1(A)

W2(A)

W2(A)

W2(A)

T13(B)

T15(B)

T8(B)

T12(B)

T11(C)

T10(C)

T9(A)

T21(A)

T14(B)

T4(C)

G6(B)

G7(C)

T16(B)

T2(C)

G1(C)

T3(C)

G3(C)

NOTES


























CAD file:

client

project

drawing title

scale

drawing number

drawn date

rev


arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design


Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565


w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture



Welwyn Garden City

TREE RETENTION PLAN

1:2500 @ A3 TCB Dec 2017


KEY

N








T1 (A)

TG1 (A)






0 50 100 150m

Scale 1:2500 @ A3

Panshanger AirfieldJob No: 5705

Rev: -Date of Survey

08/01/2016

V: Veteran tree possessing certain attributes relating to veteran trees

Structural Condition Quality Assessment of BS Category

The following is an example of considerations when inspecting structural condition:• The presence of fungal fruiting bodies around the base of the tree or on the stem, as they could possibly indicate the presence of possible internal decay• Soil cracks and any heaving of the soil around the base• Any abrupt bends in branches and limbs resulting from past pruning• Tight or weak ‘V’ shaped forks and co-dominant stems• Hazard beam formations and other such biomechanical related defects (as described by Claus Mattheck, Body Language of Trees HMSO Research for Amenity Trees No. 4 1994)• Cavities as a result of limb losses or past pruning• Broken branches or storm damage• Damage to roots• Basal, stem or branch / limb cavities• Crown die-back or abnormal foliage size and colour

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

Category A - Trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years.

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

Category C - Trees of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm.

Height - Measured using a digital laser clinometer (m)

YNG: Young trees up to ten years of age

G - Good: Trees with only a few minor defects and in good overall health needing little, if any attention

• The RPA Radius column provides the extent of an equivalent circle from the centre of the stem (m).• The RPA is calculated using the formulae described in paragraph 4.6.1 of British Standard 5837: 2012 and is indicative of the rooting area required for a tree to be successfully retained. Tree roots extend beyond the calculated RPA in many cases and where possible a greater distance should be protected.• Where veteran trees have been identified the RPA has been calculated in accordance with Natural England guidance i.e. 15x the stem diameter, uncapped.

Stem Dia. - Diameter measured (mm) in accordance with Annex C of the BS5837

Abbreviationsest - Estimated stem diameteravg - Average stem diameter for multiple stemsupto - Maximum stem diameter of a group

M: Mature trees over 2/3 life expectancy

D - Dead: This could also apply to trees in an advanced state of decline and unlikely to recover

OM: Over mature declining or moribund trees of low vigour

The BS category particular consideration has been given to the following• The health, vigour and condition of each tree• The presence of any structural defects in each tree/group and its future life expectancy• The size and form of each tree/group and its suitability within the context of a proposed development• The location of each tree relative to existing site features e.g. its screening value or landscape features• Age class and life expectancy

SM: Semi-mature trees less than 1/3 life expectancy

F - Fair: Trees with minor rectifiable defects or in the early stages of stress from which it may recover

Crown Radius - Measured using a digital laser clinometer radially from the main stem (m)

EM: Early mature trees 1/3 – 2/3 life expectancy

P - Poor: Trees with major structural and/or physiological defects such that it is unlikely the tree will recover in the long term

Appendix A - Tree Schedule

Measurements Age Class Overall Condition Root Protection Area (RPA)

Sub-categories: (i) - Mainly arboricultural value (ii) - Mainly landscape value (iii) - Mainly cultural or conservation value

J:\5700\5705\ARB\Appendix A - Trees Page 1 of 18



08/01/2016

Totals Totals

Category U 0 0

Category A 2 2

Category B 10 9

Category C 15 23

Total 27 Total 34

Appendix Summary

T9, T21 W1, W2

T6, T8, T12, T13, T14, T15, T16, T23, T24, T26 G6, G8, G9, G10, G11, G15, G19, G20, G21

T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T7, T10, T11, T17, T18, T19, T20, T22, T25, T27 G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G7, G12, G13, G14, G16, G17, G18, G22, G23, G24, G25, G26, G27, G28, G29, H1, H2, H3

Individual Trees Tree Groups and Hedgerows

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Trees Groups Hedges Woodlands

BS Category Tree Type Distribution

U A B C

0%

7%

31%

62%

BS Category Site Wide Distribution

Category U

Category A

Category B

Category C

BS Category Site Wide Distribution shows the proportion of trees assessed in each category across the whole site which allows an interpretation of the site's overall quality.

BS Category Tree Type Distribution displays the proportion of trees assessed in each type to enable a better understanding of the category distribution.




08/01/2016

0 0

15

12

0 002468

10121416

Age Distribution of Tree Stock

English OakHornbeam

Horse Chestnut

Silver BirchOther

Representative Species Distribution

Representative Species Distribution displays the proportion of the tree stock for each species with greater than 5% of the total.

Age Distribution of Tree Stock shows the number of trees in each age category across the tree stock allowing assessment of their longevity to be made.




08/01/2016

Tree No

Species HeightStemDia.

Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837

Cat

T1 English ElmUlmus procera 9.5

140100210

3 EM F 33 3.3 C (i)

T2Horse Chestnut

Aesculus hippocastanum

13 460 5 EM F 96 5.5 C (i)

T3 HornbeamCarpinus betulus 13 340

N - 4S - 5E - 2W - 5

EM F 52 4.1 C (i)


N - 5S - 5E - 2W - 2

EM F 49 4.0 C (i)

T5 English OakQuercus robur 16 630

N - 1S - 4E - 4W - 4

M P 180 7.6 C (i)

T6Horse Chestnut

Aesculus hippocastanum

14 570 6 EM F 147 6.8 B (i)


320

N - 4S - 2E - 4W - 4

EM F 58 4.3 C (i)

INDIVIDUAL TREES

Structural Condition

Crossing and rubbing branchesMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Multi stemmed from base

Crossing and rubbing branchesMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Twin stemmed at 2m

Branch stubs and broken branches evidentCrossing and rubbing branchesMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Overhead cables

Bark wounds notedBranch stubs and broken branches evidentCrossing and rubbing branchesEpicormic growth evident within the crownMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Overhead cables

Bark wounds notedBranch stubs and broken branches evidentCrossing and rubbing branchesDieback of the crown observedEpicormic growth evident within the crownMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownOverhead cables

Bark wounds notedMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)No major defects were noted

Compacted ground at the baseSuppressed crown formTwin stemmed from base




08/01/2016

Tree No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837

CatStructural Condition

T8 English OakQuercus robur 13 770 8 M F 268 9.2 B (i)

T9 Sweet ChestnutCastanea sativa 18 est

1100 9 M F 547 13.2 A (i)

T10 HornbeamCarpinus betulus 10 est

300 4 EM F 41 3.6 C (i)

T11 HornbeamCarpinus betulus 12 est

300 4 EM F 41 3.6 C (i)

T12 English OakQuercus robur 15 est

650 6 M F 191 7.8 B (i)

T13 HornbeamCarpinus betulus 18

320370330

6 M F 158 7.1 B (i)

T14 English OakQuercus robur 18

390440120

6 M F 163 7.2 B (i)

Branch stubs evidentCompacted ground at the baseEpicormic growth evident within the crownMinor and major dead wood evident in the crown

Branch stubs evidentCompacted ground at the baseEpicormic growth evident within the crownMinor and major dead wood evident in the crown Owl box to NorthThree stems at 2m

Bark wounds notedCompacted ground at the baseMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Suppressed crown form

Bark wounds notedBranch stubs evidentCompacted ground at the baseMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Suppressed crown form

Branch stubs evidentCompacted ground at the baseEpicormic growth evident within the crownMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownSuppressed crown form

Bark wounds notedCoppiced formCrossing and rubbing branchesEpicormic growth evident within the crownIncluded bark unionMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Multi stemmed from base

Bark wounds notedCrossing and rubbing branchesEpicormic growth evident within the crownIncluded bark unionMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Multi stemmed from base




08/01/2016

Tree No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


T15 English OakQuercus robur 16 350 5 EM F 55 4.2 B (i)



N - 1S - 1E - 3W - 1

EM P 13 2.0 C (i)

T18 Silver BirchBetula pendula 11 280 3 EM F 35 3.4 C (i)


260

N - 6S - 6E - 1W - 6

EM F 86 5.2 C (i)

T20 AshFraxinus excelsior 13 420 4 EM F 80 5.0 C (i)

T21 English OakQuercus robur 19 950 10 M F 408 11.4 A (i)

T22 English OakQuercus robur 5 est

800 3 M P 290 9.6 C (i)

Branch stubs and broken branches evidentEpicormic growth evident within the crownMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)

Branch stubs and broken branches evidentEpicormic growth evident within the crownMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)

Bark wounds notedSuppressed crown form

Compacted ground at the baseEpicormic growth evident within the crownLeaning to north with exposed roots

Compacted ground at the baseEpicormic growth evident within the crownIncluded bark unionMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Suppressed crown formTwin stemmed from base

Bark wounds notedBranch socket cavities observedBranch stubs evidentCompacted ground at the baseCrossing and rubbing branchesMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)

Branch stubs evidentEpicormic growth evident within the crownMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownOverhead cables

Crown had been toppedEpicormic growth evident within the crownHeartwood exposedMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownSpecimen in extensive decline




08/01/2016

Tree No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


T23 SycamoreAcer pseudoplatanus 16 720 9 M F 235 8.6 B (i)

T24 English OakQuercus robur 13

est 530480

8 M F 231 8.6 B (i)

T25 Silver BirchBetula pendula 11 390 5 M F 69 4.7 C (i)



N - 7S - 4E - 9W - 5

M P 557 13.3 C (i)

Branch stubs evidentEpicormic growth evident within the crownPruning wounds noted

Bark wounds notedBranch socket cavities observedBranch stubs evidentDieback of the crown observedHeartwood exposedLimited future potentialMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownPruning wounds notedSpecimen in extensive declineStorm damage present

Basal suckers presentBranch stubs evidentCompacted ground at the baseIncluded bark unionLow crown formMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownPruning wounds noted

Branch stubs evidentEpicormic growth evident within the crownLow crown form

Branch stubs evidentEpicormic growth evident within the crownLow crown form




08/01/2016

Group No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837

Cat

G1

Silver BirchBetula pendula

HornbeamCarpinus betulus

16 upto 350 4 EM F 55 4.2 C (ii)

G2

AshFraxinus excelsior

HawthornCrataegus monogyna

English ElmUlmus procera

8 est 8x 100 3 EM P 36 3.4 C (ii)

G3



SycamoreAcer pseudoplatanus

English ElmUlmus procera

16

est 520550440

5 EM / M F 347 10.5 C (ii)

G4


English OakQuercus robur


10 est 7x 210 4 EM / M F 140 6.7 C (ii)

G5

BlackthornPrunus spinosa

ElderSambucus nigra


2 est 100 1 M F 5 1.2 C (ii)


GROUPS OF TREES

Bark wounds notedEtiolated formInterlocking crownsMulti stemmed from baseSingle stem forms

Compacted ground at the baseCrossing and rubbing branchesInterlocking crownsLow crown formSporadic self-seeded group of trees

Compacted ground at the baseCrossing and rubbing branchesInterlocking crownsLow crown formSporadic self-seeded group of trees around hard standingFailed trees present

Bark wounds notedCompacted ground at the baseCrossing and rubbing branchesIncluded bark unionLow interlocking crownsMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Multi stemmed from base

Maintained hedgerowOutgrown to the north

J:\5700\5705\ARB\Appendix A - Groups Page 8 of 18



08/01/2016

Group No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


G6



ElderSambucus nigra



14 470 6 EM / M F 100 5.6 B (ii)

G7




Wild CherryPrunus avium

11 8x 100 4 EM / M F 36 3.4 C (ii)

G8



ElderSambucus nigra



14 470 6 EM / M F 100 5.6 B (ii)

G9



ElderSambucus nigra

English OakQuercus roburGoat WillowSalix caprea




10 570 6 EM / M F 147 6.8 B (ii)

Branch stubs and broken branches evidentCrossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemEpicormic growth evident within the crownFailed treesLow interlocking crownsMinor and major dead wood evident in the crown (>75mm)Minor dead wood evident in the crownBoundary tree group with large oaks

Coppiced formCrossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemInterlocking crownsMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownMulti stemmed from baseBoundary group with occasional larger specimen

Branch stubs and broken branches evidentCrossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemEpicormic growth evident within the crownFailed treesLow interlocking crownsMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownBoundary tree group with large oaks

Branch stubs and broken branches evidentCrossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemEpicormic growth evident within the crownFailed treesInterlocking crownsLow crown formMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownBoundary tree group with large oaks




08/01/2016

Group No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


G10


ElderSambucus nigra


7 upto 310 5 EM / M F 43 3.7 B (ii)

G11


ElderSambucus nigra


HollyIlex aquifolium


12 est 500 7 EM / M F 113 6.0 B (ii)

G12


ElderSambucus nigra

English OakQuercus roburGoat WillowSalix caprea


HazelCorylus avellana


8 est 300 4 EM / M F 41 3.6 C (ii)

Crossing and rubbing branchesLow interlocking crownsMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Boundary group of trees

Coppiced formCrossing and rubbing branchesLow interlocking crownsMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Boundary group of trees

Coppiced formCrossing and rubbing branchesDead trees notedFailed treesInterlocking crownsLow crown formMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Un-maintained hedgerowBoundary group of trees




08/01/2016

Group No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


G13


BlackthornPrunus spinosaCrack WillowSalix fragilisEnglish Oak

Quercus roburHawthorn

Crataegus monogynaSycamore

Acer pseudoplatanusCrab Apple

Malus sylvestrisHolly

Ilex aquifoliumHornbeam

Carpinus betulus

10 est 250 5 EM / M F 28 3.0 C (ii)

G14


English OakQuercus roburNorway Maple

Acer platanoidesSilver Birch

Betula pendulaFalse Acacia

Robinia pseudoacaciaHolly

Ilex aquifoliumWhitebeamSorbus aria

Lawson CypressChamaecyparis

lawsonianaLeyland CypressCupressocyparis

leylandiiLaurel

Prunus laurocerasus

10 est 250 5 EM / M F 28 3.0 C (ii)

G15 Lombardy PoplarPopulus nigra 'Italica' 24 upto

600 5 M F 163 7.2 B (ii)

Coppiced formCrossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemDense undergrowth at the baseInterlocking crownsLow crown formMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Multi stemmed from baseSporadic self-seeded group of treesBoundary group of trees

Mixture of offsite and onsite boundary trees and hedges

Basal suckers presentCrossing and rubbing branchesEpicormic growth evident within the crownMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)




08/01/2016

Group No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


G16 HawthornCrataegus monogyna 6 upto

130 1 EM F 8 1.6 C (ii)

G17

Goat WillowSalix capreaSilver Birch

Betula pendula

9est 360360

7 EM F 117 6.1 C (ii)

G18



ElderSambucus nigra


Field MapleAcer campestre



10 upto 200 3 SM / EM F 18 2.4 C (ii)

G19



ElderSambucus nigra





10 upto 200 3 SM / EM F 18 2.4 B (ii)

Un-maintained hedgerow

Crossing and rubbing branchesEpicormic growth evident within the crownLow crown formMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)

Crossing and rubbing branchesLow interlocking crownsAreas of sporadic trees and newly planted specimens across open space

Crossing and rubbing branchesInterlocking crownsLow crown formWith newly established area of trees




08/01/2016

Group No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


G20


BeechFagus sylvaticaCommon Lime

Tilia x europaeaEnglish Oak

Quercus roburField Maple

Acer campestreHawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

6 est 200 3 SM / EM F 18 2.4 B (ii)

G21 Field MapleAcer campestre 8 est

320 5 EM F 46 3.8 B (ii)

G22 Lombardy PoplarPopulus nigra 'Italica' 28 680 3 M F 209 8.2 C (ii)

G23





Horse ChestnutAesculus hippocastanum

Norway MapleAcer platanoides


AlderAlnus glutinosa


Scots PinePinus sylvestris

12 est 300 4 EM / M F 41 3.6 C (ii)

Crossing and rubbing branchesInterlocking crownsLow crown formRoadside verge trees

Crossing and rubbing branchesInterlocking crownsLow crown formRoadside verge trees

Basal suckers presentCrossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemInterlocking crownsRoadside verge trees

Crossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemEtiolated formFlail damage evidentLow interlocking crowns




08/01/2016

Group No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


G24





Horse ChestnutAesculus hippocastanum

Hybrid Black PoplarPopulus x canadensis


AlderAlnus glutinosa



LaurelPrunus laurocerasus

14 est 300 4 EM / M F 41 3.6 C (ii)

G25

Crack WillowSalix fragilis

ElderSambucus nigraNorway Maple


Betula pendulaAspen

Populus tremulaScots Pine

Pinus sylvestris

12est 340320

6 EM / M F 99 5.6 C (ii)

G26


Common LimeTilia x europaeaHorse Chestnut

Aesculus hippocastanumNorway Maple

Acer platanoides

9 upto 460 4 EM F 96 5.5 C (ii)

Crossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemEtiolated formFlail damage evidentLow interlocking crowns

Crossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemEtiolated formIncluded bark unionInterlocking crownsLow crown formMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Multi stemmed from base

Bark wounds notedBasal suckers presentCrossing and rubbing branchesMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Single standing trees on roadside verge




08/01/2016

Group No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


G27

ElderSambucus nigraNorway Maple

Acer platanoidesLombardy Poplar

Populus nigra 'Italica'Scots Pine

Pinus sylvestris

12 est 350 4 EM / M F 55 4.2 C (ii)

G28


BeechFagus sylvatica

ElderSambucus nigra


HawthornCrataegus monogynaHybrid Black Poplar

Populus x canadensisNorway Maple


Betula pendulaAlder

Alnus glutinosaLaural

Prunus LaurocerasusLombardy Poplar

Populus nigra 'Italica'Prunus sp.

Weeping WillowSalix x sepulcralis

'Chrycosoma'Scots Pine

Pinus sylvestris

10 est 300 4 EM / M F 41 3.6 C (ii)

Crossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemEtiolated formIncluded bark unionLow interlocking crownsMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Multi stemmed from base

Crossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemEtiolated formIncluded bark unionLow interlocking crownsMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Multi stemmed from base




08/01/2016

Group No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837


G29


ElderSambucus nigra



Norway MapleAcer platanoides

Wild CherryPrunus avium

HazelCorylus avellana

12 est 350 4 EM / M F 55 4.2 C (ii)

Crossing and rubbing branchesDense ivy cover on main stemEtiolated formIncluded bark unionLow interlocking crownsMinor dead wood evident in the crown (<75mm)Multi stemmed from baseOverhead cables




08/01/2016

Hedge No


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837

Cat

H1


ElderSambucus nigra


2 est 100 1 M F 5 1.2 C (ii)

H2 Field MapleAcer campestre 1

est 180120

1 M F 21 2.6 C (ii)

H3 HawthornCrataegus monogyna 1 est

6x 60 0.5 SM F 10 1.8 C (ii)


HEDGEROWS

Maintained hedgerowOutgrown to the north

Maintained hedgerow

Maintained hedgerow

J:\5700\5705\ARB\Appendix A - Hedges Page 17 of 18



08/01/2016

WoodNo


Crown Radius

Age Class

Overall Condition

RPARPA

Radius BS5837

Cat

W1


ElderSambucus nigra




LaurelPrunus laurocerasus

18 est 1000 8 SM / EM /

M F 452 12.0 A (ii)

W2

ElderSambucus nigra

English OakQuercus roburNorway Maple


Betula pendulaHornbeam

Carpinus betulusScots Pine

Pinus sylvestris

14 est 400 6 SM / EM /

M F 72 4.8 A (ii)


WOODLANDS

Branch stubs and broken branches evidentCrossing and rubbing branchesEpicormic growth evident within the crownInterlocking crownsMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownMulti stemmed from baseSingle stem formsSituated offsite

Basal suckers presentCoppiced formEpicormic growth evident within the crownEtiolated formLow interlocking crownsMinor and major dead wood evident in the crownMulti stemmed from baseSingle stem formsOld coppice woodland

J:\5700\5705\ARB\Appendix A - Woodlands Page 18 of 18

2

3

6

4

1

0.6m

5

7

1

2

3

Standard specification for protective

barrier

1. Standard scaffold poles

2. Heavy gauge 2m tall galvanized tube and

welded mesh infill panels

3. Panels secured to scaffold frame with wire ties

4. Ground level

5. Uprights driven into the ground until secure

(min depth of 0.6m)

6. Standard scaffold clamps

7. Construction Exclusion Zone signs

NOTES

This drawing is the property of FPCR Environment and Design ltd and is issued on the


wholly or in part with written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd.

CAD file:

drawing title


arboriculture

ecology

masterplanning

landscape design

urban design


Lockington Hall

Lockington

Derby DE74 2RH

t: 01509 672772

f: 01509 674565


w: www.fpcr.co.uk

architecture

APPENDIX B

PROTECTIVE FENCING SPECIFICATIONS

S:\Arb resources\Basic Templates\Tree Protection\Appendix B - Protective Fencing A4.dwg

Above ground stabilising systems

1. Stabiliser strut with base plate secured with

ground pins

2. Feet blocks secured with ground pins

3. Construction Exclusion Zone signs

Protective Fencing to be positioned to the specified dimensions in

accordance with Figure 3 Tree Retention Plan

appendix f9 - planning.welhat.gov.uk

Documents