Arboricultural Constraints Report

for

Land South West of Hullbridge

carried out on behalf of

Southern and Regional Developments Ltd

by

JBA Consultancy Services Ltd

Job No: 10/252 - AR01 September 2014

Rev A 30.10.2014

2

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

1.0 The following points are explained and qualified in more detail in this report and this

summary is intended for quick reference only. Any actions consequent to this

summary should be discussed with the Head of Arboriculture at JBA before being

undertaken in order to prevent potential breach of tree protection legislation, whether

by planning condition, area planning designation or specific tree preservation order

(which may apply to individual trees, groups, hedges of any size).

1.1 Non-technical Summary:

Site: Land South West of Hullbridge

Overview of Key Tree Constraints: There is a low risk presented by the trees on the site due to their location to the boundary of the site as well as the maturity and quality of the trees.

Overview of Construction Costs - Root Protection Areas:

There is a low risk of increased costs from root protection areas.

Overview of Construction Costs - Special Construction Techniques:

There is a low risk of increased costs from special construction techniques – especially for service runs.

Precautionary measures: Four Category “U” trees are required to be felled.

Designations: Having made an initial desk

top search, I have determined that there the

following designations which apply to this

site:

1. TPOs: TPO/00006/07 APRIL 2007.

2. Conservation Area: No.

3. AONB: unknown.

4. Greenbelt: Green belt boundary runs

along the western and southern site

boundaries.

5. Planning Conditions: Yes.

Pernicious Weeds found: 1. Japanese Knotweed: No

2. Giant Hogweed: No

3. Poison Hemlock: No

4. Himalayan Balsam: No

5. Ragwort: No

3

6. Horsetail: No

Impact - Number of trees lost Currently four trees are required to be

removed due to their poor structural and

condition.

1.2 Mitigation Measures:

a) Planting: Native trees will be planted where necessary in order to offset any

tree removals as per LPA instructions.

b) Foundation design: Foundations may need to be deepened depending on

layout.

c) No Dig Surfaces: “No-dig” construction methodology may be needed

depending on layout and defined as construction of surfaces and structures

that does not require excavation of the soil. Foundations and bases are laid

over existing soil supported by structural manmade materials. Structures may

require pile or raft foundations. No trenches or excavations are permitted.

1.3 Seasonal Factors:

a) Nesting Bird surveys: Trees / tree groups and hedges will need nesting bird

surveys if works are commenced adjacent to them between the months of

March and September inclusive; a bird survey is to be carried out by a

qualified ecologist.

b) Pruning / Surgery Programme: Trees to be retained on site that require

corrective surgery for reasons of health, access, safety or proximity to

development should not be cut between March and mid-June. This will ensure

that new growth pushed out in the spring has had time to replenish food

stores, or else the plant’s vigour may be harmed.

4

1.4 Costs and Programme:

a) Surgery Works: All works should be carried out in accordance with the

BS3998:2010. The following preliminary tree works are recommended.

Tree number

Preliminary tree works

T5, T7, T18, T21 Remove

Note: T5 is a boundary feature of a neighbouring property. Consent for

access will be required from the landowner prior to undertaking works to this

tree.

T1 Remove major deadwood

G2 Remove broken branches

T8, T11 Remove ivy

T6 Sever ivy

b) Accurate Assessment of Cost: For a detailed cost breakdown of the works

and the programme in respect of the above, please contact our Head of

Arboriculture who will arrange for a quotation from a suitably competitive and

qualified contractor.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Instructions have been received to assess trees and other significant vegetation

at land South West of Hullbridge in relation to the proposed development. As

such our assessment is to be carried out in accordance with the principles of

BS5837:2012 'Trees in Relation to Construction Recommendations'.

2.2 Trees detailed in the tree survey schedule at Appendix 2 have been visually

inspected from ground level only, with no aerial inspection or any decay detection

equipment used. This report is relevant to the time and date of the survey only.

5

2.3 Our report is prepared to assist in the design of development layouts. As

such the report will clearly identify the constraints (both under and above

ground), the quality of the site’s significant vegetation, its contribution to public

amenity and any other constraints particular specimens may offer to the site in

terms of proposed development. The report is a preliminary assessment and

does not include detailed recommendations for tree preservation during and after

construction.

3.0 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 The Proposal site is situated on the south western edge of Hullbridge. It consists

of several arable and pasture fields. The ground is fairly level with proposed

access routes to the south and east.

3.2 The site’s surroundings are described as follows: The northern boundary is

bordered by a road and existing properties. The eastern boundary is bordered by

existing properties. The southern boundary is bordered by a road and the western

boundary is bordered by arable and pasture fields. The proposed access route to

the south is a new access from Lower Road and the proposed access route to

the east is the extension of an already existing road (Malyons Lane) that

accesses neighbouring residences.

3.3 Along the northern boundary runs a broken, mixed species hedge with occasional

mature trees. The eastern site boundaries are bordered by neighbouring

gardens. Along the southern boundary runs a continuous mixed species hedge

and trees of various ages. The western boundaries are bordered by mainly

continuous mixed species hedges and occasional mature trees.

3.4 There are a few field boundary hedges within the site, mainly continuous and

consisting of mixed species.

6

4.0 TREE APPRAISAL

4.1 The site contains a range of species varying in condition, age and quality.

4.2 Seven trees (T6, T11-13 inclusive, T20, T24 and T28) and one hedge (H2) have

been categorised as being of moderate quality providing screening, skyline and

amenity values.

4.3 It would be advisable to retain these trees and hedges where it is practical, due to

their importance within the local landscape which will help to soften the visual

impact of future development.

4.4 Twenty trees (T1-4, T8-10, T14-17, T19, T22-23, T25-27, and T29-31), five

groups (G1-5) and four hedges (H1, H3-5) have been categorised as trees of low

quality with little arboricultural, landscape or conservation value.

4.5 Off-site trees have been identified in close proximity. These should present no

constraint to development in terms of calculated RPAs and canopy spreads. All

offsite trees must be healthily retained unless suitable permission is sought from

the owners. Suitable protective measures will be required to protect RPAs and

canopy spreads.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Trees detailed in the tree survey schedule at Appendix 2 have been visually

inspected (see note 2.1 Appendix 1), and the following key on-site constraints

should be highlighted. Site boundary trees and hedges should be retained and

will be a high priority for protection by the LPA. They will seek protection of these

trees and hedges and the suitable measures for the protection of the tree root

protection area. There will be concerns in respect to any development with the

minimum distance calculations and any incursion within this zone may be

resisted by the LPA.

7

5.2 In the event that incursion is unavoidable, there is a risk of increased

construction costs from specialist construction approaches. Damage to

anchor roots may destabilise the tree and this may cause a CDM risk in terms of

the increased risk of the tree falling in a storm.

Simon Smith

Senior Professional Arboriculturist

For and on behalf of JBA Consultancy Services Ltd

8

Appendix 1

Tree Survey Assessment Guidelines and Design Considerations

1.0 TREE SURVEY GUIDE

A1.1 Trees detailed in the tree survey schedule at Appendix 2 have been visually

inspected from ground level only. No aerial inspection has been made, nor has

any decay detection equipment been used.

A1.2 While general comments may be made regarding lower storey trees and shrubs,

only the significant vegetation has been assessed in detail. Trees are detailed in

the schedule either as individuals or as part of a group/woodland as appropriate.

A1.3 Tree details recorded include: their identification number corresponding to their

position on the site plan; species (English name); an estimated height; crown

radius (given for each aspect); height above ground level of lowest branches; an

assessment of the tree’s maturity; a measured trunk diameter at 1.5m above

ground level; calculated root protection radius and area (Table 2 of The BS); a

general description of overall condition; an assessment of the tree’s suitable

longevity; a quality grading (Table 1 of The BS) and some relevant comments

regarding each tree where this is helpful.

A1.4 For your assistance a summary of the system used to grade trees is provided

below:

U grade – trees unsuitable for retention.

A grade – trees of high quality and value, effective for more than 40 years.

B grade – trees of moderate quality and value and/or those estimated to be

suitably retained for 20 to 40 years.

C grade – trees of low quality and value and/or those estimated to be suitably

retained for 10 to 20 years.

A1.5 With reference to the grading system above: Category U trees are those which

for arboricultural or current site reasons should be considered for removal

9

irrespective of development proposals. Category C trees are those which

would not normally be considered a reasonable constraint on proposed

development. Category B trees are those which make a long-term and

substantial contribution to the character and appearance of an area and should

therefore ideally be designed around; Category A trees are particularly good

examples of their species, rare or unusual or an essential component of the

landscape. They should be retained and protected.

A1.6 The appended schedule provides a Root Protection Radius (RPR) in centimetres

Root Protection Area (RPA) in square metres. The RPA is the volume of soil that

contains sufficient rooting area to ensure the survival of a tree. The most suitable

way, therefore, to protect a tree is to maintain this area undisturbed throughout

the course of development. However as this ideal situation is not always

reasonable and practicable your attention is drawn to the facility within The BS

that allows for the RPA to be manoeuvred around a tree to a tolerance of 20%

where considered appropriate and where the total RPA is not reduced. In

addition accommodation is also made within The BS for hard standing areas,

(e.g. drives, parking bays and paths) to be constructed within the assessed RPA.

However, this will be subject to arboricultural assessment and implementation of

specially engineered construction methods.

DESIGN CONSTRAINTS AND ADVICE PERTAINING TO TREE ISSUES

A1.7 Consideration should be given to existing site features, natural and man-made

topography and structures that can restrict tree root growth in any direction

causing deeper rooting or a concentration of growth in other directions. In some

situations it may be appropriate to manoeuvre the RPA in excess of the 20%

detailed above if site conditions are expected to have had a significant impact on

rooting habit. Such an assessment must be carried out by an arboriculturist.

A1.8 The BS also accepts that the construction of substantial structures within the

RPA of retained trees may be necessary. It will be important however, to

10

consider at the outset of design that continuous open trenching will not be

acceptable within the RPA as set out by the arboriculturist. However,

subject to arboricultural advice, foundations involving piles, pads or slabs

cantilevered as appropriate may be engineered to avoid conflicts with retained

trees. This is on the basis that ground beams or similar are positioned at or

above existing ground levels, which is likely to impact upon internal floor levels

and ridge heights.

A1.9 It should also to be recognised that the design layout needs to provide a realistic

juxtaposition between retained trees and proposed dwellings (or the requirement

for deep excavations such as those for basement accommodation).

Consideration should be given to the potential for retained trees to increase in

size and the implications this may have on structures or living conditions. The

design should make a suitable balance between the amenity benefits of trees to

the scheme and to the surrounding landscape, the potential for conflict or

inconvenience to development and its future inhabitants and the most efficient

use of land.

- 11 -

Appendix 2

Tree Survey Schedule

- 12 -

Tree Schedule Explanatory Notes

Tree ID Identifies trees, groups and hedges on the accompanying plan.

Common Name Common names of species are provided to aid wider comprehension.

Maturity Mature, Semi-mature, Young.

Likely Bat Habitat Whether the tree provides potential suitable bat habitat.

Measurements estimated Restricted access will result in measurements being estimated.

Height Describes the approximate height of the tree measured in metres from ground level.

Height and Direction of first significant branch

The height of first significant branch and compass direction.

Number of stems Number of stems

Stem diameter at 1.5m Stem diameter measured in accordance with BS5837:2012 in mm.

Crown Spread Indicates the crown radius from the base of the tree in four compass directions in metres.

Condition Condition of Crown, Stem and Basal Area. Characterised as Good, Poor and Fair.

BS Category B.S. Cat refers to (BS 5837:2012 Table 1) and refers to tree/overall group quality and value; 'A' - High; 'B' - Moderate; 'C' - Low; 'U' - Remove.

Life Expectancy Estimated remaining years categorised in year bands of <10, 10+, 20+, 40+.

BS Sub Category Sub Cat refers to the retention criteria values where 1 is arboricultural, 2 is landscape and 3 is cultural including conservational, historic and commemorative.

Physical Condition Overall condition of tree expressed as: Good, Fair, Poor, Decline, Dead.

Preliminary Tree Work Recommendations Tree works recommended following the tree survey in order to aid future inspections, remove any hazards or to enhance the trees future.

Tree

Ref.

No.

Species

(Common

Name)

Height

(m)N E S W

Grnd

Clrnc

DBH

(mm)

RPR

(cm)

RPA

(m)

Age

class

Gen

Cond

Structural

Defects/Comments

Estimated

remaining

contribution

(BS 5837)

BS CatBS Sub

Cat

Prelim Tree Work

Recommendations

T1 Oak 10 5 4 6 4 2 400 480 72.35 M G some major deadwood 40+ C 2remove major

deadwood

T2 Hawthorn 5 2 2 2 2 0 185 222 15.48 M G 40+ C 2

T3 Cherry 6 4 4 4 4 2 200 240 18.09 M Gextends over boundary

1m40+ C 2

T4Norway Spruce

'Glauca'5 2 2 1.5 1.5 0 200 240 18.09 S/M G 40+ C 2

T5 twisted willow 4.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 300 360 40.69 S/M P damage to stem <10 U 1 remove

T6 Oak 10 5 6 4 5 3 350 420 55.39 M G ivy in crown 40+ B 2 sever ivy

T7 Oak 11.00 4 7 4 5 3 400 480 72.35 O/M psevere chlorosis major

deadwood ivy in crown<10 U 3 remove

T8 Oak 10 4 4 4 5 2 350 420 55.39 M G ivy in crown 40+ C 2 remove ivy

T9 Oak 10 6 5 5 5 0 400 480 72.35 S/M G Ivy Covered 20-30 C 2

T10 field maple 10 3 3 3 3 2 180 216 14.65 M Gmulti stemmed tree in

good condition.40+ C 2

T11 oak 12 5 8 6 8 2 480 576 104.18 M G ivy covered 40+ B 2 remove ivy

Canopy Spread

Site:Hullbridge Client:Southern and Regional Developments Ltd Date: sep 2014 Job No: JBA10.252 Surveyed by: AT Tagged No. Weather Sunny

Tree

Ref.

No.

Species

(Common

Name)

Height

(m)N E S W

Grnd

Clrnc

DBH

(mm)

RPR

(cm)

RPA

(m)

Age

class

Gen

Cond

Structural

Defects/Comments

Estimated

remaining

contribution

(BS 5837)

BS CatBS Sub

Cat

Prelim Tree Work

Recommendations

Canopy Spread

Site:Hullbridge Client:Southern and Regional Developments Ltd Date: sep 2014 Job No: JBA10.252 Surveyed by: AT Tagged No. Weather Sunny

T12 Oak 10 4 4 4 4 3 380 456 65.29 M G 40+ B 2

T13 Oak 12 6 9 8 3 3 400 480 72.35 M G minor ivy on trunk 40+ B 2

T14 Norway maple 13 6 5 6 3 4 400 480 72.35 M G offsite 40+ C 2

T15 oak 10 8 5 6 8 2 400 480 72.35 O/M f

hole on eastern side with

severe decay in trunk

and branches

recommend bat

20-0 C 02-Mar

T16 Norway maple 9 6 7 5 5 2 300 360 40.69 M G 40+ C 2

T17 Norway maple 13 9 9 9 9 0 300 360 40.69 M G ivy covered 40+ C 2

T18 weeping willow 12 10 12 9 9 1 500 600 113.04 M F

large tree impeding other

treess in partial state of

collape

<10 U 2 remove

T19 Oak 9 7 7 7 7 2 300 360 40.69 M G 40+ C 2

T20 Oak 12 10 3 12 12 2 400 480 72.35 M G some major deadwood 40+ B 2

T21 Oak 10 5 7 7 7 4 450 540 91.56 M psubstantial damage to

western stem <10 U 3 remove

T22 Weeping Willow 9 5 5 5 5 0 380 456 65.29 M G >40 C 2

T23 Weeping Willow 9 5 5 5 5 1 300 360 40.69 M G >40 C 2

T24 Oak 10 7 7 7 7 2 400 480 72.35 M G 40+ B 2

Tree

Ref.

No.

Species

(Common

Name)

Height

(m)N E S W

Grnd

Clrnc

DBH

(mm)

RPR

(cm)

RPA

(m)

Age

class

Gen

Cond

Structural

Defects/Comments

Estimated

remaining

contribution

(BS 5837)

BS CatBS Sub

Cat

Prelim Tree Work

Recommendations

Canopy Spread

Site:Hullbridge Client:Southern and Regional Developments Ltd Date: sep 2014 Job No: JBA10.252 Surveyed by: AT Tagged No. Weather Sunny

T25 Oak 12 8 9 7 8 1 400 480 72.35 M G Deadwood 40+ C 2

T26 Oak 14 9 8 7 8 2 1200 1440 651.11 O/M F

Large cavity in base,

tree has high bat

potential

40+ C 2

T27 Oak 15 7 9 8 9 1 400 480 72.35 M F Multi stemmed 40+ C 2

T28 Oak 14 6 8 9 10 2 1000 1200 452.16 M FOffsite tree, large hole at

base, major deadwood40+ B 2

T29 Oak 14 7 6 6 5.5 4 380 456 65.29 M G minor ivy on trunk 40+ C 2

T30 Eucalyptus 16 7 7 7 7 4 400 480 72.35 M G

Climb and inspection

suggested for possible

decay issues.

40+ C 2

T31 Ash 16 9 9 9 9 4 400 480 72.35 M G

Climb and inspection

suggested for possible

decay issues.

40+ C 2

G1 Leyandii 7 3 3 3 3 0 300 360 40.69 M FBroken branches. Old

ash coppice40+ C 2

G2Ash Rowan

Hawthorn12 4 3 4 3 0 200 240 18.09 Y G

Broken branches. Old

ash coppice10-20 C 2 remove broken branch

G3Maple sycamore

leylandii7 3 3 3 3 0 200 240 18.09 M F group of trees off site 40+ C 2

G4hawthorn elm

holly5 2 2 2 2 0 175 210 13.85 M g

mixture of ornamental

trees and shrubs40+ C 2

G5Birch and norway

maple8 3 3 3 3 0 200 240 18.09 M F

mixture of ornamental

trees and shrubs40+ C 2

H1Elm, hawthorn

and elder2 1 1 1 1 0 175 210 13.85 M G Agricultural hedge 40+ C 2

Tree

Ref.

No.

Species

(Common

Name)

Height

(m)N E S W

Grnd

Clrnc

DBH

(mm)

RPR

(cm)

RPA

(m)

Age

class

Gen

Cond

Structural

Defects/Comments

Estimated

remaining

contribution

(BS 5837)

BS CatBS Sub

Cat

Prelim Tree Work

Recommendations

Canopy Spread

Site:Hullbridge Client:Southern and Regional Developments Ltd Date: sep 2014 Job No: JBA10.252 Surveyed by: AT Tagged No. Weather Sunny

H2hawthorn

blackthorn elm3 2 2 1.5 1.5 0 150 180 10.17 M G agricultural hedge 40+ B 1

bat survey, aerial h+s

survey

H3Blackthorn

hawthorn elm3 2 2 2 2 0 175 210 13.85 M G Agricultural hedge 40+ C 2

H4elm hawthorn

blackthorn4 2 2 2 2 0 200 240 18.09 M G Agricultural hedge 40+ C 2

H5elm hawthorn

blackthorn3.5 2 2 2 2 0 175 210 13.85 M G Agricultural hedge 40+ C 2

H6Blackthorn,

Hawthorn,4 2 2 2 2 0 200 240 18.09 M G Agricultural hedge 40+ C 2

- 13 - 13

Appendix 3

Tree Constraints Plan