arboricultural impact assessment report for: … · arboricultural impact assessment report: former...

ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR:

Former Porcupine Public House 24 Mottingham Road London SE9 4QW

INSTRUCTING PARTY:

Lidl UK London South Property Office 1st Floor, 33 Aberconway Road Morden Surrey SM4 5LN

REPORT PREPARED BY

Adam Hollis MSc ARB MICFor FArbor A MRICS C Env

Ref: LDL/24MRAIA/02b

Date: 12th February 2019

The content and format of this report are for the exclusive use of the client in planning. It may not be sold, lent, hired out or divulged to any third party, not directly involved in the subject matter without Landmark Trees’ written consent

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report: Former Porcupine Public House, 24 Mottingham Road, London, SE9 4QW Instructing party: Lidl UK, London South Property Office, 1st Floor, 33 Aberconway Road, Morden, Surrey SM4 5LN Prepared by: Adam Hollis of Landmark Trees, Holden House, 4th Floor, 57 Rathbone Place, London W1T 4JU

2

PART 1: MAIN TEXT Section Content Page No 1.0 SUMMARY 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION 4 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 6 4.0 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS 11 5.0 ARBORICULTURAL IMPACTS 14 6.0 DISCUSSION 16 7.0 CONCLUSION 18 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 19 9.0 REFERENCES 20 PART 2 - APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Survey Data 22 APPENDIX 2 Recommended Tree Works 24 APPENDIX 3 Recommended Tree Works to Facilitate Development 26 APPENDIX 4 Trees for Urban Sites 28

PART 3 - PLANS

PLAN 1 Tree Constraints Plan 30 PLAN 2 Impact Assessment Plan(s) 32 PLAN 3 Landscape Plan 34


3

1. SUMMARY 1.1 There are two trees on within the application site that are within close proximity to the proposals and

therefore need to be assessed herein. 1.2 One tree is a category B/C (Moderate / Low Quality) English oak and the other is a category U

(Unsuitable for Retention) common hawthorn. Both trees are subject to a Tree Preservation Order and the local authority strongly wishes to see them retained through development. Though the quality of these trees may be debated, it seems agreed in the correspondence (CG/TPO/2556 2/10/13) that their current amenity contribution to the surrounding area is limited: it is the future contribution that the LPA is looking to secure. It is our assumption that such a hypothetical contribution is exchangeable with other trees (replanting), if sufficient accommodation can be made for them in the proposals. The fact of the TPO designation should not mislead us into perceiving any special amenity value in these, at best, moderate quality trees. There is nothing unique in T’s 1 & 2 to dictate that they should supply the conditional future the LPA is looking to secure. Indeed, it is our view, that they are sufficiently compromised in health and structure to place at least a question mark over their consideration in such a role.

1.3 The report has assessed the impacts of the development proposals and concludes there would be at most a medium-low level impact over the short-medium term: It is necessary to fell both trees which, despite their designation, make only a modest contribution to the amenity of the area. The substantive landscaping proposals will replace and indeed surpass this contribution over the medium term.

1.4 In conclusion, the proposal, through the provision of the above mitigation, will have very limited impact on the treescape of the area over the medium term and is acceptable.

* British Standards Institute: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction BS 5837: 2012 HMSO, London


4

2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Terms of Reference

2.1.1 This Arboricultural Impact Assessment report has been prepared by Landmark Trees (LT) on behalf of Lidl UK (‘the Applicant’), to support a full planning application submitted to the London Borough of Bromley (‘LBB’).

2.1.2 The application relates to the provision of a new retail store. Specifically, full planning permission is sought for:

“Demolition of the public house and erection of a new food store (Lidi) with a 749sq.m sales

floor area and 33 parking spaces.” 2.1.3 This report will assess the impact on the trees and their constraints, identified in our survey.

Although the proposals were known at the time of the survey, Landmark Trees endeavour to survey each site blind, working from a topographical survey, wherever possible, with the constraints plan informing their evolution.

2.1.4 I am a Registered Consultant and Fellow of the Arboricultural Association and a Chartered Forester, with a Masters Degree in Arboriculture and 25 years’ experience of the landscape industry - including the Forestry Commission and Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. I am a UK Registered Expert Witness, trained in single and joint expert witness duties. I am also Chairman of the UK & I Regional Plant Appraisal Committee, inaugurated to promote international standards of valuation in arboriculture.

2.2 Drawings Supplied

2.2.1 The drawings supplied by the client and relied upon by Landmark Trees in the formulation of our survey plans are:

Existing site survey: Existing Site Plan PL 01 Proposed Site Plan SK 500 V1.4A2


5

2.3 Scope & Limitations of Survey

2.3.1 As Landmark Trees’ (LT) arboricultural consultant, I updated the survey of the trees on site

on 3rd December 2018, recording relevant qualitative data in order to assess both their

suitability for retention and their constraints upon the site, in accordance with British

Standard 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction –

Recommendations [BS5837:2012].

2.3.2 Our survey of the trees, the soils and any other factors, is of a preliminary nature. The trees

were SURVEYED on the basis of the Visual Tree Assessment method expounded by

Mattheck and Breloer (The Body Language of Trees, DoE booklet Research for Amenity

Trees No. 4, 1994). LT have not taken any samples for analysis and the trees were not

climbed, but inspected from ground level.

2.3.3 A tree survey is generally considered invalid in planning terms after 2 years, but changes in

tree condition may occur at any time, particularly after acute (e.g. storm events) or

prolonged (e.g. drought) environmental stresses or injuries (e.g. root severance). Routine

surveys at different times of the year and within two - three years of each other (subject to

the incidence of the above stresses) are recommended for the health and safety

management of trees remote from highways or busy access routes. Annual surveys are

recommended for the latter.

2.3.4 The survey does not cover the arrangements that may be required in connection with the

laying or removal of underground services.

2.4 Survey Data & Report Layout

2.4.1 Detailed records of individual trees are given in the survey schedule in Appendix 1. General

husbandry recommendations are distinguished at Appendix 2 from minimum requirements

to facilitate development which form part of the planning application at Appendix 3. The

former may still be relevant to providing a safe site of work, of course. Planning

considerations notwithstanding, we trust these necessary recommendations are passed on

to relevant parties with due diligence and the trees be managed appropriately.

2.4.2 A site plan identifying the surveyed trees, based on the Instructing Party’s drawings /

topographical survey is provided in Part 3 of this report. This plan also serves as the Tree

Constraints Plan with the theoretical Recommended Protection Areas (RPA’s), tree

canopies and shade constraints, (from BS5837: 2012) overlain onto it. These constraints

are then overlain in turn onto the Instructing Party’s proposals to create a second

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Plan in Part 3. General observations and discussion

follow, below.


6

3.0 OBSERVATIONS

3.1 Site Description

Photograph 1: View of Former Porcupine Public House, 24 Mottingham Road, London, SE9 4QW (Source: Google Maps).

3.1.1 The site comprises land occupied by the former Porcupine Public House, located within the

local centre of Mottingham on the Mottingham Road. The site is bounded by the road to the

north, a motorcycle showroom to the north-west and residential properties to the south-west

and south-east. As Photograph 1 shows, the site is currently secured by hoarding which is

likely to remain in place until it is redeveloped. This clearly reduces the visibility of the trees

on site from Mottingham Road.

3.1.2 The site is relatively level.

3.1.3 In terms of the British Geological Survey, the site overlies the sands and gravels of the

Harwich Formation. However, they can be locally associated with the clays of the

susceptible London Clay Formation.

3.1.4 Sand and gravel soils are less prone to compaction during development with a more

resilient soil structure than clay. Nonetheless, the design of foundations near problematic

tree species may still need to take into consideration the subsidence / heave risk of the

underlying clay. Further advice from the relevant experts on the specific soil properties can

be sought as necessary.


7

Figure 1: Extract from the BGS Geology of Britain Viewer

3.2 Subject Trees

3.2.1 Two trees were surveyed, an early matre category B/C (Moderate / Low Quality) English oak

and a mature category U (Unsuitable for Retention) common hawthorn.

*page 9 of: British Standards Institute: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction BS 5837: 2012 HMSO, London

Photograph 2: Hawthorn T1 looking Southwards, note the break in canopy

profile, left of centre: a sign of structural and physiological weakness.


8

Photograph 3: Decay clearly evident at base of T1 Photograph 4: Decay at W base of T1: probe will

pass through E stem and into W base

Photograph 5: Oak Tree T2 looking North west, tree is semi-mature

18-35 years old with lost lead stem from 2m. Note low lateral limbs

especially to south are as long as the vertical ones with which they compete.

Tree has no self-control / apical dominance left with loss of leader.

Hence the plethora of growth defects.


9

Photographs 6 and 7: Unprofessional lopping of the overhanging branches of T2, causing splits, dieback and decay.

Photograph 8: Damage from Pruning of T2 Photograph 9: Included bark within grafted branches on T2

3.2.4 T1 is a mature, multi-stem hawthorn with extensive basal decay and a broken canopy

profile. The tree is neither a hazard nor requires immediate felling, but has an irremediable

defect in this condition: it is already possible to pass a blunt steel probe through the base of

the eastern stem and on into the base of the western stem.

3.2.5 T2 is a semi-mature oak of c. 15-35yrs age with a lost lead stem, erratic habit of crossing,

grafted branches, included bark in main unions and unsightly lopping and topping of the

western crown with subsequent dieback and decay of residual branch stubs. This is an

inherently flawed tree that would take a lifetime of formative pruning to untangle its knots

and restore balance. Neither rear garden tree is prominent in the landscape at <10m height.


10

3.2.4 Full details of the surveyed trees can be found in Appendix 1 of this report.

3.2.5 There are recommended works for both on-site trees. These are listed in Appendix 2.

3.3 Planning Status

3.3.1 Both trees are subject to Tree Preservation Order no. 2556 (dated 26th July 2013): it is a

criminal offence to prune, damage or fell such trees without permission from the local

authority.

3.3.2 Relevant local planning policies comprise Policy 7.21 of the London Plan 2016 and Policy

73 NE3 and NE7 of LBB’s 2019 Local Plan.


11

4.0 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS

4.1 Primary Constraints

4.1.1 BS5837: 2012 gives Recommended Protection Areas (RPA’s) for any given tree size. The

individual RPA’s are calculated in the Tree Schedule in Appendix 1 to this report, or rather

the notional radius of that RPA, based on a circular protection zone. The prescribed radius

is 12-x stem diameter at 1.5m above ground level, except where composite formulae are

used in the case of multi-stemmed trees.

4.1.2 Circular RPA’s are appropriate for individual specimen trees grown freely, but where there is

ground disturbance, the morphology of the RPA can be modified to an alternative polygon,

as shown in the diagram below (Figure 2). Alternatively, one need principally remember that

RPA’s are area-based and not linear – notional rather than fixed entities.

4.1.3 In BS5837, paragraph 4.6.2 states that RPA's should reflect the morphology and disposition

of the roots; where pre-existing site conditions or other factors indicate that rooting has

occurred asymmetrically, a polygon of equivalent area should be produced. Modifications to

the shape of the RPA should reflect a soundly based arboricultural assessment of likely root

distribution.

4.1.4 No a priroi modifications have been made in this instance, though further

investigations are recommended, where the proposals encroach / come near RPA

and their modification could have a bearing on the impact assessment.

Figure 2 – Generic BS 5837 RPA Adjustments


12

4.1.5 The quality of trees will also be a consideration: U Category trees are discounted from the

planning process in view of their limited service life. Again, Category-C trees would not

normally constrain development individually, unless they provide some external screening

function.

4.1.6 At paragraph 5.1.1. BS5837: 2012 notes that “Care should be exercised over misplaced tree

preservation; attempts to retain too many or unsuitable trees on a site are liable to result in

excessive pressure on the trees during demolition or construction work, or post-completion

demands on their removal.”

4.1.7 Only moderate quality trees and above are significant material constraints on development.

However, low quality trees comprise a constraint in aggregate, in terms of any collective

loss / removal, where replacement planting is generally considered appropriate.

4.1.8 In this instance, the TPO designation should not mislead us into perceiving any special

amenity value in these, at best, moderate quality trees. The legislation allows for the

protection of relatively modest trees for reasons of expediency (a perceived threat to trees

on a site). It is important to fully appreciate that modest trees do not suddenly take a special

amenity value, because it has been deemed expedient to protect them with a statutory

instrument. Thus, they are constraints upon development because it will be harder to secure

their removal, but they are no more, nor less intrinsically suitable healthy, sound or suitable

for retention than as judged in a BS5837 appraisal.

4.2 Secondary Constraints

4.2.1 The second type of constraint produced by

trees that are to be retained is that the

proximity of the proposed development to the

trees should not threaten their future with ever

increasing demands for tree surgery or felling

to remove nuisance shading (Figure 3),

honeydew deposition or perceived risk of

harm.

Figure 3 – Generic Shading Constraints


13

4.2.2 The shading constraints are crudely determined

from BS5837 by drawing an arc from northwest

to east of the stem base at a distance equal to

the height of the tree, as shown in the diagram

opposite. Shade is less of a constraint on non-

residential developments, particularly where

rooms are only ever temporarily occupied.

4.2.3 This arc (see Figure 4) represents the effects that a tree will have on layout through shade,

based on shadow patterns of 1x tree height for a period May to Sept inclusive 10.00-18.00

hrs daily.

4.2.4 Both trees have the potential to provide a variety of secondary constraints, including

shading, organic deposition and the potential need to further maintain canopy clearance in

the future with T2 in particular being a nuisance to the neighbours. The significance of these

constraints will vary depending on the location and proximity to the proposed re-

development which is considered below (in Sections 5 & 6). As specified by BS5837, this

section (4) of the report considers only the site as it is, not in the light of pending proposals.

Note: Sections 5 & 6 below will now assess the impacts of the proposals upon constraints

identified in Section 4 above. Table 1 in Section 5 presents the impacts in tabular form (drawing upon

survey data presented in Appendices 1 & 2). Impacts are presented in terms of whole tree removal and

the effect on the landscape or partial encroachment (% of RPA) and its effect on individual tree health.

Section 6 discusses the table data, elaborating upon the impacts’ significance and mitigation.

Figure 4 – Shading Arc

Age GrowthVitalityB.S. Cat. SpeciesTree No. Impact Tree / RPA

AffectedSpecies

ToleranceImpact on

Tree RatingImpact onSite Rating Mitigation

Hide irrelevant Show All TreesTable 1: Arboricultural Impact Assessment(Impacts assessed prior to mitigation and rated with reference to Matheny & Clark (1998)) Ref: LDL_24MR_AIA

5.0

Mature ModerateU Hawthorn,Common

1 Felled to FacilitateDevelopment N/A

N/A N/A Very Low New planting /landscaping%

m2

Early Mature ModerateB/C Oak, English2 Felled to FacilitateDevelopment N/A

N/A N/A Medium-Low

New planting /landscaping%

m2


15

6.0 DISCUSSION

6.1 Rating of Primary Impacts

6.1.1 The proposals require the removal of both trees. The extensive landscaping / replacement

proposals mean that the impact of this loss will be of a low-medium level over the short term

with betterment provided over the medium-long term.

6.1.2 The replanting scheme shown in Part 3 of this report will offer considerable enhancement

and replaces trees of inherently compromised structure. Replacement trees will have the

advantage of being specifically selected for the proposed site, healthy and fit-for-purpose.

Design can provide for a diverse range of native and ornamental species that will

compliment rather than conflict with the proposals, so providing a more sustainable long-

term resource for the future.

6.1.3 In more subjective terms, it seems clear to me that the new planting will provide a better

quality of contribution too. The previous assessment of these trees as of moderate quality,

was flawed, when obvious defects that down grade the trees were overlooked. In our view T’s

1 & 2 should be rated Category U & C, respectively. The fact of the TPO designation does

not alter this categorisation, though it does suggest that there is an anomaly here. One could

present an argument for preserving such trees on a nature reserve or more rural park, but

otherwise a rational decision has to be made. If one sets aside for the moment, the specific

Lidl development, the question must be asked, are T’s 1 & 2 really the sort of trees one wants

to retain in a local centre through development? Stepping aside from the politics of this

particular scheme, I think the answer can only be a resounding ‘No.’

6.1.4 There is undeniably something intrinsic in the cultural resonance of an oak tree that clouds

our judgement, but there is no denying the loss of lead stem, the erratic habit of crossing,

grafted branches, the included bark in main unions, the unsightly lopping and topping of the

western crown and subsequent dieback and decay of residual branch stubs. The main thing

this tree has going for it, is that it is the only oak on site. Were it growing in a stand of oaks,

where a forester had to make a rational decision, unclouded by sentimentality, he / she would

have no qualms about removing it as a rogue tree. Granted this is not a forest stand, but we

do have a duty to try to see things as they really are, in making objective planning judgments:

this is an inherently flawed, 18-35 year old, semi-mature tree that would take a lifetime of

formative pruning to untangle its knots and restore balance.


16

6.1.5 The formative pruning requirements would be onerous and extravagant: every time a tree

surgeon drives his truck out and fuels his truck and chipper, he casually burns off a few

gallons of fossils fuels that the tree will almost certainly never return to the balance sheet in its

delivery of environmental services (ESD).

6.1.6 Research for iTree valuation models has confirmed that individual tree deliveries are minimal.

It is the resource in the round that needs to be managed for ESD’s. It is worth noting in

passing, that each gallon of petrol used in a chain saw or chipper came from c. 100

carboniferous pine trees. We will never reconcile the resource balance sheet, while we

continue to preserve compromised trees in this way. Given that the tree is only semi-mature

(18-35 years old) and yet to establish fully in the landscape, there is still accost-effective

window to remove it and replace with a more promising and suitable specimen. If nothing

else, the brutal hacking of the tree’s western crown stands testimony to its unsuitability for its

current location: the only people who can really see the tree are not at all keen on its

presence.

6.1.7 In my view, neither T1 nor T2 is a significant material constraint on development (TPO

notwithstanding). However, their removal must always be conditional on what (new planting)

is to be offered by way of mitigation. Though the quality of these trees may be debated, it

seems agreed in the correspondence (CG/TPO/2556 2/10/13) that their current amenity

contribution to the surrounding area is limited: it is the future contribution that the LPA is

looking to secure. It is our assumption that such a hypothetical contribution is exchangeable

with other trees (replanting), if sufficient accommodation can be made for them in the

proposals. The fact of the TPO designation should not mislead us into perceiving any special

amenity value in these, at best, moderate quality trees. There is nothing unique in T’s 1 & 2 to

dictate that they should supply the conditional future the LPA is looking to secure. Indeed, it is

our view, that they are sufficiently compromised in health and structure to place at least a

question mark over their consideration in such a role. In my view both the quantity and quality

of new planting delivers ample mitigation: there will clearly be a marked difference in the

quality of new planting proposed and the condition of this old hawthorn tree that would stand

in the way.


17

6.2 Rating of Secondary Impacts

6.2.1 The new planting scheme will ensure that all secondary constraints are minimised, using

compact/columnar species of tree where appropriate. The columnar trees listed in Appendix

4 should rarely require any pruning once in place. They have been selected for their

graceful profile and are unlikely to cause offence to neighbours or obstruction to site users.

The planting specification will recommend root barrier around the site to allay any fears of

root trespass. This is a 21st century planting scheme, rooted in natural resource

management, to supersede the mistakes of the past.

6.3 Mitigation of Impacts

6.3.1 The landscape impact of tree losses will be offset by the landscape proposals, ideally

involving new planting of ornamental varieties of native species, and where appropriate with

columnar or compact form. A selection of columnar tree species cultivars for constricted

sites is provided in Appendix 4.

6.3.2 To provide the new trees on site with suitable growing conditions to function efficiently, it is

proposed to designate the ground beneath the hard surfacing (in addition to the shrub beds)

as growing medium. The paving section will be constructed in such a way to allow a suitable

bearing ratio without compacting the soil below them. Mitigation could thus incorporate a

design with TreeBunkers or Silvacells and / or structural soil that will allow the full provision of

topsoil across this large area as one continuous planting pit. The finished paviours would be

of porous design to allow the infiltration of rainwater and exchange of gases.


18

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The two trees on site have very limited landscape value, in addition to significant decay and

poor conformation. The trees do not currently confer significant amenity value upon the

surrounding area. They are readily replaceable trees.

7.2 The TPO designation has been rationalised upon the principle of securing a hypothetical future

contribution from the existing trees (after growth). However, that future is undermined by the

defects inherent in the trees conformation. There is no reason that the conditional future cannot

be supplied by alternative trees that are not structurally compromised. Indeed, there is no

reason the scheme cannot deliver betterment.

7.3 Construction will allow the installation of an ideal growing medium to maintain health and

support growth below porous paving.

7.4 Therefore, the proposals will not have any significant impact on the wider landscape thereby

complying with Policy 7.21 of the London Plan 2016 and Policy 73 NE3 and NE7 of LBB’s 2019

Local Plan. Thus, in terms of arboricultural impacts, the scheme is recommended to planning.


19

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Specific Recommendations

8.1.1 Tree works recommendations in Appendix 2 are not part of the current application, but

requirements of general maintenance that will need to be applied for (subject to para. 3.3 of

this report and any other relevant constraints in planning or leasehold) by the client

separately. Consent for the current planning application does not impart any consent for the

Appendix 2 maintenance works. Please note, though, the owner and / or manager of a

property have a duty to maintain a safe site of work and to protect occupiers of the

surrounding land / members of the public from tree hazards. Works recommended in this

report should be enacted in a timely fashion by the relevant party regardless of the progress

of the development.

8.1.2 Recommendations for works required to facilitate development are found in Appendix 3 and

a selection of columnar tree species cultivars for constricted sites provided in Appendix 4.

Any tree removals recommended within this report should only be carried out with local

authority consent.

8.1.3 Replace felled trees with native ornamental nursery stock under current best practice; i.e.

conforming to and planted in accordance with the following:

BS8545: 2014 Code of Practice for Trees from Nursery to Landscape

BS 3936-1: 1992 Nursery stock. Specification for trees and shrubs; and

BS 5236:1975 Cultivation and Planting of Trees in the Advanced Nursery Stock

Category.

All replacement stock should be planted and maintained as detailed in BS

4428:1989 (Section 7): Recommendations for General Landscape Operations.


20

9.0 REFERENCES

Barlow JF & Harrison G. 1999. Shade By Trees, Arboricultural Practice Note 5, AAIS, Farnham, Surrey.

British Standards Institute. 2012. Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations

BS 5837: 2012 HMSO, London.

Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. 2006. Tree Roots in the Built Environment, HMSO, London.

Helliwell R (1980) Provision for New Trees; Landscape Design; July/August issue

International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). 1994. The Landscape Below Ground. ISA, Champaign, Ilinois. USA.

Lonsdale D 1999. Research for Amenity Trees No.7: Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management,

HMSO, London.

Matheny, N; Clark, J. R.1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees during Land

Development. ISA, Champaign, Ilinois. USA.

Mattheck C. & Breloer H. 1994. Research for Amenity Trees No.2: The Body Language of Trees, HMSO,

London.

Thomas P, 2000 & 2014. Trees: Their Natural History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Trowbridge J & Bassuk N (2004) Trees in the Urban Landscape: Site Assessment, Design, and Installation; J

Wiley & Sons inc. NJ USA

Caveats This report is primarily an arboricultural report. Whilst comments relating to matters involving built structures or soil data may appear, any opinion thus

expressed should be viewed as qualified, and confirmation from an appropriately qualified professional sought. Such points are usually clearly identified

within the body of the report. It is not a full safety survey or subsidence risk assessment survey. These services can be provided but a further fee would be

payable. Where matters of tree condition with a safety implication are noted during a survey they will of course appear in the report.

A tree survey is generally considered invalid in planning terms after 2 years, but changes in tree condition may occur at any time, particularly after acute

(e.g. storm events) or prolonged (e.g. drought) environmental stresses or injuries (e.g. root severance). Routine surveys at different times of the year and

within two - three years of each other (subject to the incidence of the above stresses) are recommended for the health and safety management of trees

remote from highways or busy access routes. Annual surveys are recommended for the latter.

Tree works recommendations are found in the Appendices to this report. It is assumed, unless otherwise stated (“ASAP” or “Option to”) that all husbandry

recommendations will be carried out within 6 months of the report’s first issue. Clearly, works required to facilitate development will not be required if the

application is shelved or refused. However, necessary husbandry work should not be shelved with the application and should be brought to the attention of

the person responsible, by the applicant, if different. Under the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957, the owner (or his agent) of a tree is charged with the due

care of protecting persons and property from foreseeable damage and injury.’ He is responsible for damage and/or nuisance arising from all parts of the

tree, including roots and branches, regardless of the property on which they occur. He also has a duty under The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to

provide a safe place of work, during construction. Tree works should only be carried out with local authority consent, where applicable.

Inherent in a tree survey is assessment of the risk associated with trees close to people and their property. Most human activities involve a degree of risk,

such risks being commonly accepted if the associated benefits are perceived to be commensurate.

Risks associated with trees tend to increase with the age of the trees concerned, but so do many of the benefits. It will be appreciated, and deemed to be

accepted by the client, that the formulation of recommendations for all management of trees will be guided by the cost-benefit analysis (in terms of amenity),

of tree work that would remove all risk of tree related damage.

Prior to the commencement of any tree works, an ecological assessment of specific trees may be required to ascertain whether protected species (e.g. bats,

badgers and invertebrates etc.) may be affected.


21

PART 2 – APPENDICES


22

APPENDIX 1

TREE SCHEDULE

Botanical Tree Names Hawthorn, Common : Crataegus monogyna Oak, English : Quercus robur Notes for Guidance: 1. Height describes the approximate height of the tree measured in metres from ground level.

2. The Crown Spread refers to the crown radius in meters from the stem centre and is expressed as an

average of NSEW aspect if symmetrical.

3. Ground Clearance is the height in metres of crown clearance above adjacent ground level.

4. Stem Diameter (Dm) is the diameter of the stem measured in millimetres at 1.5m from ground level for

single stemmed trees. BS 5837:2012 formula (Section 4.6) used to calculate diameter of multi-stemmed

trees. Stem Diameter may be estimated where access is restricted and denoted by ‘#’.

5. Protection Multiplier is 12 and is the number used to calculate the tree's protection radius and area

6. Protection Radius is a radial distance measured from the trunk centre.

7. Growth Vitality - Normal growth, Moderate (below normal), Poor (sparse/weak), Dead (dead or dying

tree).

8. Structural Condition - Good (no or only minor defects), Fair (remediable defects), Poor - Major defects

present.

9. Landscape Contribution - High (prominent landscape feature), Medium (visible in landscape),

Low (secluded/among other trees).

10. B.S. Cat refers to (British Standard 5837:2012 section 4.5) and refers to tree/group quality and value;

'A' – High, 'B' - Moderate, 'C' - Low, 'U' - Unsuitable for retention. The following colouring has been

used on the site plans:

● High Quality (A) (Green),

● Moderate Quality (B) (Blue),

● Low Quality (C) (Grey),

● Unsuitable for Retention (U) (Red)

11. Sub Cat refers to the retention criteria values where 1 is Arboricultural, 2 is Landscape and 3 is

Cultural including Conservational, Historic and Commemorative.

12. Useful Life is the tree's estimated remaining contribution in years.

Appendix 1

BS5837 Tree Constraints Survey ScheduleTree No.

English Name Height CrownSpread

StemDiamete

r

GrowthVitality

ProtectionRadius

B.S.Cat

UsefulLife

Comments

Site:Date: Surveyor(s):

Ref:

GroundClearance

SubCat

AgeClass

Structural Condition

LIDL Mottingham03/12/2018 Adam Hollis

LDL_24MR_AIA

Landmark Trees Ltd020 7851 4544

Probe penetrates entire E stem through void into cavity in Wstem

1 Hawthorn, Common 8.5 3434 391 Moderate4.7 U <10 Decay in baseE stem taps hollow

1.5 Mature Fair

Unprofessionally lopped and topped to W, deadwood andstubs with minor decay

2 Oak, English 10 5655 370 Moderate4.4 B/C 20+ Erratic habit; lost lead stem from 2m; crossing / graftedbranches; included bark in branch unions

1/2EarlyMature

Fair


24

APPENDIX 2

RECOMMENDED TREE WORKS

Notes for Guidance: Husbandry 1 - Urgent (ASAP), 2 - Standard (within 6 months), 3 - Non-urgent (2-3 years) CB - Cut Back to boundary/clear from structure. CL# - Crown Lift to given height in meters. CT#% - Crown Thinning by identified %. CCL - Crown Clean (remove deadwood/crossing and hazardous branches and stubs)*. CR#% - Crown Reduce by given maximum % (of outermost branch & twig length) DWD - Remove deadwood. Fell - Fell to ground level. FInv - Further Investigation (generally with decay detection equipment). Pol - Pollard or re-pollard. Mon - Check / monitor progress of defect(s) at next consultant inspection which should be <18

months in frequented areas and <3 years in areas of more occasional use. Where clients retain their own ground staff, we recommend an annual in- house inspection and where practical, in the aftermath of extreme weather events.

Svr Ivy / Clr Bs - Sever ivy / clear base and re-inspect base / stem for concealed defects.

*Not generally specified following BS3998:2010

Appendix 2Recommended Tree Works

Site:Date:

Surveyor(s):Ref:

Tree No.

English Name Height Comments/ ReasonsRecommended WorksCrownSpread

Hide irrelevantShow All Trees

LIDL Mottingham03/12/2018

Adam HollisLDL_24MR_AIA

GroundClearance

B.S.Cat

8.51 Hawthorn, Common Decay in baseE stem taps hollowProbe penetrates entire E stem through void into cavity in Wstem

Fell3434

Recommended husbandry 2

1.5U

102 Oak, English Erratic habit; lost lead stem from 2m; crossing / graftedbranches; included bark in branch unionsUnprofessionally lopped and topped to W, deadwood and stubswith minor decay

FP5655Remove stubs, remove

competing laterals

Recommended husbandry 2

B/C


26

APPENDIX 3

RECOMMENDED TREE WORKS TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT (See Table 1)

Notes for Guidance: RP - Pre-emptive root pruning of foundation encroachments under arboricultural supervision. CB - Cut Back to boundary/clear from structure. CL# - Crown Lift to given height in meters. CT#% - Crown Thinning by identified %. CCL - Crown Clean (remove deadwood/crossing and hazardous branches and stubs)*. CR#% - Crown Reduce by given maximum % (of outermost branch & twig length) DWD - Remove deadwood. Fell - Fell to ground level. FInv - Further Investigation (generally with decay detection equipment). Pol - Pollard or re-pollard. Mon - Check / monitor progress of defect(s) at next consultant inspection which should be <18

months in frequented areas and <3 years in areas of more occasional use. Where clients retain their own ground staff, we recommend an annual in- house inspection and where practical, in the aftermath of extreme weather events.

Svr Ivy / Clr Bs - Sever ivy / clear base and re-inspect base / stem for concealed defects. *Not generally specified following BS3998:2010

Appendix 3

Recommended Tree Works To Facilitate Development

Site:Date:

Surveyor(s):Ref:

Tree No.

English Name Height Comments/ ReasonsRecommended WorksCrownSpread

LIDL Mottingham03/12/2018

Adam HollisLDL_24MR_AIA

Hide irrelevantShow All Trees

B.S.Cat

GroundClearance

8.51 Hawthorn, Common Decay in baseE stem taps hollowProbe penetrates entire E stem through void into cavity in W stem

Fell3434

To facilitate development

U 1.5

102 Oak, English Erratic habit; lost lead stem from 2m; crossing / graftedbranches; included bark in branch unionsUnprofessionally lopped and topped to W, deadwood and stubs withminor decay

Fell5655

To facilitate development

B/C


28

APPENDIX 4: TREE SELECTION FOR URBAN LOCATIONS

Table A4.1: Small Ornamental Tree Species

Common Name Species (Columnar Form for discrete usage)

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Stricta

Cockspur Crataegus prunifolia Splendens

Cherry Prunus x hillieri Spire

Bird cherry Prunus padus Albertii

Rowan / Mountain ash Sorbus aucuparia Cardinal Royal

Swedish whitebeam Sorbus intermedia Brouwers

B. whitebeam Sorbus x thuringiaca Fastigiata

Table A4.2: Medium Specimen Tree Species


Chinese red bark birch Betula albosinensis Fascination

Mongolian lime Tilia mongolica

Hornbeam Carpinus betulus Fastigiata Frans Fountaine

Turkish hazel Corylus colurna

Maidenhair tree Gingko biloba

Pride of India Koelreuteria paniculata Fastigiata

European larch Larix decidua Sheerwater Seedling

Tulip tree Liriodendron tulipfera Fastigiata

Table A4.3: Larger Specimen Tree Species


English oak Quercus robur f. Koster

American elm Ulmus americana Princeton

Cedar of Lebanon Cedrus libani


29

PART 3 – PLANS


30

PLAN 1

TREE CONSTRAINTS PLAN


32

PLAN 2

ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PLAN (S)

i. Ground Floor


34

PLAN 3

LANDSCAPE PLAN

PEDESTRIAN ROUTE

PEDESTRIAN ROUTE

P

r

o

p

o

s

e

d

c

u

r

b

l

i

n

e

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

c

u

r

b

l

i

n

e

E

x

i

s

t

i

n

g

c

u

r

b

l

i

n

e

N

e

w

A

c

c

e

s

s

S

A

L

E

S

A

R

E

A

7

4

9

m

²

C

u

s

t

o

m

e

r

E

n

t

r

a

n

c

e

E

x

i

t

E

N

T

R

A

N

C

E

L

O

B

B

Y

F

R

E

E

Z

E

R

2

9

m

²

W

A

R

E

H

O

U

S

E

4

4

m

²

U

t

i

l

i

t

i

e

s

B

A

K

P

R

E

P

1

4

m

²

S

E

C

U

R

I

T

Y

G

A

T

E

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

3

3

3

2

2

3

2

7

2

6

2

4

2

5

2

2

2

1

1

9

2

0

2

8

1

8

3

1

3

0

2

9

2

0

N

o

.

S

h

o

r

t

-

S

t

a

y

C

y

c

l

e

P

a

r

k

i

n

g

1

1

1

7

0

9

0

8

0

6

0

5

0

4

0

3

0

2

0

1

1

0

6

N

o

.

L

o

n

g

-

S

t

a

y

C

y

c

l

e

P

a

r

k

i

n

g

GFL(39.53)

(26.83)

(39.53)(39.18)

(39.08)

(39.53)

(39.30)

E

C

V

P

s

0

7

0 M 5 M 10 M

1 x Crataegus monogyna Stricta




10 x Laurus nobilis

12 x Viburnum tinus

16 x Ilex aquifolium

16 x Symphoricarpus albus

12 x Mahonia aquifolium



12 x Laurus nobilis

4 x Ilex aquifolium

12 x Laurus nobilis

5 x Laurus nobilis


12 x Laurus nobilis

15 x Choisya ternata


8 x Ilex aquifolium



56 x Laurus nobilis

12 x Viburnum tinus

14 x Ilex aquifolium




Proposed Trees

Proposed Hedge

KEY

To be planted in double staggered lines,

to a density of 4/m2.to receive 75mm

bark mulch after planting operations

Planted within soft landscape as

per the tree detail

Proposed Shrub Mix

To be planted in groups of 5-9no, to

a density of 5/m2.to receive 75mm

bark mulch after planting operations

20 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 8HT

Tel: 0207 851 4544 Mobile: 07812 989928

e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.landmarktrees.co.uk

Site: Lidl Mottingham

Drawing Title: Landscape Plan

1:200 @ A2

April 2019

N

W E

S

Tree Planting Pit Detail

within soft areas

1

3

Organic matter

1

3

Imported loam topsoil

1

3

Clean Native topsoil

(recommended).

Soil to be added in Layers

of 300mm, each layer to be

firmed gently in with heel.

Topsoil to meet

BS3882:2007.

Plant Root Crown 25mm

above finished grade

Root barrier to be installed

300mm from back of curb

or impervious surface.

Same depth as root ball

600mm min600mm min

Pressure impregnated softwood

stakes driven into ground with a

minimum of 400mm below ground.

Min of 2 stakes per tree.

Commercial black rubber tree ties,

tie height 1/3 stem height

Landmark Environment

arboricultural impact assessment report for: … · arboricultural impact assessment report: former...

Documents