arboricultural report - tunbridge wells · calverley grounds – baseline arboricultural report 3...

ARBORICULTURAL REPORTU

Environment Tunbridge Wells Borough Council July 2016

Calverley Grounds, Royal Tunbridge Wells.

Baseline Arboricultural Report

Calverley Grounds – Baseline Arboricultural Report

Prepared by: Andy Wakefield Principal Arboricultural Consultant Checked by: Adam King, Associate Approved by: Adam King, Associate

Rev No Comments Checked by Approved by

Date

0 Draft Adam King Adam King 19.07.16 Mayflower House, Armada Way, Plymouth, Devon, PL1 1LD, United Kingdom Telephone: 01752 676700 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No: 60512175 Reference: Arboricultural Report Date Created: 11/07/2016

Copyright

© This Report is the copyright of AECOM Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.


1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. General Arboricultural Principles .................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 General Principles ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Below ground constraints ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Soils ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 2.4 Above ground constraints................................................................................................................................................ 3 3. Field Observations .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 The Site: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 The Trees: ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 4. Tree Related Constraints and Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 7 4.2 Tree Categorisations as per BS5837:2012 ..................................................................................................................... 8 4.3 The Benefits of Trees ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.4 The Future Impact of Trees ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.5 Tree Protection During Construction ............................................................................................................................... 9 4.6 Tree Planting ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 5. Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 10 5.2 Considerations: ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 5.3 References: ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 5.4 Key to Abbreviations Used in the Survey ...................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix A: Schedule of Existing Trees .............................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix B: Tree Constraint Plans ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Table of Contents


1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 AECOM has been commissioned to prepare and submit a written Arboricultural Report for existing trees within part of the Calverley Grounds Site in Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

1.1.2 The scope of work includes a tree survey to BS5837:2012 to allow the production of a tree schedule and the production of a tree constraints plan to show the above and below ground spatial constraints affecting operations within the Site. This information is intended to inform the assessment of the arboricultural constraints and opportunities in relation to the future development of the Site.

1.2 Methodology

1.2.1 The tree survey has been based on the topographical survey (ref: T516-236L1 and L2 by Terrain dated June 2016 and Z TLA L C-01 by Townshend dated June 2016). All work has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations (BS5837). Where tree locations were not recorded accurately on the topographical survey plan they have been plotted indicatively on site, with reference to adjacent features and aerial photography and have been marked with a ‘*’ on the survey plans. Where new features or tree protection measures are to be positioned in proximity to these trees, relative positions must be accurately measured out on Site.

1.2.2 Fieldwork was undertaken in July 2016 during which dimensional data and observational information were collected. A diameter tape measure was used to measure stem diameters where feasible.

1.2.3 The fieldwork informing this report has comprised a preliminary, non-intrusive, visual survey undertaken from ground level with the specific intention of evaluating the quality and benefits of trees on Site. Where further inspection is deemed appropriate to ascertain the condition of the tree or other arboreal features, this has been identified within the preliminary management recommendations. Average dimensions or dimensional ranges have occasionally been used where appropriate to best describe features.

1.2.4 A Tree Survey Schedule is included as Appendix A of this report and this corresponds with the Tree Survey Plan which shows the position of trees and the spatial constraints associated with them. This drawing is included as Appendix B.


2

2. General Arboricultural Principles

2.1 General Principles

2.1.1 Trees are dynamic living organisms which provide essential benefits to society and the wider environment. Any project with the potential to impact on trees must take into consideration the value of trees on Site, the impact of any proposed activity along with any potential future conflicts. Suitable measures to safeguard retained trees or mitigate the loss of trees to be removed will need to be fully considered and may be a condition of planning consent.

2.1.2 Tree branches and roots frequently grow across Site boundaries and off Site trees can pose a significant constraint and should be carefully considered when assessing the developable space within a Site.

2.2 Below ground constraints

2.2.1 Below ground tree roots and the soil environment in which they grow needs to be protected if the tree is to be retained. Trees grow in association with fungi and other soil organisms which are of key importance to tree health. Roots are essential for anchorage, the uptake of water and nutrients and the storage of energy (carbohydrates) for the future growth and function of the tree.

2.2.2 Roots can be damaged by physical severance or wounding (e.g. following excavation of the soil) which can lead to the development of decay and a decline in vitality and/or instability. Raising soil level effectively buries tree roots at a depth where suitable conditions for growth are less available. Toxic materials discharged into the soil (such as cement based aggregates, fuel and chemicals) can lead to root death and dysfunction. Soils can be compacted to levels inhospitable to tree growth with even a single pass of machinery, regular pedestrian traffic or the storage of plant and materials. Relieving compaction can be problematic and may require costly remedial works. Changes in drainage/water levels can also have significant long term impacts for tree health.

2.2.3 The effects of these incursions may take many years to manifest, with a resulting decline in amenity value and potentially the death or failure of the tree. It should be noted that older trees are particularly sensitive to damage and changes in conditions.

2.2.4 The Root Protection Area (RPA) is a notional area considered to be the minimum zone that must be protected to avoid any adverse impacts on retained trees. This area is deemed to be particularly important for tree stability, growth, function and health. However roots may extend far greater distances, with the distribution of the root system relating directly to the availability of suitable conditions for growth (namely oxygen, water and nutrients). It is generally accepted that tree roots are predominantly located in the upper 1000mm of soil; however roots may develop at deeper levels where conditions allow.

2.2.5 Root Protection Areas are calculated as per BS5837: 2012 Annexe C, D and Section 4.6.

2.2.6 The RPA of the existing tree stock is an important material consideration when considering Site constraints and planning development activities. The RPA of significant trees on Site is shown on the Tree Survey Plans included as Appendix A.

2.2.7 The default position must be that all development, including any associated services will occur outside the Root Protection Areas of retained trees. Where this is unavoidable it may be appropriate to use special measures to install structures, services or surfacing within RPA’s which allow the protection of roots and soil structure which are essential for tree growth and keep any incursion to a minimum.

2.2.8 Further steps to improve or increase the useable rooting area available to the tree may also be required.


3

2.3 Soils

2.3.1 On shrinkable clay soil tree growth can lead to the differential movement of structures as moisture is removed from the soil during the growing season. Soils must be carefully assessed and any foundations must be installed following the recommendations of NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2: Building Near Trees (2008) to avoid potential future damage. Where trees which predate existing structures are to be removed this can result in heave as the soils re-wet. The advice of a suitably qualified engineer must be obtained to inform any potential issue of heave. Specific advice in relation to this issue is beyond the scope of this report.

2.4 Above ground constraints

2.4.1 Tree stems and branches can restrict available space on Site. Damage or wounding (including excessive pruning) can significantly reduce the amenity contribution of the tree and may lead to the development of dysfunction and decay with significant long term implications for tree health. The future impact of existing trees should be carefully considered, including individual species characteristics (such as potential future size, fruit fall, shade etc.) and how the tree will interact with any proposed development and future land use. Annual tree growth can lead to direct damage if stems/branches (or roots) come into physical contact with structures and this must also be taken into consideration.


4

3. Field Observations

3.1 The Site:

3.1.1 Calverley Grounds is a public open space and landscaped parkland in the centre of Tunbridge Wells. This report focuses on land on the western side of the Site and is defined by the area covered by the Tree Survey Plan included as Appendix B. The Site itself is bordered to the west by a multi-level car park and Mount Pleasant Avenue beyond which lies the Mount Pleasant Road which features the Great Hall Arcade and other retail outlets. To the north the Site is bordered by the Hotel du Vin and AXA offices located on Crescent Road. To the south of the grounds are the terraced residential properties on Mountfield Road and Mountfield Gardens. To the east the Grounds continue as formal parkland featuring sports pitches

3.2 The Trees:

3.2.1 Trees within Calverley Grounds are typically individual or group plantings in open parkland surrounded by lawns or located in groups around the edges or within a central section of the Site.

3.2.2 The Site features a fairly diverse range of tree species including both broadleaved trees such as horse chestnut, lime, beech and oak along with conifers such as cypress, Scots pine and western red cedar.

3.2.3 Age ranges are equally diverse with a number of significant mature and early mature trees along with some semi mature specimens with good future potential. Young and newly planted trees are not well represented. The majority of trees on Site are in generally fair to good condition however a small number of trees have significant defects. Where trees have significant defects or require remedial works this has been noted on the survey schedule included as Appendix A of this report.

3.2.4 A number of trees have surface roots and buttresses with impact wounds likely sustained from the ride on lawn mowers maintaining the grass. Ideally, mowers should avoid cutting the grass around raised surface roots and buttresses. Mulch can also be usefully applied to restrict grass and weed growth and too avoid the requirement for mowing.

3.2.5 Horse chestnut trees across the Site also typically have bleeding lesions associated with bleeding canker (Pseudomonas syringae pv aesculi) which can have a negative impact on the trees vitality and should be monitored into the future to assess how they respond to this issue.

3.2.6 Some trees have been heavily pruned in the past such as T4 a horse chestnut near the southern boundary of the site. Two Atlantic cedars T82 and T83 have been subject to storm damage resulting in the loss of limbs and significant remedial works (particularly for T83).

3.2.7 The red oak T87 has dieback in its canopy which is likely to be associated with the presence of a root decay fungus (Collybia fusipes) which is present at the base of the tree. This fungus can lead to canopy dieback in its later stages of the infection process and is thought to be a potential causal factor in the development of ‘oak decline’.

3.2.8 In the central western section of the Site to the north of the toilet block, an area of sycamore, oak and ash woodland has developed, trees in this location have developed as a group and generally consist of individuals of relatively poor quality. One prominent mature oak is located to the west of the group which is heavily covered with ivy. To the east of this group is an unmaintained Lawson’s cypress hedgerow feature with closely planted trees. The area around these trees has been subject to littering and vandalism. Trees growing around the toilet block and adjacent structure are touching the roof in a number of places and need to be pruned back or removed to prevent damage.

3.2.9 Further west is located an ornamental group of Japanese maples, yew and other small trees interspersed with shrub planting.


5

3.2.10 To the northwest a dense linear group of Norway maple, horse chestnut and sweet chestnut forms the western boundary of the parkland adjacent to the pay and display car park. These trees are encroaching on the car park to the west. Access was limited due to the density of the vegetation however a small clump of Japanese Knotweed was identified to the east of T51 and T52. This is a Schedule 9 plant under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981and will require careful management. The advice of a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist is recommended to inform the management of this issue. To the east a linear group of good quality Scots and Austrian pine are located in an open grassed area. Further east a mature beech and adjacent copper beech with compression forks are sited on either side of a footpath. These significant trees are recommended for remedial works to reduce the potential risk associated with limb failure due to this common structural weakness.

3.2.11 In the central area of open parkland high quality giant sequoia, lime and birch are located along with a Persian ironwood which has been planted as a memorial tree and has memorial tags attached to its outer branches. Further west is a group of red oak, which form a prominent feature within the Site.

3.2.12 To the south and south west the Site is bordered by linear tree groups of generally moderate condition. These trees help to screen views of the car parks, shopping and residential areas as viewed from the park. A number of trees have surface roots which have developed within the lawn outside of the formal planting beds and these have often sustained impact damage or root severance associated with the maintenance of the lawns. Many of these trees have been heavily pruned in the past where they are located in close proximity to residential properties.

3.2.13 Three trees were assigned to the Category A and these trees were considered to be of high quality, which are likely to make a significant contribution to the site for at least 40 years. .

3.2.14 Thirty five trees or tree groups were described as Moderate quality (BS5837 Category B). These trees have at least 20 years of future contribution to the site if they are to be retained.

3.2.15 Fifty four trees were assigned to Category C. These trees were described as of relatively low quality due to their structural form, physiological condition or suitability to their location. Category C trees are likely to provide at least ten years future contribution to the site.

3.2.16 Three trees were assigned to Category U, and trees of this quality will provide less than 10 years future contribution to the site and may need to be removed due to their condition or current location in the context of the site.

3.2.17 Tree works have been recommended for trees were appropriate based on sound arboricultural management in the context of the current land use of the site and these are shown on the schedules included as Appendix A.


6

Figure 1: Parkland trees with individuals and small groups located in central lawn areas and larger groups located around the perimeter of the Site.

Figure 2: Exposed tree roots in the grass with lawnmower impact damage.

Figure 3: Unmaintained closely spaced cypress hedge planting to the north of the toilet block.

Figure 4: Bleeding canker lesions on lower stem of horse chestnut.

Figure 6: A prominent row of pine trees within the open grassland to the north of the Site.

Figure 5: Multi stemmed sycamore in the woodland group located to the north and west of the toilet block


7

4. Tree Related Constraints and Opportunities 4.1.1 The Tree Constraints Plan included as Appendix B show the area of constraint associated with the trees on

Site. As identified within the drawing key, the green shaded area shows the extent of tree canopies and the dashed black line is indicative of the root protection area (RPA), which is the nominal area of tree roots which are generally considered essential to tree health and function. Roots are likely to extend outside of this point but beyond the RPA extent tree roots are not considered a significant constraint.

4.1.2 The default position is generally that all new features and associated works be located outside of these areas, where trees are to be retained. The area outside of these points is not significantly restricted by constraints associated with the trees and this represents the initial developable space for the Site.

4.1.3 Particular care is necessary in association with trees located outside of the Site boundary (owned by third parties) but where branches or roots are likely to extend within the Site. The LPA are likely to expect that third party trees are not significantly damaged by any proposed development works within the Site when considering planning applications. Common law rights to prune back overhanging growth to the boundary are well established but liability is likely to result for any resulting loss or damage should a tree be left in an unstable state. Any arising’s also remain the legal property of the tree owner. For these reasons arboricultural advice must be obtained prior to any works which could significantly impact on trees located outside of the Site boundary.

4.1.4 In the context of Calverley Grounds the most significant off-site trees are G93 and G94, groups of mature lime, oak and sycamore located beyond the north western boundary of the site within the AXA offices site. The RPA of these trees is likely to incur a considerable distance inside the Site boundary and must be carefully considered in relation to any proposed development in this area.

Figure 7: Fruit bodies of Collybia fusipes at the base of the mature red oak in the central area of parkland.

Figure 8: Linear group of closely spaced trees beginning to encroach into the car park.

Figure 9: High quality semi mature parkland trees with good future potential.


8

4.1.5 Memorial trees and those with significant cultural status are likely to be highly valued and must be retained where ever possible. T78 (Persian ironwood) is understood to have been planted as a memorial and this tree will require careful consideration.

4.1.6 Where significant development works are required within large sections of the canopy or RPA of trees this is likely to necessitate their removal and this can be justified where trees are of low quality or where the retention of trees is not feasible in relation to the design proposals and the benefits of the development outweighs the potential impact on tree cover. In such circumstances robust mitigation planting is typically required to ensure that continuity of tree cover is maintained within the Site and to off-set any negative impact on local amenity. It must be noted that new trees which are typically planted as ‘standards’ or ‘heavy standards’ will not be of equivalent size or amenity value to existing semi mature to mature trees which may need to be removed. Where possible the retention of existing trees which will be suited to the context of the proposed development can help maintain a level of maturity for the Site.

4.1.7 In some cases moving existing trees to new locations within the Site (or temporarily relocating them prior to replanting back on Site) can help to ensure reasonable space for the proposals whilst allowing the retention of significant trees. Moving trees, particularly larger specimens, requires a considerable commitment to aftercare to help trees re-establish a sufficient root system to maintain physiological function. Where feasible tree root ball preparation should be carried out as early as possible in advance of tree moving works. A number of trees within Calverley Grounds could feasibly be moved if desired. AECOM and its partners can assist with tree moving projects where required.

4.1.8 In some cases it can be acceptable to install structures, access routes and services or other features using specialist methodologies which do not require significant excavation and which can ensure that suitable conditions for tree growth and function are maintained. The advice of an arboriculturist should be obtained to inform the design process where these issues arise. New areas of hard surfacing or building footprints should not generally occupy more than 20% of the RPA of a retained tree as set out in Section 7.4.2.3 of BS5837:2012, however this is a recommendation only and in our experience it is often feasible to install appropriate new hard surfacing or structures within a greater proportion of the RPA provided sufficient justification is given.

4.2 Tree Categorisations as per BS5837:2012

4.2.1 Trees on site have been assigned to a quality category as per BS5837:2012 which relates to their arboricultural, landscape and cultural/conservation value.

4.2.2 Category C trees as shown by a grey canopy outline. This means they are of relatively low quality and would not normally be considered a significant constraint to future development. However these trees may still provide some useful value to the site and should be considered for retention where they do not pose a significant constraint to the proposals.

4.2.3 Category B trees (blue canopy outline) are described as being of moderate quality and it is generally desirable to retain trees of this standard and incorporate them within the design proposals wherever feasible.

4.2.4 Category A trees (green canopy outline) are classified as being of high quality and trees of this nature should be retained and incorporated into the design due to the high level of benefits they provide.

4.2.5 Category U trees (red canopy outline) are trees with less than ten years reasonable useful life expectancy or those in such poor condition that they should be removed regardless of any development activity. Trees of this nature represent no constraint to development.

4.2.6 In general this means that category C trees and groups of relatively low value can be removed to facilitate the development, but where this is not necessary they can be usefully retained in situ.

4.2.7 Category B (blue) and A (green) trees should ideally be retained and included and afforded sufficient space within the design. It may be feasible to remove some category B trees and in exceptional circumstances, category A trees, however this is likely to require significant justification and mitigation (in the form of new tree planting).


9

4.3 The Benefits of Trees

4.3.1 Well placed trees are aesthetically pleasing, add instant maturity to a site and can attract investment and higher property values along with a host of other health, well-being, amenity and biodiversity benefits. The value of existing trees must be carefully considered, established trees are not always easily replaced and the requirements for new tree planting and suitable aftercare can be considerable, particularly if larger planting stock is utilised.

4.4 The Future Impact of Trees

4.4.1 The future impact of trees on site must be considered in relation to any proposed development. Some trees may be suitable for retention in areas of open space but are unlikely to be suited close to new structures due to their future size, and structural characteristics. Trees to be retained should be afforded suitable space to allow for their likely future growth to prevent significant issues such as direct damage where branches or stems come into contact with structures, causing physical damage.

4.4.2 Many of the trees are deciduous, and as such will drop leaves each autumn. This can be an issue for gutters and new structures in close proximity to trees, particularly where a canopy is likely to overhang the structure in the future. Gutters and structures close to trees should therefore be constructed with this in mind. The positioning of gutters, the use of Gutter Guards or equivalent methods along with regular periodic maintenance can be used to reduce the ingress of leaves into guttering systems.

4.4.3 Fruit bearing trees (including plums, crab apples and cherries) can cause slip hazards on paths and may attract wasps in the summer months and therefore footways and car parking is not generally appropriate in close proximity to these species.

4.4.4 Species such as lime and sycamore frequently harbour a high volume of aphids, sap sucking insects which excrete a sugary liquid known as honeydew. This can create sticky patches on surfaces and vehicles below the canopy and may lead to the development of sooty moulds. These issues could lead to future pressure to remove the trees where they could overhang structures or car parking. Honeydew does not generally cause damage and can be cleaned with warm soapy water.

4.4.5 Trees generally cast shade in an arc from the North West to due east (as the sun tracks from east to west on a southerly orientation); an indicative shading arc can be produced by plotting a segment with a radius equivalent to the height of the tree as per BS5837: 2012 Section 5.2.2. Shade may be beneficial in some areas (particularly with regard to projected temperature increases in relation to climate change), however where heavy shade affects areas it may lead to significant future pressure for tree removal which would render the long term future of trees potentially untenable.

4.4.6 AECOM can provide drawings to demonstrate the future typical canopy development and future approximate shade (based on approximate ultimate tree height) upon request. This information is intended as a guide only and is based on general assumptions on the likely average growth and ultimate height and canopy spread of individual tree species.

4.5 Tree Protection During Construction

4.5.1 Trees to be retained in close proximity to areas of development activity, including areas for new surfacing, structures, services, storage landscaping and access will need to be protected to ensure they are not damaged. This is generally achieved with the use of robust, immovable temporary tree protection fencing to prevent access within the RPA or canopy spread of trees. Where access is unavoidable alternative protection arrangements such as ground protection, sufficient to protect the structure of the soil from compaction, and /or access facilitation pruning to ensure a reasonable clearance for operations is provided may be required. The advice of an arboriculturist should be sought to inform this assessment.

4.6 Tree Planting

4.6.1 Where trees are to be removed due to a conflict with the proposed design, mitigation planting is likely to be required to ensure a continuity of tree cover within the site and to address any negative impact on local amenity. Consideration should be given to the reasonable provision of space and suitable un-compacted soil volumes for new tree planting to off-set any necessary tree loss.


10

4.6.2 New planting should ensure that a high degree of species diversity is achieved to enhance resilience against a changing climate and new pests and diseases and tree species must be selected which will be suited to the likely future conditions for the Site.

4.6.3 Areas for new planting should be considered at an early stage and where possible tree planting soil volumes should be protected throughout the construction stage so that good conditions for new tree planting are available following completion of the works. Where this is not possible, remedial works to ameliorate the structure of the soil or the importation of new soil is likely to be required.

5. Summary and Recommendations 5.1.1 Calverley Grounds contains a strong population of significant trees which provide a broad range of benefits

to the community.

5.1.2 The Tree Constraint Plans demonstrate the quality of individual trees and groups and the spatial constraints associated with them.

5.1.3 Design development must consider the constraints associated with the trees and particularly those Category B (blue) and Category A (green) trees which are considered to be of the greatest value and are a material constraint on development. Where ever possible trees of this quality are to be retained and protected.

5.1.4 Should it be necessary to remove trees of this quality, this will require robust justification and is likely to require the benefits of the development to outweigh the loss of the trees in the planning context.

5.1.5 A number of higher quality trees and a memorial tree could potentially be moved and relocated elsewhere on the Site (or be temporarily stored and replanted following completion of the works).

5.1.6 Lower quality Category C (grey) trees should be retained where they do not conflict with the design proposals, but are unlikely to be a significant constraint to development and their loss can generally be mitigated with high quality new tree planting within the Site.

5.1.7 Where trees are to be retained, they must be afforded sufficient space and protection throughout the development phase (typically requiring an exclusion zone around the tree, its canopy and RPA). The design must also account for the likely future growth and impact of the trees in the new context of the site.

5.1.8 Tree removals can be mitigated with appropriate new tree planting which represents an opportunity to increase the diversity and resilience of the local tree population and to ensure well placed tree cover for the future amenity of the Site

5.1.9 Outline design proposals should be discussed with an arboriculturist to review the likely impact on the significant trees and to identify any opportunities for mitigation where appropriate.

5.1.10 Following design freeze, the finalised layout should be subject to an Arboricultural Impact Assessment to identify the direct and indirect impacts of the final scheme, to allow the identification of suitable measures to ensure trees to be retained are protected and to set out appropriate mitigation as required. This is typically the minimum requirement for planning purposes and would be submitted in the form of a report in support of a planning application.


11

5.2 Considerations:

1) Tree owners/managers have a legal duty to prevent foreseeable harm. It is generally accepted that this duty can be fulfilled by undertaking proactive inspections of significant trees to identify obvious defects and by taking appropriate remedial action or gaining further advice as appropriate. This survey is primarily for planning purposes, focusing on the quality and benefits of the trees and is not specifically designed to assess the safety of trees on Site. When obvious issues have been identified recommendations will be included on the schedule.

2) Under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (2015) developers and contractors have responsibilities for health and safety as a result of their actions. Should trees be left in an unstable or hazardous condition the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could seek to prosecute those responsible along with the potential for further Civil claims for damages.

3) No information has been made available in relation to any statutory tree protection, including Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) or Conservation Area designations. Prior to any tree work this situation must be confirmed with the LPA. Full planning consent overrides the requirement to provide notice or apply for consent for tree works.

4) Where more than 5m3 of timber is to be felled within a calendar quarter a felling licence may be required from the Forestry Commission unless an agreed exception applies. The requirement for a felling licence does not apply to tree works on designated public open spaces and therefore this is not likely to be applicable in this instance. Full planning consent also supersedes the requirements of a felling licence.

5) Full consideration must be given to the presence of species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 - as amended), the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) and the Habitats Regulations (2010 – as amended); in particular, the presence of bats and nesting birds. It is recommended that wherever possible, significant tree / hedge works take place outside of the typical bird nesting season of March to September.

6) Any tree surgery recommendations contained within this report are to be undertaken in accordance with BS3998: 2010 Tree work – Recommendations (BS3998) by suitably qualified and insured contractors. Significant pruning works are best undertaken when trees are dormant or outside periods of high functional activity to reduce the overall impact on energy available to the tree for growth and processes. In general the optimum period for works is between November to February and July to August (subject to the presence of protected species) when the tree is less active and better placed to respond to wounding and a reduction in leaf area.

7) Fieldwork survey information is subject to seasonal/access constraints.

8) The Local Planning Authority (LPA) may make conditions relating to tree protection which could include compliance with an Arboricultural Method Statement. Breach of conditions may result enforcement action.

5.3 References:

BS3998: 2010 Tree work – Recommendations (BS3998)

BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations (BS5837)

NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2: Building Near Trees (2008)


12

5.4 Key to Abbreviations Used in the Survey

Ref No Specific identification number given to each tree or group.

T=Tree/H=Hedge/G=Group.

Species Common name followed by botanical name shown in italics.

RPA Root Protection Area (As defined by BS5837).

Stem diameter Diameter of main stem, measured in millimetres at 1.5 m above ground level. (MS = Multi-stem tree measured in accordance with BS5837 Annexe C).

Av / Average: indicates an average representative measured dimension for the group or feature.

Spread The width and breadth of the crown. Estimated on the four compass points in metres.

Crown clearance The estimated height (in metres) above ground level of the lowest significant branch attachments.

# Estimated dimensions.

* Indicates estimated position of tree (not indicated on topographical survey).

Category

Categorisation of the quality and benefits of trees on Site as per Table 1 and 2 of BS5837:2012. 1=Arboricultural quality/value. 2=Landscape quality/value. 3=Cultural quality/value (including conservation). A=High quality/value 40yrs+ (light green). B=Moderate quality/value 20yrs+ (mid blue). C=Low quality/value min 10yrs/stem diameter less than 150mm (grey). U=Unsuitable for retention (dark red).

Life stage

Young (Y): Newly planted tree 0-10 years. Semi-Mature (SM): Tree in the first third of its normal life expectancy for the species (significant potential for future growth in size). Early Mature (EM): Tree in the second third of its normal life expectancy for the species (some potential for future growth in size). Mature (M): Tree in the final third of its normal life expectancy for the species (having typically reached its approximate ultimate size). Over Mature (OM): Tree beyond the normal life expectancy for the species. Veteran (V): Tree which is of interest biologically, aesthetically or culturally because of its condition, size or age.

Structural condition

Good: No significant structural defects. Fair: Structural defects which can be resolved via remedial works. Poor: Structural defects which cannot be resolved via remedial works. Dead: Dead.

Physiological condition

Good: Normal vitality including leaf size, bud growth, density of crown and wound wood development. Fair: Lower than normal vitality, reduced bud development, reduced crown density, reduced response to wounds. Poor: Low vitality, low development and distribution of buds, discoloured leaves, low crown density, little extension growth for the species. Dead: Dead. Fair/Good = Indicates an intermediate condition. Fair – Good = Indicates a range of conditions (e.g. within a group).

Preliminary management recommendations

Works identified during the tree survey as part of sound arboricultural management, based on the current context of the site are shown in standard text.


Appendix A: Schedule of Existing Trees Tree ID

Species Estimated Height (m)

Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)

First Significant Branch (m)

Canopy Clearance (m)

Physiological Condition

Life Stage

Structural Condition

Condition Comments

Preliminary Management Comments

Estimated Remaining Contribution

Category Root Protection Area (m)

T1 Magnolia (Magnolia sp)

7 180 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.0/N 4 Good SM Fair Supressed to west by adj tree now removed

10+ C1,2 14.65

T2 Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna)

8 190,105 4 4 4 4 1.5/W 2 Good M Fair Previous pollard from 2m.

10+ C1 37.63

T3 Cherry Plum (Prunus cerasifera)

7 260 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 Good SM Fair Previous pollard from 2m. 10cm from adj property,

obstructs window.

10+ C1 30.57

T4 Horse Chestnut (Aesculus

hippocastanum)

17 1035 7 7 7 7 6.0/S 2.5 Good M Fair Active bleeding canker lesions on lower stem,

compression fork from 1-3m, upright form, leaf

miner, previously topped/reduced at approx

13m.

20+ B1,2 484.42

T5 Cherry (Prunus sp) 8 500 5 5 6 5 1.5/E 1.5 Poor M Fair Dieback to south, deadwood over shrub bed.

10+ C1,2 113.05

T6 Beech (Fagus sylvatica)

8 110,90,85,80,80,80,70,6

0

3 3.5 3 3.5 2.5/NE 1.5 Good SM Fair Multi stemmed at base, coppice derived,

compression forks at base, generally upright form

10+ C1,2 1.3


8 130,110,110,90,75

4 2 4 2 2.5/E 1.5 Good SM Fair Multi stemmed at 0-0.5m. compression forks,

generally upright form

10+ C1,2 32.43


hippocastanum)

10 470 6 6 6 6 1.5 Good EM Fair Compression forks at 2.5 and 3m, lacking upright form with little adaptive growth. no indication of

likely failure visible

10+ C1,2 99.89

T9 Lawson Cypress (Chamaecyparis

lawsoniana)

11 340 3 3 3 3 3.0/N 2 Good SM Good

20+ B1,2 52.28

T10 Griselinia (Griselinia littoralis)

6 125,100,90,90,90,65

3 3 3 3 1.0/SW 1 Good EM Fair Supressed by adj tree and shrubs.

10+ C1,2 1.24

T11 Portugal Laurel (Prunus lusitanica)

7 210,140,115,110,100,90,

70

5 5 5 5 0.3/S 1 Good M Fair

10+ C1,2 4.49


Appendix A: Schedule of Existing Trees Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments




T1 Magnolia (Magnolia sp)

7 180 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.0/N 4 Good SM Fair Supressed to west by adj tree now removed

10+ C1,2 14.65


8 190,105 4 4 4 4 1.5/W 2 Good M Fair Previous pollard from 2m.

10+ C1 37.63

T3 Cherry Plum (Prunus cerasifera)

7 260 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 Good SM Fair Previous pollard from 2m. 10cm from adj property,

obstructs window.

10+ C1 30.57


hippocastanum)

17 1035 7 7 7 7 6.0/S 2.5 Good M Fair Active bleeding canker lesions on lower stem,

compression fork from 1-3m, upright form, leaf

miner, previously topped/reduced at approx

13m.

20+ B1,2 484.42

T5 Cherry (Prunus sp) 8 500 5 5 6 5 1.5/E 1.5 Poor M Fair Dieback to south, deadwood over shrub bed.

10+ C1,2 113.05


8 110,90,85,80,80,80,70,6

0

3 3.5 3 3.5 2.5/NE 1.5 Good SM Fair Multi stemmed at base, coppice derived,

compression forks at base, generally upright form

10+ C1,2 1.3


8 130,110,110,90,75

4 2 4 2 2.5/E 1.5 Good SM Fair Multi stemmed at 0-0.5m. compression forks,

generally upright form

10+ C1,2 32.43


hippocastanum)

10 470 6 6 6 6 1.5 Good EM Fair Compression forks at 2.5 and 3m, lacking upright form with little adaptive growth. no indication of

likely failure visible

10+ C1,2 99.89


lawsoniana)

11 340 3 3 3 3 3.0/N 2 Good SM Good

20+ B1,2 52.28

T10 Griselinia (Griselinia littoralis)

6 125,100,90,90,90,65

3 3 3 3 1.0/SW 1 Good EM Fair Supressed by adj tree and shrubs.

10+ C1,2 1.24


7 210,140,115,110,100,90,

70

5 5 5 5 0.3/S 1 Good M Fair

10+ C1,2 4.49


Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments




T12 Goat Willow (Salix caprea)

11 160,130,120 5 5 5 5 2.5/SE 5 Good SM Fair Compression forks at 0.25m, upright form.

10+ C1,2 37.31

T13 Whitebeam (Sorbus aria)

9 375 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5/N 2.5 Poor EM Poor Completely defoliated, buds intact.

Re-inspect in autumn assess vitality. if no

leaves fell. (< 3 months)

10+ C1,2 63.59

T14 Ash (Fraxinus excelsior)

10 135,140 4 5 0 5 4 Good SM Poor 45 degree natural lean to west, supressed by adj tree. not for long term

retention

<10 U1,2 25.35

T15 Norway Maple (Acer platanoides)

11 360 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 2.0/E 1.5 Good EM Fair Central leader supressed by adj stems, typical of

species.

10+ C1,2 58.61

T16 Silver Birch (Betula pendula)

15 240 3 3 1 3 3.0/E 2 Good EM Fair Natural lean to west.

10+ C1,2 26.05

T17 Cypress (Chamaecyparis

sp)

15 390 2.5 3.5 3 3.5 2.5/SW 2 Poor EM Fair Thin canopy, compression fork at 3m with upright

form and moderate reactive swelling.

10+ C1,2 68.78


9 200 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.0/E 1 Good M Good Central tree with lesser trees (3 x 150#) adjacent, growing as clump within

shrub bed.

10+ C1,2 18.09


15 300 6 6 6 6 4.5/W 1.5 Good EM Good

20+ B1,2 40.7


16 610 8 8 8 8 3.0/NE 2 Good M Good Deadwood over shrub bed, previously reduced, and likely pollarded at 10m

historically

20+ B1,2 168.27

G21b Goat Willow (Salix caprea), Cherry

(Prunus sp), Other

10 150 4 4 4 4 n/a n/a Good - Fair SM Good - Fair Semi mature trees and shrubs

10+ C1,2 341.32

T21 Wild Cherry (Prunus avium)

11 325 6 2 6 2 2.0/W 2 Good EM Fair Supressed to south, surface roots exposed with

mower damage to east

10+ C1,2 47.76


Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments





10 215 5 3 4 3 2.5/S 1.5 Fair EM Good Slightly thin canopy, severed roots visible in grass edge up to 50mm

diameter

10+ C1,2 20.9

T23 Bird Cherry (Prunus padus)

6 110,110,80,80,75,75

3 3 3 3 0.3/E 0 Good EM Fair

10+ C1,2 0.99


sp)

9 245,100 3 3 3 3 0.3/E 1.5 Good SM Fair Birds nest at 5m, not known if occupied. growing

within canopy of adj tree

10+ C1,2 58.81

T25 Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus)

12 195,190,120,170,155

5.5 5.5 4 5.5 1.5/W 1.5 Good SM Fair Compression forks at 0.5m with little reactive growth,

upright form, squirrel damage on branches.

10+ C1,2 81.16


6 200 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.0/SW 1.5 Poor EM Fair Thin canopy, multi stemmed from 2m with compression fork unions

and upright growth

Re-assess vitality in 3

months (< 3 months)

20+ C1,2 18.09

T27 Himalayan birch (Betula utilis)

12 220 2 5.5 4.5 5.5 2.0/E 1.5 Good EM Fair Supressed to north by adj dominant horse chestnut,

suppression likely to increase over time

10+ C1,2 21.89


hippocastanum)

16 560 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 2.0/W 2 Good EM Fair Leaf miner, compression forks at 2.5m with upright form, surface roots with

mower damage in grass to north , bleeding canker

lesions on lower stem to west

20+ B1,2 141.81


sp)

7 180,100,90,90

4 4 4 4 0 Good SM Good Growing beneath chestnut canopy,

10+ C1,2 41.15

T30 Irish yew (Taxus baccata Fastigiata)

7 95,75,75,70,70,65,65,65

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 Good EM Fair Multi stemmed, fastigiate, touching toilet building

Cut back to clear structure by 0.5m (< 12

months)

10+ C1,2 0.8

T31 Holly (Ilex aquifolium)

14 220 2 4 4 4 5.0/W 4 Fair M Fair Thin crown, set on bank, 20cm from retaining wall. branches becoming close to structure, supressed to

north west.

10+ C1,2 21.89


Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments




T32 Western Red Cedar (Thuja

plicata)

16 400,360,300 4 7 7 7 1.0/SE 1.5 Good EM Fair Variegated, secondary stems lean to east, old

pruning wounds on lower stem with good wound

wood

20+ B1,2 244.01


sp)

17 420,400,310,300

4 5 4 5 2.5/N 2 Fair M Poor Canopy slightly thin, compression fork at 0.5m and 1.5m, stems weighted away from each other. Cup

shaped fork at 1.2m.

10+ C1,2 316.05

T34 Yew (Taxus baccata)

11 580 5 5 5 5 2.0/S 0.5 Fair EM Fair Large bark wounds on lower stem, good wound

wood., fused branch creating ‘cup handle’ to

north, compression fork at 1.5m, upright form,

potential self-bracing branches in crown.

20+ B1,2 152.12


sp)

16 405 4 4 4 4 2.0/N 2 Good EM Fair Compression fork at 1.5m, upright form,

10+ C1,2 74.17


sp)

14 200 2 2 2 2 0 Dead EM Dead Dead tree leans west over undergrowth/ waste

ground

Fell (When funds allow)

<10 U 18.09

G37 Lawson’s cypress (Chamaecyparis

Lawsoniana)

12 450 (Avg 150)

3 3 3 3 n/a n/a Good - Poor EM Good - Poor Closely spaced unmaintained hedge, no

evidence of past management, surrounds waste area with litter etc. some trees with dieback, ivy and vandal damage

10+ C2 686.97


6 130,120 3 3 3 3 2.0/S 1 Good SM Fair Bark wounds on lower stem

10+ C1,2 21.8

T39 Fir (Abies sp) 12 320 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.5/W 2 Fair EM Fair Slightly thin canopy, ivy on stem, starting to be

supressed by adj sycamore, resin runs on lower stem

Sever ivy (When funds allow)

20+ B1,2 46.31


20 400,350,300,280,300,38

0,160

8 8 8 8 3.0/S 1.5 Fair EM Fair Multi stemmed from base, likely coppice derived.

compression forks, dense ivy, BT wire in canopy.

Sever ivy (< 12 months)

10+ C1,2 204.64


9 200 2 2 2 2 Poor SM Poor Ivy smothered

<10 U 18.09


Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments





15 260 6 2 4 2 6.0/N 3.5 Fair SM Fair Ivy covered adj car park Sever ivy (< 12 months)

20+ B2 30.57


14 220,100,130,220

6 6 5 6 5.0/S 4 Good SM Fair Compression forks at base, ivy, growing as part of

sycamore woodland clump on bank.

20+ B2 77.82


17 410,400 3 8 3 8 5.0/E 5 Good EM Fair Imbalanced canopy due to mutual suppression.

Orientated south east, deadwood over undergrowth.

10+ C1,2 224.39


17 360 6 7 3 7 1.5/N 4 Good EM Fair Mutual suppression leans south.

20+ B2 58.61

T46 Common Oak (Quercus robur)

12 250 4 6 2 6 3.0/N 2 Good SM Fair Ivy, mutual suppression, rubbing limbs with adj

sycamore

20+ B2 28.26

T47 Common Oak (Quercus robur)

21 1050 8 9 4 9 3.0/SW 3 Good M Fair Significant tree. Dense ivy, deadwood 100mm in

diameter over woodland. 3.5m clearance of road.

Imbalanced canopy, potential limb loss to east. Assessment restricted by

undergrowth and ivy.


Crown lift to clear the road by 5.5m (< 3

months)

20+ B1 498.56

T48 Ash (Fraxinus excelsior)

13 550 1 10 7 10 Good EM Fair Pronounced natural lean to south, supressed by oak,

dense ivy and undergrowth restricts assessment.


10+ C1,2 136.79

T49 Windmill palm (Trachycarpus

fortune)

7 250 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4 Good EM Good

10+ C1,2 28.26

G50 Ash (Fraxinus excelsior), Holly

(Ilex aquifolium), Norway Maple

(Acer platanoides), Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus)

10 150 4 4 4 4 n/a n/a Good - Poor Y-SM Good - Poor Understorey and lesser trees in woodland group, many small trees close or touching adj structures, located on embankment

Cut back to clear structure by 2m (< 12 months)

10+ C1,2 474.73

T51 Sweet Chestnut (Castanea sativa)

12 430 6 6 6 6 2.0/E 1.5 Good SM Good Japanese knotweed in undergrowth to east, tree

located in dense linear group of young and semi

mature broadleaved trees. limited access.

20+ B1,2 83.61


Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments




T52 Sweet Chestnut (Castanea sativa)

15 420 6 6 6 6 4.0/E 2 Good SM Good Japanese knotweed in undergrowth to east, tree

located in dense linear group of young and semi

mature broadleaved trees. limited access

20+ B1,2 79.77

G53 Norway Maple (Acer platanoides),

Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus),

Holly (Ilex aquifolium), Yew (Taxus baccata)

8 200 5 5 5 5 n/a n/a Good - Fair Y-SM Good - Fair Linear group, forming boundary hedgerow to north, limited access.

Central horse chestnuts in middle of group. Trees to west are obstructing car

park, some sycamore with canopy dieback. - willow

leaved pear (190#) by ticket machine, ivy

Cut back clear car park by 3m.

(< 1 month)

10+ C1,2 649.69


14 300,200 6 6 6 6 1.5/S 1 Poor SM Fair Access restricted by undergrowth, dieback in

canopy, thin

10+ C1,2 99.49

T55 Turkey Oak (Quercus cerris)

18 560 9 9 9 9 2.5/S 1 Good EM Good Good specimen.

40+ A1 141.81

T56 Tulip Tree (Liriodendron

tulipifera)

25 1280 10 10 10 10 2.0/S 1 Good M Poor Prominent tree. Compression forks at 1.6m, little reactive growth with parallel seam. Affects both

sides, active increment strip to north. Weak

species. Multiple other compression forks,

exposed surface roots, deadwood 100mm+ diameter over grass,

rubbing limbs.

Crown reduce by 4m and

consider cable bracing or fell (<

3 months)

10+ C1 706.72

T57 Tulip Tree (Liriodendron

tulipifera)

6 200 3 2.5 3 2.5 2.0/W 1.5 Fair SM Poor Weak fork at 2m, lower stem impact damage with

good wound wood to south

Remove secondary stem at 2m with weak

fork. (< 3 months)

10+ C1 18.09

T58 Cherry (Prunus sp) 6 330,190,180,140

4 4 4 4 1.0/W 1.5 Poor M Fair Thin canopy, surface roots and lower limbs with

impact damage, compression forks

10+ C1 138.33


Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments





26 1150 13 6 13 6 4.0/W 1 Good M Fair Felted beech scale on stem, multiple

compression forks with moderate reactive growth,

path adj stem to south. Cavity at 4m to north and 5m to west, good wound wood. Possible moderate

bat roost potential.

Remove dead wood over path

(< 3 months)

Crown reduce stem to west by 4-5m to reduce

lever arm.

20+ B1,2 598.04

T60 Copper Beech (Fagus sylvatica

`Purpurea´)

25 810 5 11 11 11 2.0/W 0.5 Good M Fair Felted beech scale on stem, multiple

compression forks with limited reactive growth.

Crown reduce secondary stem to east by 3m to

reduce lever arm (< 3 months)

Climbing

inspection of main fork at 7m

to assess integrity (< 3

months).

20+ B1 296.69


lawsoniana)

23 465,450,370,220,300,20

0,200

5 5 5 5 0.5/N 0 Good M Fair Upper side of lower limbs with bark removed,

compression forks at 1m. Dead secondary stem to

south,

Remove dead wood (< 3 months)

10+ C1 218.16

T62 Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris)

15 610 7 7 7 7 3.5/S 2 Good EM Fair Growing as part of linear group of pine with some

mutual suppression.

20+ B1,2 168.27


6 110 2 2 2 2 3.5/S 0 Good EM Good Growing as part of linear group of pine

10+ C1,2 5.47


16 600 6 4 6 4 5.0/W 1.5 Good EM Fair Split branch at 7m to south. Growing as part of

linear group of pines.

Remove dead wood split

branch at 7m to south

20+ B1,2 162.79


16 690 7 7 7 7 4.5/W 2 Good EM Good Canker on limb in upper canopy to east. Growing as

part of linear group of pines.

20+ B1,2 215.3

T66 Austrian Pine (Pinus nigra)

19 675 4 6 6 6 4.5/W 2 Good EM Good

20+ B1,2 206.04


Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments




T67 Crab Apple (Malus sylvestris)

5 320 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5/E 2 Fair EM Poor Compression fork at 1.5m, little reactive growth. Cavity at 2m to west,

reasonable wound wood.

10+ C1,2 46.31

T68 Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum)

7 280,190,160,100

7 7 7 7 0.5/E 0.5 Good M Fair Compression forks at base, deadwood

20+ B1 103.33


7 200,150,135 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.0/S 1.5 Good M Fair Compression forks at base

20+ B1,2 54.59


sp)

9 180,120,110,110,100

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0/S 1.5 Good SM Fair Crossing stems

10+ C1,2 51.28

T71 Yew (Taxus baccata)

7 170,170,160,160,150,120,120,90,90

3 5 5 5 0.3/S 0 Good EM Fair

20+ C1,2 12.78

T72 Irish yew (Taxus baccata Fastigiata)

8 100,90,80,75,60,50,50,5

0,50,50

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 Good EM Fair Multi stemmed from base, compression forks

20+ C1,2 0.83


6 70,70,70,60,60,60

4 4 4 4 1.0/S 1.5 Good M Fair Compression fork at base

10+ C1,2 0.29

G74 Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum),

Holly (Ilex aquifolium)

7 150 4 4 4 4 n/a n/a Good - Fair Y-SM Good - Fair Trees and shrubs in ornamental beds

10+ C1,2 215.45

T75 Wellingtonia (Sequoiadendron

giganteum)

16 860 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.3/S 0 Good EM Good Excellent future potential, lights in tree.

40+ A1 334.45

T76 Lime (Tilia sp) 15 330 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0/S 1 Good SM Good Good specimen with good future potential.

20+ B1 49.25

T77 Whitebeam (Sorbus aria)

7 205 3 3 4 3 2.0/E 1.5 Good SM Fair Impact damage to surface roots to south

10+ C1,2 19

T78 Persian Ironwood (Parrotia persica)

6 100,50 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 Good SM Good Memorial tree.

40+ A3 10.17


Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments




T79 Turkey Oak (Quercus cerris)

12 525 9 9 9 9 2.0/W 2 Fair SM Fair Bleeding lesion on lower stem to north east. Good

potential.

20+ B1 124.64

G80 Silver Birch (Betula pendula)

18 340 5 5 5 5 n/a n/a Good M Good

20+ B2 80.13


17 335 4 4 4 4 3.5/E 1 Good M Good

20+ B1 50.75

T82 Atlantic Cedar (Blue) (Cedrus

libani atlantica`Glauca´)

14 550 6 6 6 6 2.0/S 1 Good EM Good Storm damage branch stubs to north at 5-7m.

20+ B1,2 136.79

T83 Atlantic Cedar (Blue) (Cedrus

libani atlantica`Glauca´)

13 610 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 2.0/E 1.5 Good EM Poor Topped at 8m, storm damage tear wounds on limbs to north at 4-5m.

10+ C1 168.27

T84 Red Oak (Quercus rubra)

24 740 10 10 4.5 10 1.5 Good M Good Lower stem bark wounds following impact damage. Recent pruning wounds.

20+ B1,2 247.63


24 755 2 8 11 8 4.0/W 3 Fair M Fair Suppressed to north, recent pruning wounds. Necrotic bark on limb at

4m and 7m to south,

20+ B1,2 257.77


24 710 5 13 13 13 4.0/S 2 Fair M Fair Suppressed to north, recent pruning wounds. Bark torn from northern

buttress root.

20+ B1,2 227.96


24 1050 10 4 13 4 4.0/E 4 Fair M Fair Recent pruning wounds. Pronounced buttressing, pipes in structural root

plate, dieback in canopy to north. Collybia sp fruit

bodies in buttress to north. Epicormic inner canopy

development.

Mulch around tree stem to

improve rooting environment

and avoid mower damage.

(When funds allow)

20+ B1,2 498.56

G88 Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), Goat Willow (Salix

caprea), Silver Birch (Betula

pendula), Norway Maple (Acer platanoides)

9 150 5 5 5 5 n/a n/a Good - Fair SM Good - Fair

10+ C2 242.68


Tree ID


Stem Diameter (m)

Canopy Spread (N)

Canopy Spread (S)

Canopy Spread (E)

Canopy Spread (W)




Life Stage


Condition Comments





7 250,200,200 5 5 5 5 1.0/E 3 Fair EM Fair Reduced at 5m, thin canopy, growing close to

light

10+ C2 92.7


7 250,100 5 5 5 5 1.5/N 2 Fair EM Fair Reduced at 5m, growing close to light

10+ C2 61.05


12 200,100 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0/N 2 Good SM Fair Ivy

10+ C2 40.7

G92 Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus)

9 200 4 4 4 4 n/a n/a Fair SM Fair

10+ C1,2 42.77

G93 Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus),

Common Oak (Quercus robur),

Yew (Taxus baccata), Lime

(Tilia sp)

20 650 7 7 7 7 n/a n/a Good - Fair M Good - Fair No access, private property, oak reduced

historically, tip dieback. Prominent lime trees to

north west of group.

20+ B1,2 437.29

G94 Lime (Tilia sp), Unknown, Unknown

28 650 6 6 6 6 n/a n/a Good - Fair M Good - Fair No access private property.

20+ B1,2 286.95


hippocastanum)

16 900 7 7 7 7 3.0/W 2.5 Good M Fair Dense ivy, no access to stem base beyond fence.

20+ B1,2 366.29


Appendix B: Tree Constraint Plans

60512175 – TS1 - TS4

RPAR

PA

RPARPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PAR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PAR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA RPA RPA RPA RPA RPA RPA RPA RPA RPA RPA RPA RPA

A - CATEGORY TREES(HIGH QUALITY & VALUE)

ROOT PROTECTIONAREAS (AS DEFINED BYBS 5837:2012)

B - CATEGORY TREES(MODERATE QUALITY &VALUE)

C - CATEGORY TREES(LOW QUALITY & VALUE)

U - CATEGORY TREES(UNSUITABLE FORRETENTION)

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OFAECOM'S APPOINTMENT BY ITS CLIENT. AECOM ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY USE OF THIS

DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS ORIGINAL CLIENT OR FOLLOWING AECOM'S EXPRESSAGREEMENT TO SUCH USE, AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED

AND PROVIDED.

Drawing Number Rev

DateApprovedCheckedDrawn

AECOM Internal Project No.

Drawing Title

SuffixBy

Revision Details DateCheck

Project Title

Client

Suitability

Scale @ A2

TREE

SUR

VEY

PLAN

1 - A

UTOC

AD

Zone

Purpose of issue

Designed

www.aecom.com

SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BOX

Tel:Fax:

PLANNING

N/A CC AW AK 11-07-16

N/A

1:250

60512175

CALVERLEY GROUNDS ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS

TREE SURVEY PLAN(SHEET 1 OF 4)

N/A

Mayflower House, Armada WayPlymouthDevon, PL1 1LD

+44 (0)1752 676 700+44 (0)870 238 6023

AECOM

NOTES

SITE LOCATION PLAN (NTS)

10m9876543210

SCALE 1:250

LEGENDFOR INFORMATION BEYOND THIS POINT

SEE DRAWING: 60512175 - TS3

SHEET 2

SHEET 3

SHEET 4

SHEET 1

FOR

INFO

RMAT

ION

BEYO

ND T

HIS

POIN

TSE

E DR

AWIN

G: 60

5121

75 -

TS2

TREE CATEGORIES AS DEFINED BY BS5837:2012

BASE MAPPING IS BASED UPON ORDNANCE SURVEY DATA.

TREE LOCATIONS ARE BASED UPON TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY BY TOWNSHENDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS REF: X TLA L C 01-A0 200 .

* DENOTES A TREE WITH AN APPROXIMATE POSITION BASED UPON SITE OBSERVATIONS /MEASUREMENTS AND AERIAL IMAGERY.

PLANS SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AECOM TREE SURVEY REPORT.

THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DRAWING WAS PRODUCED IN COLOUR - A MONOCHROME COPYSHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON.

T1*T2T3T4T5T6T8T9T10T13T14

T87

T86

T85

G80

T79

T7

T84T83T82

T81T75

T76T77

G21BT11T17

T16

T15

T12

T19

T18

T21

T20

T23

T22

T25

T24

T27

T26

T29

T28

T78

sign

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RP

ARP

A

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RP

ARP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARP

A

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPARPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA RPA RPARPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPARPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PAR

PAR

PAR

PAR

PAR

PARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPARPARPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA






RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA



AND PROVIDED.

Drawing Number Rev



Drawing Title

SuffixBy


Project Title

Client

Suitability

Scale @ A2

TREE

SUR

VEY

PLAN

1 - A

UTOC

AD

Zone

Purpose of issue

Designed

www.aecom.com


Tel:Fax:

PLANNING

N/A CC AW AK 11-07-16

N/A

1:250

60512175



N/A


+44 (0)1752 676 700+44 (0)870 238 6023

AECOM

NOTES


SHEET 1

10m9876543210

SCALE 1:250

LEGEND

SHEET 3

SHEET 4

SHEET 2

FOR INFORMATION BEYOND THIS POINTSEE DRAW

ING: 60512175 - TS3FOR INFORMATION BEYOND THIS POINT

SEE DRAWING: 60512175 - TS1







T75T23

T22

T25

T24

T27

T26

T29

T28

G88

T90

T89

T48

G50

T47

T42

T41

T51

G53

T40

T49

T45

T46

T43

T44

T66

T64

T65

T72T70T69 T73

T35T39

T36T38

T68T67

T33

T32

T31T30T34

G74

G37

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARP

A

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA RPA RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA






RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA



AND PROVIDED.

Drawing Number Rev



Drawing Title

SuffixBy


Project Title

Client

Suitability

Scale @ A2

TREE

SUR

VEY

PLAN

1 - A

UTOC

AD

Zone

Purpose of issue

Designed

www.aecom.com


Tel:Fax:

PLANNING

N/A CC AW AK 11-07-16

N/A

1:250

60512175



N/A


+44 (0)1752 676 700+44 (0)870 238 6023

AECOM

NOTES


SHEET 1

10m9876543210

SCALE 1:250

LEGEND

SHEET 2

SHEET 4

SHEET 3

FOR

INFO

RMAT

ION

BEYO

ND T

HIS

POIN

TSE

E DR

AWIN

G: 60

5121

75 -

TS4

FOR

INFO

RMAT

ION

BEYO

ND T

HIS

POIN

TSE

E DR

AWIN

G: 60

5121

75 -

TS2

FOR INFORMATION BEYOND THIS POINTSEE DRAWING: 60512175 - TS1







T72T70T69 T73

T35

T36

T68T67

T33

T32

T31T30T34

G74

T71

T56T57T58 T55

T59T61

T63

T64

T60

T65

T66

T62

G53

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA R

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

A

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA RPA RPA RPA

RPA RPARPA RPA RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPAR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPARPA

RPA






RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA



AND PROVIDED.

Drawing Number Rev



Drawing Title

SuffixBy


Project Title

Client

Suitability

Scale @ A2

TREE

SUR

VEY

PLAN

1 - A

UTOC

AD

Zone

Purpose of issue

Designed

www.aecom.com


Tel:Fax:

PLANNING

N/A CC AW AK 11-07-16

N/A

1:250

60512175



N/A


+44 (0)1752 676 700+44 (0)870 238 6023

AECOM







NOTES


SHEET 1

10m9876543210

SCALE 1:250

LEGEND

SHEET 2

SHEET 3

SHEET 4


ING: 60512175 - TS3


T88

T90

T89

T51

G53

T64

T65

T62

T61

T52

T54

T95

G93

G92

T91

G53

T63

G94

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA R

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

ARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA RPA RPA RPA

RPA RPARPA RPA RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPAR

PAR

PA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RP

AR

PA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPA RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPARPARPA

RPA






RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA



AND PROVIDED.

Drawing Number Rev



Drawing Title

SuffixBy


Project Title

Client

Suitability

Scale @ A2

TREE

SUR

VEY

PLAN

1 - A

UTOC

AD

Zone

Purpose of issue

Designed

www.aecom.com


Tel:Fax:

PLANNING

N/A CC AW AK 11-07-16

N/A

1:250

60512175



N/A


+44 (0)1752 676 700+44 (0)870 238 6023

AECOM







NOTES


SHEET 1

10m9876543210

SCALE 1:250

LEGEND

SHEET 2

SHEET 3

SHEET 4


ING: 60512175 - TS3


T88

T90

T89

T51

G53

T64

T65

T62

T61

T52

T54

T95

G93

G92

T91

G53

T63

G94

Allies and Morrison

85 Southwark Street London SE1 0HXtelephone +44 (0)20 7921 0100facsimile +44 (0)20 7921 0101web alliesandmorrison.com

arboricultural report - tunbridge wells · calverley grounds – baseline arboricultural report 3...

Documents