tree survey, impact study and method statement...tree survey, impact study and method statement...

Tree Survey, Impact Study and Method Statement

Grange House, Grangeway, Runcorn.

4 Upavon Avenue, Greasby, Wirral, CH49 3PL

TEL: 07725 488648 - Web: www.ebsols.co.uk – email: [email protected]

Tree Survey, Impact Study and Method

Statement –

Grange House, Grangeway, Runcorn (Prepared by EBS onbehalf of John McCall Architects)

11th

June 2010

Bill Gaudie,

BSc hons (Wildlife Conservation), MIEEM

http://www.ebsols.co.uk/



1. STUDY SITE

1.1 Site: Grassed area adjacent to Grange House, Grangeways, Runcorn.

1.2 Drawings: 020512JC-01 030512

1.3 Date surveyed: 4th

June 2012.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Tree Survey, Impact Study and Method Statement requested line with the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990.

2.2 Survey requested by John McCall Architects in support of possible planning application at above site.

3. TREE SURVEY.

3.1 Survey conducted to part BS5837 requirements*.

3.2 All trees requested on drawing 020512JC-01 030512with a stem ø at a point 1.5m above ground level

exceeding 75mm have been surveyed.

3.3 Tree spread representing dimensions at the four cardinal points, stem ø at 1.5m above ground level

(mm), age class, condition, estimated remaining contribution in years and BS5837 category grading,

have been recorded in table 1 (Appendix 3).

3.4 Details of any proposed pruning are outlined in table 1 (Appendix 3).

3.5 Restraints.

3.5.1 Accuracy of tree plotting accepted as drawing 020512JC-01 030512 (Appendix 1).

3.5.2 Accuracy of proposed development accepted as Drawing 1345 L03 March 2012 ((Appendix 2).

4. FINDINGS.

4.1 The area consists of amenity grassland containing 3 trees adjacent to Grangeway, Runcorn.

4.2 1 low quality Wild Cherry trees may be lost to the development.

4.3 1 moderate Beech tree along with 1 low quality Wild Cherry will be protected during the development.

4.4 No trees on site are suitable for bat roosts.

5. IMPACT STUDY.

5.1 1 low quality Beech tree may be lost to the development.

5.2 Without the proposed protective measures outlined below, crown and / or root damage may occur to

trees to be left in situ.

5.3 If the protective measures outlined in section 6 are followed, then it is envisaged that no damage will

occur to any trees to be kept.

6. METHOD STATEMENT.

6.1 As trees are living organisms all trees requiring pruning mentioned above will be evaluated

individually by a suitably qualified tree surgeon to ascertain the level of tree works required (crown

lifting etc) so as to protect any protruding boughs to site traffic.

6.2 All tree work will be conducted outside of the bird breeding season unless a full breeding bird survey

has been conducted by a suitably qualified ecologist.

6.3 Tree works on mature trees will only be conducted after a bat roost survey has been conducted by

suitably qualified ecologist.

6.4 Root Protection Areas (RPA) will be established around all trees to be retained prior to any site works

commencing (see appendix 3).

6.5 Root Protection Areas to be erected using bs5837 recommendation (see fig 1).

6.6 No vehicles are to be allowed within any RPA at any time during development.

6.7 All RPA’s are to remain static during the development phase.

6.8 Materials that may contaminate soil, e.g. concrete mixing, diesel oil and vehicle washings, should not

be discharged within 10m of any tree stem.

6.8 Fires should not be lit in a position where their flames can extend to within 5m of foliage, branches or

trunk.

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



Fig 1. Protective fencing.

7. COMPENSATION

7.1 At present it is envisaged that only 1poor quality tree is to be lost to the development, to be replaced on

a 2:1 ratio

7.2 If for any reason more trees are lost then it is envisaged that again these will be replaced on a greater

than 2:1 ratio around the site as compensation only with prior consent of the tree officer.

7.3 Trees mentioned in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan should be considered as compensation.

7.4 All trees planted should be of standard height.

7.5 Bird boxes to be strategically placed around the site

7.6 A landscape and maintenance plan should be prepared to ensure the development of the trees and

landscape of the plot.

8. SUMMARY

Although it is unfortunate when any trees are lost to a development, on this occasion only 1 low quality

specimen is to be lost and should easily be compensated for.

Bill Gaudie



BSc (hons) Wildlife Conservation, MIEEM

APPENDIX 1

DRAWING: Site Survey 020512JC-01 030512



APPENDIX 2

DRAWING: Proposed layout –1345 L03 March 2012



APPENDIX 3

Table 1. BS5837 Data



Table 1. Breakdown of data. BS5837 Survey,

Tag Species R.P.A.

(M)

DBH

(mm)

Branch Spread

N-E-S-W (m)

Crown

Clearance

Age

Class

Physiological

Condition

Structural

Condition

Prelim

Management

Years

Remain

Cat

Grade 1 Common Beech 2.64 220 3 2 1.5 Young OK OK Remove for

development

+20 C

3 4

2 Wild Cherry 4.80 4 5 6 1.5 Mid Age OK OK None +20 B

4 4

3 Wild Cherry 3.00 300

Multi-girth

3 2 1 Young OK OK None +20 C

3 2

tree survey, impact study and method statement...tree survey, impact study and method statement...

Documents