14 0687 Tree Report

Land off Longsight Road,
Langho, Lancashire
Tree Survey Report

for Hallam Land Management
Report Reference: SE581T/H/01c/DH

Author: Dr David Hackett BSc(Hons) MLD PhD MCIEEM CEnv, Director
Checked + approved by: Jenny Oliver, Director
Version: Final
Date: 21st July 2014
Solum Environmental Limited

Suite 6, 9 to 11 Princess Street, Knutsford, Cheshire, WA16 6 BY
t 01565 755337 e info@solumenvironmental.com w www.solumenvironmental.com
Land off Longsight Road, Langho: Tree Survey Report 21st July 2014
Contents
1.0 Summary
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Background and Commission
2.2 Aims of the Survey
2.3 Site Context
Plan 1: Survey Site Boundary
Plan 2: Survey Site Location
3.0 Legal Protection and Planning Guidance

3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
3.2 Biodiversity Action Plans
3.3 Priority Habitats and Species
3.4 Vegetation
3.5 Hedgerows
3.6 Tree Protection Orders (TPOs)
4.0 Methodologies
4.1 Tree Survey Methodology
4.2 Soil Assessment Methodology
4.3 Root Protection Areas and Shading
4.4 Tree Constraints Plan
4.5 Timing of Tree Survey
4.6 Survey Team Members
4.7 Survey Constraints
5.0 Survey Results

5.1 Tree Survey Results – Data and Photographs
Table Series 1: Tree and Hedgerow Survey Data including Photographs
5.2 Tree Survey: Site Description
5.3 Tree Survey: Species Composition
5.4 Soil Assessment Results
5.5 Root Protection Areas
Table 2: Calculation of Root Protection Areas
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 All Conclusions
6.8 All Arboricultural Recommendations
7.0 Contacts, References and Bibliography

7.1 Tree Survey Contact
7.2 References and Bibliography
Appendix 1: Tree Location Plan

Appendix 2: Tree Constraints Plan
Appendix 3: Outline Tree Protection Methodology
This report has been prepared with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the contract with the client.
This report is confidential to the Client. Solum Environmental Limited accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third
parties to who this report may be made known. No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written
approval of the Client. This report is based on survey data gathered in March 2014 at land off Longsight Road, Langho,
Lancashire, BB6 8BG.
SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 2 www.solumenvironmental.com

1.0 Summary
1.1 Solum Environmental was commissioned in February 2014 by Hallam Land Management to undertake a tree survey
of land off Longsight Road, Langho, Lancashire, BB6 8BG. The survey, which was conducted during sub-optimal
season, but otherwise in accordance with BS5837:2012, was commissioned to support a planning application to
develop this site for residential use.
1.2 The survey was conducted by Dr David Hackett MLD PhD MCIEEM CEnv, a Director of Solum Environmental. He is a
highly experienced dual-qualified ecologist and landscape architect and Competent Surveyor, with over 20 years of
professional tree survey experience. David has particular expertise in plant/soil relations and he is the Landscape
Institute’s representation on the AW040 Topsoils standard committee. David is a full member of the Chartered
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, a Chartered Environmentalist and qualified Landscape
Architect.
1.3 The site comprises a parcel of land of approximately 5.4 ha, situated off Longsight Road to the north of the village
of Langho. The site is bounded by Longsight Road to the north, back gardens of properties on Northcote Road to
the east, pasture fields to the west and a railway track to the south. The surrounding area is rural to the north and
west and residential to the south and east.
1.4 The soils at this site are generally deep; they are derived from glacial till and clayey loam (with water ponding in the
clay-rich areas) to silty loam in texture. The pH is around neutrality (6.5 – 7.0). The nature of the soils should
provide little restriction in the choice of species to grow at this site. While there was some potential for shrinkage,
as the site lies near the bottom of a large hill, it generally receives drainage from the higher ground, limiting the
potential for drying out.
1.5 The site currently supports a number of trees and a hedgerow that provide visual amenity and screening –
conversely, limiting the views over the fields from the existing housing to the north and east of the site. The majority
of the trees are at or over the site boundary with a large percentage of the canopies overhanging the site. None of
the trees are designated with TPOs.
1.6 Three of the trees adjacent to the survey boundary were designated as being of the highest quality, and the majority
of trees were recorded as of moderate value and should be retained where possible. A number of the trees on the
eatern boundary were growing adjacent to and their roots being undermined by a fast-flowing stream. Some of
these trees require closer structural survey to establish their stability. Only one tree was recorded as being in poor
condition and to be removed. Access to the tree with in the stream corridor will, however, be required for a better
understanding of the structural integrity of the tree.
1.7 The short length of mature hedgerow to the north of the site represents a significant ecological asset and should
be retained.
1.8 Only two trees lie within the body of the site, as opposed to the boundary, and would therefore provide major
consideration within any proposed housing layout. All boundary trees, including those which lie just within Green
Nook Wood, could be accommodated by the creation of a suitable buffer zone for the protection of trees and
ecology. It should be noted that the majority of Green Nook Wood lies outwith the survey boundaries. The
presence of the stream to the eastern boundary will significantly restrict root spread from trees growing to the east
of this stream.
1.9 There is a veteran alder in the south-west corner of the site that has conservation value; this should be retained
where possible for the benefit of the site ecology. Limited surgery or the use of supporting structures should be
considered in this instance.
1.10 Permission should be sought to access private land and further investigate the structural stability of the trees along
the eastern boundary. Where there is danger of collapse, agreement should be reached with the relevant land
owner to take appropriate actions. Some ground stabilisation may be required where trees are being undermined,
to extend the life of the trees and prevent collapse.

1.11 An Arboricultural Method Statement and a Tree Protection Plan will need to be formulated and agreed with the
Planning Authority to protect trees and hedgerow that are to be retained. A basic, outline tree protection
methodology is supplied at Appendix 3 to assist this process.
1.12 All tree works should be carried out in accordance with BS5837:2012.

2.0 Introduction
2.1 Background and Commission
2.1.1 Solum Environmental was commissioned in February 2014 by Hallam Land Management to undertake a tree survey
of land off Longsight Road, Langho, Lancashire, BB6 8BG. Survey was conducted in accordance with BS5837:2012,
and was commissioned to support a planning application to develop this site for residential use.
2.2 Aims of the Survey

2.2.1 The importance of trees to the redeveloped landscape is considerable for several reasons including visual amenity;
the ecological habitats they provide; and their moderation of the microclimate in removing pollutants and reducing
swings in temperature, exposure etc. Existing trees are therefore increasingly valued as a resource and in
recognition of this; trees are a material consideration in the UK planning system. The BS5837:2012, followed here,
sets out a system of survey, reporting and advice that seeks to ‘achieve a harmonious relationship between trees
and structures that might be achieved in the long term’.
2.2.2 Specific aims of this survey were to:

 Provide information on the type, number and status of the trees on and immediately adjacent to the site;
 Assess the soil on the site to inform any decisions relating to root protection areas, tree protection and new
planting design, with particular reference to shrinkability; and
 Provide guidance on the possible impacts on trees at this site, resulting from re-development of the site, also
to inform the design process to minimise potential impacts on trees.
2.2.3 A plan showing some tree locations and the draft proposed development plan (FPCR Masterplan 5785-L-01) were
provided to surveyors.
2.2.4 A full Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement were not required at this stage.
2.3 Site Context

2.3.1 The site survey area is shown as a red-line boundary at Plan 1 below. The site’s wider location is shown at Plan 2
below.
2.3.2 The site comprises a parcel of land of approximately 5.4 ha, situated off Longsight Road to the north of the village
of Langho. The site is bounded by Longsight Road to the north, back gardens of properties on Northcote Road to
the east, pasture fields to the west and a railway track to the south. The surrounding area is rural to the north and
west and residential to the south and east.
2.3.3 There are no trees with Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) known on this site.
2.3.4 The grid reference for the approximate centre of this site is SD 70556 34580.

Plan 1: Survey Site Boundary (red line)
Plan 2: Survey Site Location

3.0 Legal Protection and Planning Guidance

3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
3.1.1 The NPPF came into force in March 2012. It sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these
are expected to be applied. It gives guidance to local planning authorities on the content of their local plans but is
also a material consideration in determining planning applications. The NPPF states that the planning system
should provide a net gain for biodiversity wherever possible. The NPPF replaces much of the previous planning
policy guidance, including PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. However, the Government Circular
06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning
System (which accompanied PPS9) remains valid.
3.2 Biodiversity Action Plans

3.2.1 UK Biodiversity Action Plans: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) was established in response to the
Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, signed by 150 members at the Rio Earth Summit, which aimed to promote
sustainable development amongst all signatories. Specific action plans have been prepared for highly protected
species. As well as a national Biodiversity Action Plan, local Biodiversity Action Plans identify species of note at local
level throughout the UK. The survey site is covered by the Flintshire Biodiversity Action Plan.
3.3 Priority Habitats and Species

3.3.1 Under the terms of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, all public bodies are required to
have regard to the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their activities. This means that efforts must be
made to consider priority and protected species and habitats in particular. There would be a presumption in the
land-use planning process against any development that would result in loss to an area of priority habitat or harm
to the population of any priority species.
3.4 Vegetation
3.4.1 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) lists plants which are statutorily protected. In relation to
development these plants are rare and are not often encountered. The bluebell is scheduled, with commercial
bulb-picking from the wild being prohibited. There is also a category of plants which it is an offence to introduce to
the wild. This category includes Japanese knotweed, which is often found on brownfield sites. Care is needed to
avoid spreading the species around the site during earthworks, and to ensure that any removal of infested soils off-
site is to a licensed tip. Giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam are also listed in this category of invasive alien plant
species. In addition the Ragwort Control Act came into force on 20 February 2004 and enables the Secretary of
State to make a Code of practice to prevent the spread of common ragwort.
3.5 Hedgerows
3.5.1 As a priority habitat for conservation concern, hedgerows also receive further protection under the Hedgerow
Regulations 1997. Under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 it is against the law to remove or destroy certain
hedgerows without permission from the local planning authority. Local planning authority permission is normally
required before removing hedges that are at least 20 metres (66 feet) in length, more than 30 years old and contain
certain plant species. The authority will assess the importance of the hedgerow using criteria set out in the
regulations. The local planning authority is also the enforcement body for offences created by the Regulations. If a
hedgerow is removed without permission, there may be an unlimited fine and the hedgerow may have to be
replaced.
3.6 Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)

3.6.1 The 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure that adequate provision is
made for the protection of trees, both through the use of planning conditions and of Tree Protection Orders (TPOs).
Local Plans can also include policies relating to trees and may include requirements to protect existing trees and
secure the planting of new ones. Trees may now be listed under the Tree Preservation Order Regulation which
came into force in England on 6th April 2012.

3.6.2 Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) issue Tree Preservation Orders for the protection of designated individual and
groups of trees, based primarily on the visual amenity of the trees so identified. More recently, the value of
exceptional ‘veteran’ trees, which also acknowledges the ecological and heritage value of trees, has been identified
within this process. The TPO Regulations 2012 aim to put all Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) onto the same footing
and consolidate much existing legislation into one new set of regulations, by:
 Cancelling provisions in every existing TPO except information identifying trees (First Schedule and Map) and
replacing with provisions in the new regulations which introduces a new model order.
 Consolidating existing legislation that deals with procedural matters for making and administering TPOs in one
new set of Regulations. The powers in section 192 of the Planning Act 2008 replace the Trees regulations
introduced in 1999 and 2008 as well as subsections 198(3), (4), (6), (8) and (9), and sections 199, 201, 203 –
205 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA).
3.6.3 The duty imposed on Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) by section 197 of the TCPA to make TPOs as they think
necessary when granting planning permission remains unchanged; as does the more general power in section 198
of the TCPA to make TPOs in the interests of amenity.
The following points should be noted:
1. All new TPOs come into force with immediate provisional effect for a period of up to six months or until the
LPA decides whether or not to confirm the Order if sooner.
2. LPAs need to serve copies of new TPOs to persons interested in the land affected and those known to be
entitled to treat the trees (e.g. where trees overhang), but notification of all owners and occupiers of any
adjoining land is now discretionary. This applies to making / confirmation decision / variation / revocation of
TPOs.
3. The exemption provisions are now detailed in Part 3 of the Regulations (rather than the Order itself). The
exemptions broadly accord with those in the 1999 Regulations but now provide clearer definition of
‘dangerous’ and omit ‘dying’. Exemption provisions for trees in conservation areas are also listed
4. There is a requirement to give prior written notice to the LPA to undertake exempt works unless there is an
imminent danger (in which case notification should be given as soon as practicable after the works became
necessary).
5. There is a default period for duration of consented tree work of two years unless LPA imposes condition
otherwise. The consented work may be carried out once only unless LPA impose conditions specifying that the
work may be carried out on multiple occasions or within a specified time period only or both. Replacement
planting in woodland can be required by condition (not direction as hitherto)
6. Part 5 of the Regulations sets out the procedure for appeals for both TPO appeals and s207 Tree Replacement
Notice appeals.
7. Compensation provisions accord with those in the 1999 Regulations (i.e. payable to a person for loss or damage
which, having regard to the application and the documents and particulars accompanying it, was reasonably
foreseeable when consent was refused or was granted subject to conditions). It will no long be possible to
issue an Article 5 Certificate confirming that the tree is considered to have ‘outstanding’ or ‘special’ amenity
value which would remove the LPA’s liability under the Order to pay compensation for loss or damage incurred
as a result of its decision. Any question of disputed compensation is dealt with by the Upper Tribunal.

4.0 Methodologies
4.1 Tree Survey Methodology
4.1.1 Tree survey was conducted in accordance with BS5837:2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and
Construction – Recommendations’. Survey was led by Dr David Hackett BSc MLD PhD CIEEM (Director) and Joseph
Dance (Assistant Ecologist) at Solum Environmental and carried out during daylight hours on 26th February 2014.
4.1.2 In accordance with this standard, the survey included all trees lying within the site boundary which were over 7cm
diameter at breast height (DBH). Trees were surveyed individually and, where appropriate, in groups.
4.1.3 During field survey, each tree was given a designation and photographed. Details of genus, species (where possible),
size and number were noted. The height and branch spread was recorded in metres. The position of each tree was
recorded and the extent of both the canopy and the rooting zone were mapped. Age class and condition (both
physiological and structural) was assessed and an estimation was made of each tree’s remaining contribution (in
years).
4.1.4 In assessing age class, the following scale was used:
Young (Y) Out-planted trees still establishing or self-seeded specimens less than 1/3 ofexpected
height and crown.
Semi-mature (SM) Well established tree up to 1/3 of expected height and crown
Early-mature (EM) Between 1/3 and 2/3 of expected height and crown
Mature (M) Between 2/3 and full expected height and crown
Over-mature (OM) Crown beginning to break-up and decrease in size.
4.1.5 In assessing condition, trees were categorised as good, fair, poor or dead.
4.1.6 In estimating trees’ remaining contribution, the following scale was used:
< 10 years
10 – 20 yrs
20 – 40 years
40+ years.
4.1.7 Trees were ascribed categories according to BS5837:2012 grading, suitability for retention within the proposed
development. Categories were as follows:
U Those in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the
current land use for longer than 10 years
A Trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years
B Trees of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years
C Trees of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years of young trees
with a stem diameter below 150 mm
4.1.8 During this survey, most trees marked on the tree location plan provided were accessible. Where this was not
possible, estimations of stem diameters were made; this is indicated with # in Table Series 1.
4.1.9 Any trees in need of immediate surgery work were noted and a specification of proposed works provided.
4.2 Soil Assessment Methodology

4.2.1 A dedicated soil survey was carried out to inform any decisions relating to the root protection area, tree protection
and new planting design.
4.2.2 The assessment determined the soil structure, depth, composition and pH.

4.2.3 The soil was assessed to determine whether it was shrinkable and therefore if trees and other vegetation would
have the potential to cause indirect damage to structures.
4.3 Root Protection Areas and Shading

4.3.1 The Root Protection Area (RPA) for each tree was calculated using the formula given in BS5837 (2012) and plotted.
4.3.2 Where pre-existing site conditions or other factors are likely to have meant that root growth has occurred
asymmetrically, the root protection area was plotted as a polygon of equivalent area to that calculated.
4.4 Tree Constraints Plan

4.4.1 The Root Protection Areas and shadows cast by these trees provide a guide to the constraints on development
arising from the existing trees. These are illustrated in the Tree Constraints Plan at Appendix 2. Large, mature, over-
mature and veteran trees to be retained and which will be enclosed in the new development were given a large
area of constraint due to the particular risks that these trees present.
4.4.2 The Tree Constraints Plan has been used to inform the landscape proposals. An Arboricultural Implications and
Method Statement and associated Tree Protection Plan will be required as part of any detailed planning permission
for the site.
4.5 Timing of Tree Survey

4.5.1 This survey was carried out in March, which is considered sub-optimal for dedicated tree surveys. However, an
assessment of the species of tree present, along with all of the other relevant parameters, could still be made.
Survey conditions were good for both identification of individual specimens and assessment of the presence of
damage and disease. The measure of tree vigour and infection would not be fully apparent at this stage. Where
there was any doubt, the tree was assumed to be healthy for the purposes of tree retention.
4.6 Survey Team Members

4.6.1 Dr David Hackett MLD PhD MCIEEM CEnv is a Director of Solum Environmental. He is a highly experienced dual-
qualified ecologist and landscape architect with over 20 years of professional tree survey experience. David has
particular expertise in plant/soil relations and he is the Landscape Institute’s representative on the AW 040 Topsoils
standard committee. David is a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management,
a Chartered Environmentalist and qualified Landscape Architect.
4.6.2 Joseph Dance BSc (Hons) is an ecological assistant at Solum Environmental Ltd, with experience in the identification
of small mammals, trees and invertebrates.
4.7 Survey Constraints

4.7.1 In some instances the trees lay on adjacent, private ground. Where these could not be accessed, stem diameters
had to be estimated; this is indicated by # within the tables.

5.0 Survey Results

5.1 Tree Survey Results – Data and Photographs
5.1.1 Trees on the eastern boundary of the site were generally not vigorous, possibly as a result of the close proximity to
the stream and the apparent gradual undermining of tree roots at this location. In some instance this has implications
for the structural stability of the trees (highlighted below where there are apparent dangers) at this location.
Table Series 1: Tree and Hedgerow Survey Data including Photographs
Tree designation T1
Species Sycamore
DBH 720mm
Age class Mature
Height 12m
Crown clearance 4m
First significant branch 4m South
Canopy spread 5m North, 6m South, 5m East, 5m West
Condition Fair
Final tree height 15m
Remaining contribution 40+
Rating B
Other comments Lacks vigour. Canopy hangs over boundary
fence.
Tree designation T2
Species Sycamore
DBH 780mm
Age class Mature
Height 13m
Crown clearance 5m
First significant branch 5m North
Canopy spread 6m all round, 5m South
Condition Good
Remaining contribution 20 - 40
Rating B+
Other comments In a slightly precarious position, hanging over
the stream. Lacks vigour. Canopy hangs over
boundary fence.

Tree designation T3
Species Sycamore
DBH 530mm #
Age class Mature
Height 13m
Crown clearance 4m
First significant branch 3m West
Canopy spread 3m South, 2m North, 6m West and East
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments In close proximity to T4. Lacks vigour. Canopy
hangs over boundary.
Tree designation T4
Species Ash
DBH 570mm #
Age Class Mature
Height 13m
Crown clearance 4m
Canopy spread 8m West, 7m East, 1m South, 7m North
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Canopy hangs over boundary fence.
Lacking vigour; root-spread very limited to
the east due to proximity of stream.
Tree designation T5
Species Sycamore
DBH 580mm #
Age Class Mature
Height 10m
Crown clearance 5m
Canopy spread 3.5m all round, 7m East
Condition Fair
Rating B-
Other comments Lacks vigour; root-spread limited by proximity
of the stream. Canopy hangs over boundary
fence.

Tree designation T6
Species Sycamore
DBH 560mm #
Age class Mature
Height 13m
Crown clearance 3m
Canopy spread 6m all round
Condition Good
Rating B
Other comments Overhangs stream. Canopy hangs over
boundary fence. Stablity of the tree
undermined by proximity of the stream.
Strutural stability should be examined where
the tree is to be retained.
Tree designation T7
Species Sycamore
DBH 520mm #
Age class Mature
Height 13m
Crown clearance 5m
Canopy spread 5m South, 3m North and West, 5m East
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Canopy hangs over boundary fence.
Tree designation T8
Species Ash
DBH 240mm #
Age class Young to semi- mature
Height 8m
Crown clearance 4m
Canopy spread 1m East, 2m North, 4m West and South
Condition Poor
Final tree height 12 m
Rating C
Other comments Unbalanced- crown leans to west. To the east
of boundary fence.

Tree designation T9
Species Sycamore
DBH 490mm #
Age class Mature
Height 13m
Crown clearance 7m
Canopy spread 5m West, 4m North, 6m South and East
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Some hollows and crevices in tree and
supporting significant cover of ivy, but
otherwise apparently healthy. Located on
stream bank immediately east of boundary
fence.
Tree designation T10

Species Sycamore
DBH 540mm #
Age class Mature
Height 12m
Crown clearance 4m
Canopy spread 5m all round, 4m North
Condition Poor
Rating C/U
Other comments Roots showing signs of rot and being
undermined by stream. To the east of
boundary fence. Unable to access for closer
examination. Permission should be sought for
closer inspection to better determine
likelihood of collapse.

Species Sycamore
DBH 540, 430, 460mm
Age class Mature
Height 15m
Crown clearance 7m
First significant branch Divides at base
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments To the east of boundary fence. Relatively
healthy, multi-stem tree.


Species English Oak
DBH 750mm
Age class Mature
Height 15m
Crown clearance 3m
First significant branch 4m East
Canopy spread 8m South, 10m West, 3m North, 8m East
Condition Good
Rating B+
Other comments Significant deadwood in canopy, which should
be removed where it overhangs the
boundary. Also in close proximity with T13,
which is limiting canopy spread. Located on
boundary.
ree designation T13

Species Sycamore
DBH 840mm
Age class Mature
Height 15m
Crown clearance 4m
Canopy spread 7m North and West, 4m South, 3m East
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Cracking and plating on stem indicates lack of
vigour. Located on boundary.

Species Sycamore
DBH 870mm
Age class Mature
Height 16m
Crown clearance 5m
Canopy spread 5m North, 7m West, 6m South and East
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Healthy mature tree, but showing signs of
over-maturity and reduced vigour.


Species English Oak
DBH 700mm
Age class Mature
Height 15m
Crown clearance 2m
Canopy spread 9m North and West, 6m South and East
Condition Good
Rating A-
Other comments In danger of losing one of its main branches,
which overhangs the site, from over-
extension. Limb could be cut-back to reduce
weight and prevent breakage. On boundary.

Species Sycamore
DBH 1140mm
Age class Mature
Height 17m
Crown clearance 5m
Canopy spread 7m all round, 6m West
Condition Fair
Rating A-
Other comments Starting to show signs of over-maturity;
otherwise, healthy tree. On boundary.

Species Ash
DBH 680mm
Age class Mature
Height 15m
Crown clearance 3m
Canopy spread 8m West and North, 7m South, 4m East
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Lost a number of large limbs. To the east of
boundary fence.


Species Sycamore
DBH 480mm
Age class Early mature
Height 14m
Crown clearance 3m
Canopy spread 5m North and South, 6m West, 2m East
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Unbalanced canopy. Tree located in stream
valley, but canopy hangs over boundary
fence. Some undermining of root system.

Species Sycamore
DBH 380, 280mm #
Age class Semi- mature
Height 11m
Crown clearance 4m
First significant branch Divides at base
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Tree located in stream valley, but canopy
overhangs boundary fence.

Species Sycamore
DBH 450mm #
Height 13m
Crown clearance 4m
Canopy spread 5m West, 2m North, 4m South, 2m East
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Tree located in stream valley, but canopy
overhangs boundary fence.


Species Sycamore
DBH 480, 380mm #
Height 13m
Crown clearance 3m
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Tree located on boundary, adjacent to wall.
Relatively healthy and vigorous tree.
Tree designation T22 Photo not possible

Species Alder
DBH 420, 380, 480, 340mm #
Age class Mature
Height 16m
Crown clearance 2m
First significant branch At base
Canopy spread 6m East, 7m North, 3m South, 7m West
Condition Good
Rating A
Other comments Good, healthy specimen of multi-stem alder.
Tree located in private garden, but canopy
hangs over boundary fence.

Species Alder
DBH 400mm #
Age class Mature
Height 15m
Crown clearance 3m
Canopy spread 6m East and West, 4m North and South
Condition Fair
Remaining contribution 20 – 40
Rating B+
Other comments Slight lean. Off- site in private garden but
canopy hangs over boundary.


Species Alder
DBH 430mm #
Height 13m
Crown clearance 2m
Canopy spread 4m all round, 1m South
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Off- site in private garden but canopy hangs
over boundary.

Species Alder
DBH 280mm #
Age class Semi- mature
Height 11m
Crown clearance 2m
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Off- site in private garden, but canopy hangs
over boundary.

Species Alder
DBH 340mm #
Height 13m
Crown clearance 2m
Canopy spread 2m all round, 1m East
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Off- site in private garden, but canopy hangs
over boundary.


Species Alder
DBH 460, 440mm #
Age class Mature
Height 13m
Crown clearance 2m
Canopy spread 4m all round. 6m South
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Off- site but canopy hangs over boundary.

Species English Oak
DBH 680mm
Age class Mature
Height 9m
Crown clearance 2m
Condition Fair
Rating B
Other comments Not vigorous, growth possibly restrained by
regular trampling of roots and exposure to the
weather.

Species English Oak
DBH 720mm
Age class Mature
Height 9m
Crown clearance 3m
First significant branch 2.5m South
Condition Fair
Rating B+
Other comments Not vigorous, growth possibly restrained by
regular trampling of roots and exposure to
weather.


Species Alder
DBH 660mm
Age class Over- mature
Height 8m
Crown clearance 2m
Condition Fair
Remaining contribution ?
Rating C/B
Other comments While the tree is in apparent poor health and
in danger of collapse, this is a veteran alder
and should be retained where possible and
with assistance, where necessary, for its
conservation value.
Group designation G1
Species composition Beech, ash, sycamore, oak, hazel.
Height Average 14- 15m
Age Early mature to mature
Comments 50- 60 trees in small woodland with an
understory of ivy, bramble and wild garlic.
Woodland shows signs of heavy traffic in
parts, but with potential to develop for
biodiversity, particularly in enhancement with
native shrubs along the permiter of the wood.
Group designation G2 Photo not possible

Species composition Alder
Comments 12 trees with DBH ranging between 250-
350mm. All in fair condition with a remaining
contribution of 40+ years.

Species composition Scots pine
Age Young to early mature
Comments Row of several, mainly healthy Scots pine,
with DBH ranging between 150mm and
600mm. All in fair condition with a remaining
contribution of 40+ years. Trees apparently
planted to provide screening to private
property at this location.
Species composition Alder
Height 14- 16m
Comments 30+ alder trees in good condition with DBH
ranging between 400- 600mm. Remaining
contribution of 40+ years. Conditions at this
location appear particularly favourable to
alder growth.
Hedgerow designation H1
Species composition Hawthorn, with patches of ash, elder,
sycamore and viburnum.
Height 1.5m
Width 2.5m
Comments Short length (hedge broken by a field gate) of
well-maintaiend, species-rich, mature
hedgerow. Understorey of dog’s mercury,
lesser celandine, nettle, lords and ladies and
hazel.
5.1.2 The composition and significance of trees within Green Nook Wood to the north-west of the site are dealt with
separately, in Solum Environmental’s Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (2014) for this site.
5.2 Tree Survey: Site Description

5.2.1 The site comprises of a parcel of land of approximately 5.4 ha, situated off Longsight Road to the north of the village
of Langho. The site is bounded by Longsight Road to the north, back gardens of properties on Northcote Road to the
east, pasture fields to the west and a railway track to the south. The surrounding area is rural to the north and west
and residential to the south and east.
5.3 Tree Survey: Species Composition

5.3.1 A total of 7 tree species were noted within the survey, of which Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) was the most
common:
 Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus)
 Alder (Alnus glutinosa)
 English Oak (Quercus robur)
 Ash (Fraxinus excelsior)

 Beech (Fagus sylvatica)

 Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris)
5.4 Soil Assessment Results

5.4.1 The soils at this site are generally deep; they are derived from glacial till and clayey loam (with water ponding in the
clay-rich areas) to silty loam in texture. The pH is around neutrality (6.5 – 7.0). The nature of the soils should provide
little restriction in the choice of species that would grow at this site. While there was some potential for shrinkage,
as the site lies near the bottom of a large hill it generally receives drainage from the higher ground, limiting the
potential for drying out.
5.5 Root Protection Areas

5.5.1 Root Protection Areas were calculated as a nominal radius of 12 x stem diameter. Where there were multiple stems,
this figure was the square root of the sums of the squares of the individual diameters. Where there were more than
five stems, the figure was the square of the mean multiplied by the number of stems.
Table 2: Calculation of Root Protection Areas
Tree Designation DBH (in mm) Number of stems Radius of nominal circle in m RPA in m2
T1 720 1 8.6 234.5
T2 780 1 9.4 275.3
T3 530 1 6.4 127.1
T4 570 1 6.8 147.0
T5 580 1 7.0 152.2
T6 560 1 6.7 141.9
T7 520 1 6.2 122.3
T8 240 1 2.9 26.1
T9 490 1 5.9 108.6
T10 540 1 6.5 131.9
T11 540,430,460 3 8.3 216.2
T12 750 1 9.0 254.5
T13 840 1 10.1 319.2
T14 870 1 10.4 342.5
T15 700 1 8.4 221.7
T16 1140 1 13.7 588.0
T17 680 1 8.2 209.2
T18 480 1 5.8 104.2
T19 380,280 2 4.7 70.0
T20 450 1 5.4 91.6
T21 480,380 2 6.1 117.8
T22 420,380,480,340 4 8.2 209.5
T23 400 1 4.8 72.4
T24 430 1 5.2 83.7
T25 280 1 3.4 35.5
T26 340 1 4.1 52.3

Tree Designation DBH (in mm) Number of stems Radius of nominal circle in m RPA in m2
T27 460,440 2 6.4 127.3
T28 680 1 8.2 209.2
T29 720 1 8.6 234.5
T30 660 1 7.9 197.1

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 All Conclusions
6.1.1 The site currently supports a number of trees and a hedgerow that provide visual amenity and screening – conversely,
limiting the views over the fields from the existing housing to the north and east of the site. The majority of the trees
are at or over the site boundary with a large percentage of the canopies overhanging the site. None of the trees are
designated with TPOs.
6.1.2 Three of the trees adjacent to the survey boundary were designated as being of the highest quality, and the majority
of trees were recorded as of moderate value and should be retained where possible. A number of the trees on the
eatern boundary were growing adjacent to and their roots being undermined by a fast-flowing stream. Some of these
trees require closer structural survey to establish their stability. Only one tree was recorded as being in poor
condition and to be removed. Access to the trees within the stream corridor will, however, be required, for a better
understanding of the structural integrity of these trees.
6.1.3 The short length of mature hedgerow to the northern boundary represents a significant ecological asset and should
be retained.
6.1.4 Only two trees lie within the body of the site, as opposed to the boundary, and would therefore provide major
consideration within any proposed housing layout. All boundary trees, including Green Nook Wood, could be
accommodated by the creation of a suitable buffer zone for the protection of trees and ecology. The presence of the
stream to the eastern boundary will significantly restrict root spread from trees growing to the east of the stream.
6.1.5 All tree works should be in accordance with BS5837:2012.
6.1.6 The loamy and generally deep soils do not represent any significant impediment to planting (taking account of their
slightly acid status) or development of trees and shrubs. Generally, the soils will get wetter towards the bottom of
the site, towards the northern boundary.
6.2 All Arboricultural Recommendations

R1 An Arboricultural Method Statement and a Tree Protection Plan will need to be formulated under condition and
agreed with the Planning Authority to protect trees and hedgerow that are to be retained. A basic, outline tree
protection methodology is supplied at Appendix 3 to assist this process.
R2 There is a veteran alder in the south-west corner of the site that has conservation value; this should be retained
where possible for the benefit of the site ecology. Limited surgery or the use of supporting structures should be
considered in this instance.
R3 Permission should be sought to access private land and further investigate the structural stability of the trees along
the eastern boundary. Where there is danger of collapse, agreement should be reached with the relevant land
owner to take appropriate actions. Some ground stabilisation may be required where trees are being undermined,
to extend the life of the trees and prevent collapse.

7.0 Contacts, References and Bibliography

7.1 Tree Survey Contact
7.1.1 Dr David Hackett, Director
Solum Environmental Limited
Suite 6
9-11 Princess Road
Knutsford
WA16 6BY
Phone 01565 755337
Email d.hackett@solumenvironmental.com
7.2 References and Bibliography

BS 5837: 2005 Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations.
 BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations.
 UK BAP www.ukbap.org.uk

Appendix 1: Tree Location Plan

Appendix 2: Tree Constraints Plan

Appendix 3: Outline Tree Protection Methodology

1.1 GENERAL
Distribution
1.1.1 It is important to ensure everyone involved in the planning and design of the proposed development is aware of this
report and has access to a copy as soon as it is released.
Responsibilities
1.1.2 Successful implementation of tree protection measures and long-term tree retention depends on co-ordination
between the client and key personnel involved in the development.
1.1.3 The client and agent shall ensure that:

 the site manager and all other personnel are provided with this document;
 all planning conditions relating to underground works, services, trees and landscaping are cleared before
development commences;
 all requirements of the Tree Protection Plan are adhered to;
 the site manager is updated of any approved changes or variations to this document.
1.1.4 The client and site manager shall ensure that:

 a copy of this document should be easily accessible for site personnel to refer to before and during the time
construction activity is taking place;
 all personnel working on the site are made aware of the Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method
Statements covering any activities they will undertake. This duty includes delegating the task of briefing
personnel in the absence of the site manager.
 The tree protection measures are left in place until the construction phase of development is completed,
except with the written consent of the LPA.
 site personnel are updated of any approved changes or variations to the approved tree protection measures.
1.1.5 All personnel must work in accordance with this document at all times, or in accordance with any approved variation.
Procedures for incidents

1.1.6 If any breach of the approved tree protection measures occurs:
 The Local Planning Authority Tree officer or other Planning Officer and Tree Reports Ltd shall be notified.
 The site manager must be informed immediately.
 Swift action must be taken to halt the breach and prevent any further breach.
 Damage mitigation measures appropriate to the scale of the incident will be deployed where required.
Prohibited Activities
1.1.7 The following must not be carried out under any circumstances:
 Cutting down, uprooting, damaging or otherwise destroying any retained tree.
 Lighting a fire within 10 metres of the canopy of any retained tree.
 Equipment, signage, fencing, tree protection barriers, materials, components, vehicles or structures shall not
be attached to or supported by a retained tree.
 Mixing cement, chemical toilets and other use or storage of anything that would be harmful to trees shall not
take place within, or close to a Root Protection Area (RPA).
1.1.8 The distance away from the RPA must be sufficient, and the slope of the site must be such that contamination of soil
in the RPA would not occur if there were spillage, seepage or displacement.
 No plant or equipment or vehicle with a hydraulic arm such as a mini digger shall be operated within striking
distance of the stem and branches or the RPA of any retained tree unless otherwise specified in this report.
1.1.9 No alterations or variations shall be made to the approved tree protection measures without written approval from
the LPA.

Timing and order of operations

1.1.10 The development must be carried out in the following order unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA. Each
step must be completed before moving onto the next:
i. Tree Works
ii. Installation of tree protection barriers and temporary ground protection in areas indicated on plan and areas
of special engineering.
iii. Construction
iv. Removal of the remaining ground protection and barriers.
v. Landscaping
1.2 PROTECTIVE BARRIERS AND GROUND PROTECTION
Barriers
1.2.1 The barriers shall be installed and removed in accordance with the timing of operations above and laid out in
accordance with the appended Tree Protection Plan. All weather notices must be added to the tree protection
barriers or suitable intervals. For this site, the existing boundary fence may be used as a tree protection barrier. In
the event of any panel or support becoming damaged, this must be immediately reinforced by adding panels with
the designs below as appropriate.
1.2.2 The default specification is a vertical and horizontal scaffold framework, braced to resist impacts, as per figure 1 below.
The vertical tubes are spaced at a maximum interval of 3 m and these are driven securely into the ground. Welded
mesh panels are securely attached to the frame. During installation it is important to consider the position of below
ground services and structural roots, which must not be damaged. Where these constraints prevent the use of this
specification, an alternative specification is given below. See figure 1 below:
Figure 1 – default tree protection barrier specification
Alternative tree protection barrier design
1.2.3 Two metre tall welded mesh panels standing in rubber or concrete feet joined using a minimum of two anti-tamper
couplers installed so they can only be removed from inside the protected area. The fence couplers should be at

spaced least 1 m apart, but uniformly across the whole barrier. These panels must be supported within the protected
area with struts attached to a base plate secured by ground pins as per figure 2a.
1.2.4 Where the fencing is installed above retained hard surfacing and / or it is otherwise not feasible unfeasible to use
ground pins (e.g. due to underlying services or structural roots), the struts can be mounted on a block tray as per
figure 2b.
Figure 2 – above ground stabilising systems:

14 0687 Tree Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 0687 Tree Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land off Longsight Road,

Tree Survey Report

Report Reference: SE581T/H/01c/DH

Solum Environmental Limited

3.0 Legal Protection and Planning Guidance

5.0 Survey Results

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

7.0 Contacts, References and Bibliography

Appendix 1: Tree Location Plan

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 2 www.solumenvironmental.com

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 3 www.solumenvironmental.com

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 4 www.solumenvironmental.com

2.2 Aims of the Survey

2.2.2 Specific aims of this survey were to:

2.3 Site Context

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 5 www.solumenvironmental.com

Plan 1: Survey Site Boundary (red line)

Plan 2: Survey Site Location

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 6 www.solumenvironmental.com

3.0 Legal Protection and Planning Guidance

3.2 Biodiversity Action Plans

3.3 Priority Habitats and Species

3.6 Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 7 www.solumenvironmental.com

The following points should be noted:

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 8 www.solumenvironmental.com

4.1.4 In assessing age class, the following scale was used:

4.2 Soil Assessment Methodology

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 9 www.solumenvironmental.com

4.3 Root Protection Areas and Shading

4.4 Tree Constraints Plan

4.5 Timing of Tree Survey

4.6 Survey Team Members

4.7 Survey Constraints

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 10 www.solumenvironmental.com

5.0 Survey Results

Table Series 1: Tree and Hedgerow Survey Data including Photographs

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 11 www.solumenvironmental.com

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 12 www.solumenvironmental.com

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 13 www.solumenvironmental.com

Tree designation T10

Tree designation T11

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 14 www.solumenvironmental.com

Tree designation T12

ree designation T13

Tree designation T14

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 15 www.solumenvironmental.com

Tree designation T15

Tree designation T16

Tree designation T17

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 16 www.solumenvironmental.com

Tree designation T18

Tree designation T19

Tree designation T20

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 17 www.solumenvironmental.com

Tree designation T21

Tree designation T22 Photo not possible

Tree designation T23 Photo not possible

SE581T/H/01c/DH Page 18 www.solumenvironmental.com

Tree designation T24 Photo not possible

Tree designation T25 Photo not possible

Tree designation T26 Photo not possible