Arboricultural Report

Proposed development at Rowan South Burlingham Road Lingwood

16th December 2018

9th November 2018 1

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

Client & Site Rowan, S Burlingham Rd, c/o Anglian Planning Services Ltd Lingwood 48 Cere Road, Norfolk NR7 8JX

Planning authority District Council Thorpe Lodge 1 Yarmouth Road Norwich Norfolk NR7 0DU

Document Arboricultural Report

Version 1.0 Date 16th December 2018 Author Ben Hogben BSc Hons, Dip Surv (Rural), MICFor

Reviewer Brian Herbison, APS Ltd

BH Trees and Woodlands Consultancy Limited 299 Road Norwich Norfolk NR7 8RN

16th December 2018 2

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

Table of Contents

Page

Summary 4

1 Introduction 5 2 Methodology 5 3 Desktop review 6 4 Field study 7 5 Arboricultural Implications Assessment 10 6 Arboricultural Method Statement 11 7 Conclusions 12 8 Bibliography 12

Appendix A Tree survey detail

Appendix B Photographic record of selected trees

Appendix C Default Specification for Protective Barrier

Appendix D BS 5837:2012 Table 1 Cascade chart for tree quality assessment

Appendix E Proposed layout

16th December 2018 3

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

Summary

 This report provides the results of a tree survey at Rowan, South Burlingham Road, Lingwood, Norfolk, NR13 4TE and an arboricultural constraints assessment of the site, and may be used to inform the planning process.  The local planning authority is Broadland District Council and communication with the Council’s Planning Department confirms that there are no Tree Preservation Orders in the immediate vicinity and that there is no Conservation Area in this part of Lingwood.

 There are no high quality category “A” trees on the site, and all the trees are located on the perimeter of the site.

 One young conifer and a section of Lonicera hedge are required to be removed to make space for the development. No significant impacts on the retained trees are anticipated

 Recommended root protection areas are mapped in this report. No construction activities should take place within root protection areas, except as indicated in the detailed method statement.

 We consider that development can be accommodated with minimal impacts on the arboricultural interest of the site.

16th December 2018 4

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. BH Trees and Woodland Consultancy Ltd has been commissioned to prepare an arboricultural report for land at “Rowan”, South Burlingham Road, Lingwood, Norfolk, Norfolk . 1.2. The current site access is located at grid reference TG 36980 08985. 1.3. The report includes a survey of those trees that may be affected and an assessment of the potential arboricultural impact of the proposed development on the trees.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. The tree survey and arboricultural aspects have been prepared in accordance with recommendations provided in BS 5837:2012, Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations. 2.2. The site survey included trees, within the boundaries of the site and those considered to be potentially affected by development proposals, with a stem diameter over 75mm at 1.5m height. 2.3. The tree inspection took place from ground level using visual tree assessment methods, with the use of binoculars and Suunto clinometer. The presence and condition of bark and stem wounds, cavities, decay, fungal fruiting bodies and any structural defects that could increase the risk of structural failure were noted. 2.4. Details for each tree were recorded with management recommendations if deemed necessary for the development requirements, a category grading according to BS 5837:2012, and tree protection distance.

Constraints

2.5. No internal decay devices or other invasive tools to assess tree condition were used. 2.6. No soil excavation or root inspection was carried out. 2.7. The survey has not considered the effect that trees or vegetation may have on the structural integrity of future building through subsidence or heave.

16th December 2018 5

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

3. DESKTOP REVIEW

3.1 The proposed development site is located in the small village of Lingwood. is a in the English county of Norfolk, comprising the large village of Lingwood together with the smaller villages of Burlingham Green, North Burlingham and South Burlingham. The villages are all within 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) of each other, some 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) equidistant from the town of and the city of Norwich. 3.2 The development proposal is for the extension of the existing bungalow to incorporate a garage and some internal alteration. This will include a new access off the public road and a car parking/turning area.

3.3 The local planning authority is Broadland District Council and communication with the Council’s Planning Department confirms that there are no Tree Preservation Orders in the immediate vicinity and that there is no Conservation Area in this part of Lingwood.

The Site

Figure 1. Site location

16th December 2018 6

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

4. FIELD STUDY

4.1 The trees on the site are plotted on a plan shown in Figure 2 below. A schedule of the detailed survey data is reproduced in a table at appendix A. 4.2 The property “Rowan” is located on a quiet rural lane. It is a small bungalow with a loft conversion and an old timber garage. The development proposal affects only the area to the north and west of the existing building. This area is currently used as the landscaped front garden of the bungalow. The main area affected has a surfacing of crazy-paving over a large part. 4.3 The tree interest in this area is a collection of semi-mature, exotic, ornamental species. There is a low close-trimmed roadside hedge consisting of mainly Lonicera and holly, which continues along part of the eastern boundary in a less tended form. 4.4 The soils in this area are generally freely draining slightly acid loamy soils, thus of low fertility but moderately resistant to compaction. The site stands in The North East Norfolk and Flegg National Character Area (NCA 79) which slopes gently from west to east and is divided into three parts interspersed by National Character Area. Inland it is a rich agricultural area with small- to medium-scale fields, and is mainly unwooded. Isolated farmsteads and small nucleated villages with large medieval churches are linked by a dense network of lanes. 4.5 The site stands in a very rural location on the edge of the built up area. Views from the public road are currently available over the low existing hedging along the roadside. It is considered that the proposed development would cause minimal visual intrusion which can be mitigated by care with the design and suitable landscaping proposals.

16th December 2018 7

Figure 2: Tree Survey

9th November 2018 8

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

Figure 3: Tree Protection Plan

16th December 2018 9

5 ASSESSMENT OF ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The Tree Survey plan in figure 2 shows the trees found on the site and their quality assessment according to the grading categories stipulated in the British Standard. 5.2 There are no trees awarded a high category “A” grading. Two trees are given a moderate category B grading as promising specimens but possibly in the wrong position as one is very close to the overhead wires and the other very close to the road. The remaining trees are awarded a category C grading largely due to their poor condition and limited expected future contribution. The cascade chart for tree quality assessment from BS5837:2012 is reproduced in appendix D. 5.3 The hedgerow along the road is established but poorly structured and composed predominantly of Lonicera, a vigorous pioneer species but lacking stem strength to achieve a tall hedge without support. It is proposed to create a gap in the hedge for the new access. The hedge presumably once extended the full length of the western boundary but the northern section has been replaced with a wooden panel fence. 5.4 It is proposed to remove the redwood tree to create the access driveway to the new garage. The access has no other impacts. There is some minor encroachment on the rooting zone of the larch tree T3 where the turning area for the drive extends to the west. It would be preferable to create a shorter wider hammerhead. However, this area is already covered with a hard surface crazy paving and set a lower level than the root collar of the tree. Therefore if the new surface is created without further excavation and protected from compaction with a load bearing layer, any impact can be minimised 5.5 Table 1 –Quality assessment of trees recorded in survey in accordance with BS5837:2012

TOTALS To be Trees Groups Hedges removed

Category U 1 0 0 1 1

Category A 0 0 0 0 0

Category B 2 0 0 2 0

Category C 6 0 1 7 1

TOTALS 9 0 1 10 2

9th November 2018 10

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

6 ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT

Tree Work

6.1 No tree work is recommended or proposed other than the possible removal of T8 category U tree. 6.2 Any tree work should be undertaken to the standards set out in BS 3998:2010 British Standard Recommendations for Tree Work.

Tree and Root Protection – Constraints on Development

6.3 The Tree Constraints Plan in Figure 3 shows the distance that construction should normally be kept away from retained trees to provide the Root Protection Area (RPA) recommended in BS 5837: 2012. Full protection of the RPAs should be reinforced by the erection of protective fencing constructed to at least a minimum standard as prescribed in BS 5837: 2012 and described in the Appendix C. A suggested line for protective fencing is shown on the Tree Constraints Plan.

General Measures

6.4 No construction activity should be allowed within root protection areas, except as detailed in an agreed method statement. 6.5 No mixing of cement or concrete, or storage of fuel should take place within 10m of retained trees, or in any position where the slope of the ground could lead to contamination of the root protection area. 6.6 Fires should not be lit in a position where their flames could extend to within 5m of foliage, branches or trunks. 6.7 Every effort should be made to route services without encroaching on the RPAs. If for whatever reason, installation within the RPAs is required, the local authority will need to be notified. Trenching for the installation of underground services may sever roots and change the hydrology in a way that adversely affects the health of trees. For this reason particular care will be taken in the routing and methods of installing underground services. Wherever possible they should be kept together and arboriculturally sensitive methods of excavation used. Reference should be made to the National Joint Utilities Group publication Volume 4 issue 2 for guidance, but any approach must be brought to the attention of the local authority.

16th December 2018 11

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

7 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Recommended root protection areas are mapped in this report. No construction activities should take place within root protection areas, except as indicated in the method statement.

7.2 Based on the proposed tree constraints plan and recommended tree protection measures, we consider that development can be accommodated on this site with minimal impacts on the arboricultural interest of the site.

8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

British Standards Institution (2012), BS 5837:2012, Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations

British Standards Institute, BS 3998:2010 Recommendations for tree work.

Fay, N., Dowson, D.C. and Helliwell, R. (2005), Guidance Note 7, Tree Surveys: A Guide to Good Practice, The Arboricultural Association

Lonsdale, D. (1999), Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management, Research for Amenity Tree No. 7, Stationery Office, London.

Mattheck, C. and Breloer, H. (1994), The Body Language of Trees, Research for Amenity Trees No.2, Stationery Office, London.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2014), Tree Preservation Orders and trees in conservation areas.

NHBC Standards (2007) Chapter 4.2 ‘Building Near Trees’. National House-Building Council.

Patch D. Holding B. (2006) Arboricultural Practice Note 12 (APN12), Through the Trees to Development. Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service (AAIS).

Strouts R.G. & Winter T.G. (1994).Research for Amenity Trees No.2: Diagnosis of Ill-Health in Trees. Department of the Environment, HMSO.

16th December 2018 12

Appendix A Tree Survey Detail

®

ꭞ

N (m) E (m) S (m) W (m)

- - - -

Tree IDTree Common Name Maturity Height (m) Height and direction of first significant branch (m) Diam (mm) RPA radius (m) RPA Area (m2) Spread Spread Spread Spread Category Sub category ExpectancyLife Phys Condition workTree recommendations

No action T1 Common Holly Semi-mature 7 2m N 220 2.6 22 3 2 2.5 3 B 1; 2 >40 yrs Good No action T2 Apple Mature 6 4m N 220 2.6 22 2.5 3 1 3 C 1; 2 >40 yrs Fair No action T3 Hybrid Larch Semi-mature 12 4m S 340 4.1 52 4 5 2 4.5 B 1 >40 yrs Fair T4 Redwood Semi-mature 7 3m 250 3.0 28 2 C 1 >40 yrs Poor No action No action T5 Common Ash Semi-mature 7 2.5m S 200 2.4 18 1 1 2 2 C 1 10 to 20 yrs Fair No action T6 Common Yew Young 5 1.3m N 120 1.4 7 1.5 C 1; 2 >40 yrs Fair Predominantly holly No action H7 and Lonicera Semi-mature n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C 1; 2 10 to 20 yrs Fair No action T8 Dead stump n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a U n/a n/a Dead No action T9 Bay laurel Mature 6 2.5m 440 5.3 88 3 C 1 >40 yrs Poor No action T10 Common Yew Young 4 n/a 100 1.2 5 1 C 1 >40 yrs Good

Key Age class: Young (1st qtr of life expectancy) Semi-mature (2nd qtr of life expectancy) Early-mature (3rd qtr of life expectancy) Mature (final qtr of life expectancy) Over mature (beyond life expectancy and declining naturally) Veteran (of great age for its species and possibly of conservation value) * derived measurement using protocols in BS5837 ꭞ Sub category “1” Arboricultural values, Sub category “2” Landscape values, Sub category “3” Cultural values ® Where only a northerly radial crown spread is given, the crown is assumed to be roughly circular

9th November 2018 13

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

Appendix B - Photographic record of selected trees

Roadside hedge where new access is proposed with redwood T4 behind Overview of the site looking west

16th December 2018 14

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

T1, T2, T3, T5 viewed from garden looking north View of T4 in crazy paving area

16th December 2018 15

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

Dead stump T8 Bay tree T9

16th December 2018 16

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

Appendix C -British Standard BS 5837:2012 Default specification for protective barrier

16th December 2018 17

Appendix D

BS 5837:2012 Table 1 Cascade for tree quality assessment

9th November 2018 18

South Burlingham Road, Lingwood - Arboricultural Report v1.0.docx

16th December 2018 19

Appendix E – Proposed Layout

9th November 2018 20