Arboricultural Report

Proposed development at Langmere Lakes Old Church Road

8th November 2018

1 Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

Client Mr. Mark Foster Langmere Lakes Old Church Road Frettenham Norfolk NR10 3BP

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

Document Arboricultural Report

Version 1.0 Date 8th November 2018 Author Ben Hogben BSc Hons, Dip Surv (Rural), MICFor

Reviewer Etienne Swarts B Compt (Hons) F Deg Sc ACIEEM

Greenlight Environmental Consultancy Limited Diss Business Hub Hopper Way Diss Norfolk IP22 4GT

8th November 2018 2

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

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

8th November 2018 3

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

Summary

• This report provides the results of a tree survey of land at Langmere Lakes, Old Church Road, Frettenham, Norwich, Norfolk and an arboricultural constraints assessment of the site, and may be used to inform the planning process. • The local planning authority is the Broadland District Council and communication with the Council’s Planning Department confirms that there are no Tree Preservation Orders in the vicinity and that there is no Conservation Area in this part of Frettenham. • One small tree and some scrub hawthorn is to be removed to make sufficient space for the development and a moribund ash tree is given a “U” quality category and will also be removed. No further tree removal will be required. • For the new access road, it is recommended that where encroachment into an RPA occurs, a No Dig construction technique is employed. • 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. • Based on the proposed site plan and recommended tree protection measures, we consider that the development can be accommodated with minimal impacts on the arboricultural interest of the site.

8th November 2018 4

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Greenlight Environmental Consultancy Ltd has been commissioned to prepare an arboricultural report for land at Langmere Lakes, Old Church Road, Frettenham, Norwich, Norfolk. 1.2. The proposals are for the extension of Langmere Lake Holiday Park, including the creation of seven new lodges along the south-west aspect of Rowan Pond. Please refer to Appendix E for the proposed plans. 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, 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.

8th November 2018 5

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

3. DESKTOP REVIEW 3.1 The proposed site for development is located on the edge of the parish of Frettenham in a remote rural location. Frettenham is located six miles north-east of Norwich, surrounded by countryside. The village is well known for its rich farmland. 3.2 The development site extends to approximately 10,000m2 of which much is open water. The current land use is rough grassland, an area kept clear of weed and scrub regrowth by regular mowing and contrasts with the heavily managed grass lawns around the existing chalets. It is intended that the existing access off Old Church Road at approximate NGR TG 24069 19818 will be used. 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 vicinity and that there is no Conservation Area in this part of Frettenham.

The Site

Figure 1, Site location

8th November 2018 6

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

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. 4.1. The proposal is for the construction of up to eight new holiday lodges, an access road and associated infrastructure. 4.2 The site stands in a rural location on the every edge of the village of Frettenham. The land is a disused gravel pit that has been transformed into a wildlife haven and holiday park with lodges and fishing lakes. Twenty lodges have already been erected and another eight are proposed. 4.3 The tree cover is of two main types, the boundary hedgerow with mature hedgerow oak trees which lines the southern and western boundaries, and the areas of semi mature scrub and woodland mainly bordering the fishing lake known as Rowan Pond. 4.4 The boundary hedge of mainly hawthorn is getting quite weak in places due to the domination of ivy and the shading from the hedgerow trees, as well as the great age of the hedge shrubs and a recent lack of maintenance. The hedgerow trees are mostly oak, and are generally in good condition. 4.5 The area of scrub at the northern end of the site appears to be naturally established and is mainly hawthorn but also contains some blackthorn, sallow, oak and much bramble. The woodland fringe to Rowan Pond is an excellent mixture of oak, silver birch, hornbeam, goat willow, crab apple, ash and pine. There is also a good variety in age classes represented, which also offers good structural diversity. 4.6 There are very restricted views onto the site from the public road to the west, however an earth bund limits views and provides a barrier to noise pollution. The hedge beyond the bund is patchy. The new lodges will be largely obscured by the existing hedge and tree cover. It is considered that the proposed development would cause minimal visual intrusion provided care is taken with the design.

8th November 2018 7

Figure 2: Tree Survey

8 Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

Figure 3: Tree Constraints Plan

8th November 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. The cascade chart for tree quality assessment from BS5837:2012 is reproduced in appendix D. 5.2 There are no “high” quality category A graded trees but most are awarded a category B grading at regular intervals around the site. The scrub group and the woodland are graded “C” largely due to their young age and diverse character. The moribund ash in the south western corner is graded U and should be removed. 5.3 Only a small area of the scrub group and the leaning young oak will need to be removed in order to make sufficient space for the lodges. In general terms, the category C trees should not constrain development but it is expected that trees graded B and higher should be retained and protected for incorporation into any development of the site. 5.4 The access road is shown on the indicative layout to run close to the southern boundary and crosses the root protection areas of the hedgerow trees. It is recommended that this access road is constructed using No-Dig techniques. 5.5 The hedge along the roadside behind the earth bund is in poor condition, and would benefit from replanting into gaps and replacing some of the hedgerow trees that have been lost.

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 14 0 0 14 0

Category C 2 2 0 4 0

TOTALS 17 2 0 19 1

10 Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

6 ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT

Tree Work

6.1 It is recommended that the broken limb in the top of T16 be remedied the category U ash tree be removed. 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 line for the fencing is shown in the Tree Constraints Plan. However, the woodland is beyond any major impact from construction activity and a simple plastic mesh type barrier would be adequate protection along the woodland boundary. 6.4 It is recommended that the access road is constructed using a No-Dig construction method as described further below.

No-Dig Construction

6.5 It is recommended that where encroachment into an RPA occurs, a No Dig construction technique is employed. Where it is necessary to achieve a level surface, the level should be built up using a permeable materials and minimum compaction. 6.6 The access should be constructed without excavation apart from the removal of turf/organic matter, which should be carried out by hand. Excavators, dumpers and other site traffic should not be allowed to track on the No-Dig areas until the roots are protected by the No-Dig surfacing. 6.7 The construction sequence of a commonly used engineering solution for a No Dig surface involves the following steps (see Appendix F for detail): • Topsoil/turf/gravel surfacing should be removed carefully by hand to a maximum of 50mm, or less if the roots are found nearer the surface. • Following levelling with subsoil or sand, a permeable membrane (BGT100 Geotextile Fabric) should be laid. • TERRAMTM Geocell Tree Root Protection (Appendix F) cellular confinement system should then be constructed to manufacturer’s instructions on top of the geotextile.

8th November 2018 11

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

• The cellular confinement system should be filled with clean (no fines), washed angular, 5mm to 45mm stone to provide load support, while allowing air and moisture to permeate to the root zone. • Install the permeable pavement layer/wearing course e.g. BodPave®85, on top of the TERRAM TM Geocell according to the manufacturer’s instructions. 6.8 Removed turf/topsoil can be used to grade surrounding ground levels.

General Measures

6.9 No construction activity should be allowed within root protection areas, except as detailed in an agreed method statement. 6.10 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. 6.11 Fires should not be lit in a position where their flames could extend to within 5m of foliage, branches or trunks. 6.12 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.

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.

8th November 2018 12

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

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.

8th November 2018 13

Appendix A Tree Survey Detail

®

anch anch ꭞ *

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

- - - -

Tree ID Common Name Maturity Height (m) Height and direction of first significant br (m) (mm) Diam RPA (m) radius RPA Area (m2) Spread Spread Spread Spread Category Life Expectancy Subcategory Phys Condition Tree work recommendations Comment No action 1;2 T1 Common Oak Mature 10 4m N 420 5 80 4 4 5 4 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T2 Common Oak Mature 12 4m N 620 7.4 174 6 5 7 6 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 No action

T3 Common Oak Mature 10 3m N 590 7.1 157 5 4 4 3.5 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 Fell T4 Common Oak Mature 14 5m N 800 9.6 290 5 5 6 5 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T5 Common Oak Mature 14 4m N 600 7.2 163 3 3 4 3 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T6 Common Oak Mature 18 2m N 700 8.4 222 5 5 6 5 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 No action T7 Common Oak Mature 10 3m N 840 10.1 319 6 5 6 6 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 No action T8 Common Oak Mature 13 n/a 850 10.2 327 5 6 7 6 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 Fell T9 Ash Dead 14 2m N n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a U <10 yrs Dead 1;2 No action T10 Common Oak Mature 13 3.5m N 520 6.2 122 6 6 4 5 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T11 Common Oak Mature 13 n/a 600 7.2 163 6 6 6 4 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 No action G12 Mixed native spp. Young 5 2m S 120 1.4 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a C 20-40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T13 Common Oak Young 5 n/a 170 2 13 3 3.5 3 2 C 20-40 yrs Poor Semi- 1;2 No action W14 Mixed native spp. mature 12 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C >40 yrs Good Semi- 1;2 No action T15 Common Oak mature 13 2m W 550 6.6 137 3 5 7 6 B >40 yrs Fair

14 Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

®

anch anch ꭞ *

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

- - - -

Tree ID Common Name Maturity Height (m) Height and direction of first significant br (m) (mm) Diam RPA (m) radius RPA Area (m2) Spread Spread Spread Spread Category Life Expectancy Subcategory Phys Condition Tree work recommendations Comment

Semi- 1;2 Remedy T16 Common Oak mature 12 2m N 470 5.6 100 6 6 7 7 C >40 yrs Fair broken top Semi- 1;2 No action T17 Common Oak mature 13 3m S 470 5.6 100 5 6 6 4 B >40 yrs Good Semi- 1;2 No action T18 Common Oak mature 13 4m S 410 4.9 76 4 3 5 5 B >40 yrs Fair Semi- 1;2 No action T19 Common Oak mature 12 3m S 340 4.1 52 5 5 6 3 B >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 for multi-stemmed trees 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

8th November 2018 15

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

Appendix B Photographic record of selected trees

View from end of existing track looking west to area proposed for new Dead ash tree T9 access

8th November 2018 16

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

Woodland edge

8th November 2018 17

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

Small oak T13 and scrub area G12 part of which to be cleared Promising oak T15

8th November 2018 18

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

Top damage to T16 Oaks T16-T19

8th November 2018 19

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

Appendix C- British Standard BS 5837:2012 - Default Specification for Protective Barrier

8th November 2018 20

Appendix D

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

21 Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

8th November 2018 22

Appendix E – Proposed Layout

23 Appendix F

TERRAM TM Geocell product sheet and installation guidance

24 Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

8th November 2018 25

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

8th November 2018 26

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

8th November 2018 27

Arboricultural Report - Langmere Lakes Frettenham v1.0

8th November 2018 28