Arboricultural Report

Proposed development at The Walled Garden Belaugh Green Lane

3rd February 2020

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

Client & Site Mike Chapman Walled Garden 5 Cousens Close North Walsham Coltishall Norfolk NR28 0FW

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

Document Arboricultural Report

Version 1.3 (revised 7th August 2020) Date 3rd February 2020 Author Ben Hogben BSc Hons, Dip Surv (Rural), MICFor

Reviewer

BH Trees and Woodlands Consultancy Limited 299 Road Norwich Norfolk NR7 8RN www.bhtrees.co.uk

7th August 2020 2

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

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 Conclusions 12 7 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 Arboricultural Method Statement

Appendix F Tree Protection Plan

7th August 2020 3

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

Summary

• This report provides the results of a tree survey of land at The Walled Garden, Belaugh Green Lane, Coltishall Norfolk NR12 7AJ and an arboricultural constraints assessment of the site, which 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 a Tree Preservation Order affects oak trees in the middle of the field which stand beyond any impacts of the development and that the site stands partly within, and adjacent to, the Coltishall Conservation Area.

• There are several high quality category “A” trees on the site, and a number of young promising specimens awarded category “B”.

• The proposed access road will employ a No-Dig construction method to avoid impacts on retained tree roots.

• No trees are proposed for removal to make space for the proposed development.

• Recommended root protection areas are mapped in this report. No construction activities will 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 retained arboricultural interest of the site.

7th August 2020 4

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. BH Trees and Woodland Consultancy Ltd has been commissioned to prepare an arboricultural report for land at The Walled Garden, Belaugh Green Lane, Coltishall, Norfolk NR12 7AJ. 1.2. Access to the site was gained at approximate grid reference TG 28271 19846. 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.

7th August 2020 5

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

3. DESKTOP REVIEW

3.1 The proposed development site is located in the village of Coltishall, situated on the on edge of Authority Area. It is situated some 7.5 miles north of Norwich and 2.5 miles west of Wroxham. 3.2 The development proposal is for a new private access drive from Belaugh Green Lane to The Walled Garden where a new house is to be built. 3.3 The local planning authority is authority is Broadland District Council and communication with the Council’s planning department confirms that a Tree Preservation Order affects oak trees in the middle of the field which stand beyond any impacts of the development and that the site stands partly within and adjacent to the Coltishall Conservation Area.

The site

Figure 1. Site location

7th August 2020 6

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

4. FIELD STUDY

4.1. The proposed driveway crosses land currently in agricultural use as an arable field and the walled garden has long since lost its original purpose, although the wall remains. 4.2. The site has a heavily wooded character. It is surrounded on three sides by woodland and by low density development to the south. The arable field within which it is set has a parkland feel owing to the mature trees within the field. 4.3. There are some good quality mature oak trees within the hawthorn hedge along Belaugh Green Lane on the eastern boundary. Along the southern boundary a recent hedge and semi-mature planting contains a number of promising oak and walnut trees. On approaching the walled garden there are several mature trees mostly on adjacent land but also a very large beech tree with further trees surrounding the walled garden itself. 4.4. The soils in this area are freely draining, slightly acid, loamy soils and thus of low fertility and moderately resistant to compaction. The site stands in The Broads National Character Area (NCA 77): “The Broads National Character Area (NCA) is situated on the eastern edge of East Anglia and is located predominantly in the county of Norfolk together with a small part of north Suffolk, between the peripheral urban areas of Norwich in the west and Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft in the east. Some 94 per cent of the NCA is open country and the remaining 6 per cent is urban. Its boundary follows the edge of the level, open marshland and valleys drained by the three principal rivers, the Yare, Bure and Waveney, and their tributaries, the Thurne, Ant, Wensum and Chet, giving the NCA its very distinctive shape. The rivers flow east into the sheltered estuary of Breydon Water, which lies at the confluence to the Broads river system. The whole area has become known for the shallow lakes, referred to as ‘broads’ that are contained within the river valleys. These broads are the effect of medieval excavations of peat that became flooded as sea levels rose. Since the 1950s the network of navigable rivers and areas of open water has assured that the Broads is a popular tourism and recreation destination, principally for boating holidays, attracting over 7 million visitors annually.” 4.5. The site is adjacent to the public road thus any development will be partly visible to the public, however the surrounding hedgerows largely screen the development, such that broader landscape impact will be minimal.

7th August 2020 7

Figure 2: Tree Survey

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

Figure 3: Tree Constraints Plan

7th August 2020 9

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

5 ASSESSMENT OF ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The trees likely to be affected on the site are plotted on a plan shown in Figure 2 above and their quality assessment according to the grading categories stipulated in the British Standard. A schedule of the detailed survey data is reproduced in a table at appendix A. 5.2 The new driveway will access through the field entrance between T1 and T2. The driveway then runs along the inside of the hedgerow along Belaugh Green Lane before turning to the North West to follow the boundary to approach to the walled garden. This follows the headland which has been regularly used for vehicular access for many years and is compacted through use. A Minimal Dig construction method will be adopted. 5.3 The semi-mature trees in the neighbouring property to the south are promising specimens and are awarded a Category B. There is no anticipated impact on the current RPA. These trees will of course grow much bigger and may require thinning out in due course. The remaining trees and hedges on the neighbouring properties to the south are awarded a mix of Category B and low quality Category C grading and most are beyond any impact. Category C trees generally would not constrain development. The cascade chart for tree quality assessment from BS5837:2012 is reproduced in appendix D. 5.4 No trees are required to be removed to make space for the development. However, it is recommended that the sycamore T27 be removed before it causes damage to the wall. 5.5 The main development is at some distance from the public road and screened by the roadside hedge and it is anticipated that there will be no significant landscape impacts from the proposals. 5.6 Table 1 –Quality assessment of trees recorded in survey in accordance with BS5837:2012

TOTALS To be removed Trees Groups Hedges

Category U 0 0 0 0 0

Category A 4 0 0 4 0

Category B 16 1 0 17 0

Category C 4 0 2 6 0

TOTALS 24 1 2 27 0

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

Tree Work

5.7 No tree work is currently required. 5.8 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

5.9 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 creating Construction Exclusion Zones (CEZ) through the erection of protective fencing constructed to at least a minimum standard as prescribed in BS 5837: 2012 and described in the Appendix C. This fencing should carry warning notices to prevent inadvertent encroachment. 5.10 All construction traffic and any larger delivery vehicles in future will use the existing entrance at the southern corner to avoid potential damage the hedgerow trees on Belaugh Green lane and additional temporary ground protection measures implemented where the track crosses the RPA of T24. This will obviate the need for protection of the roadside trees and as all construction activity will confined to the area within the walled garden, no formal CEZ is proposed although a physical barrier of protective fencing is proposed adjacent to T24. 5.11 The proposed line for protective fencing is illustrated on the tree protection plan in Appendix F and further details of tree protection are provided in the arboricultural method statement found in Appendix E. The Arb Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan may be amended should the layout be amended or revised.

6 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 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.

6.2 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.

7th August 2020 11

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

7 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.

7th August 2020 12

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

Appendix A Tree Survey Detail

®

ꭞ

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

- - - -

Tree ID Tree CommonName Maturity Height(m) Heightand directionof first significant branch (m) (mm) Diam radius RPA (m) Area RPA (m2) Spread Spread Spread Spread Category Subcategory Expectancy Life PhysCondition work Tree recommendations

No action T1 Common Oak Mature 18 4m W 740 8.9 248 7 B 1;2 >40 yrs Good No action T2 Common Oak Mature 14 2.5m N 510 6.1 118 4.5 4 4 4.5 B 1;2 >40 yrs Fair No action T3 Common Oak Mature 16 3m S 720 8.6 235 6 4 8 7 A 1;2 >40 yrs Good No action H4 Mainly hawthorn Mature 2 n/a 200 2.4 18 1 C 1;2 >40 yrs Fair No action T5 Common Oak Mature 17 3m S 760 9.1 261 7 4 6 7 A 1;2 >40 yrs Good No action H6 Mainly hawthorn Mature 2 n/a 200 2.4 18 1 C 1;2 >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T7 Common Walnut Semi-mature 11 2.5m W 280 3.4 35 4 4 2.5 4 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 No action T8 Common Walnut Semi-mature 16 2.5m W 380 4.6 65 8 6 6 6.5 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 No action T9 Common Oak Semi-mature 12 2m S 360 4.3 59 6 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T10 Common Oak Semi-mature 9 2m N 260 3.1 31 3.5 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T11 Common Oak Semi-mature 8 1.7m W 300 3.6 41 4 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T12 Common Oak Semi-mature 7 2m E 240 2.9 26 3 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T13 Common Oak Semi-mature 8 2m W 310 3.7 43 3.5 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T14 Common Oak Semi-mature 7 2m W 300 3.6 41 3.5 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T15 Common Oak Semi-mature 7 2m S 280 3.4 35 4 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action G16 Leyland Cypress Mature 15 2m 800 9.6 290 6 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T17 Common Hawthorn Mature 6 1.8m 233 2.8 25 2 C 20 to 40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T18 Common Hawthorn Mature 7 n/a 214 2.6 21 2 C 20 to 40 yrs Poor 1;2 No action T19 Common Hawthorn Mature 7 3m 192 2.3 17 2.5 C 20 to 40 yrs Fair

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

®

ꭞ

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

- - - -

Tree ID Tree CommonName Maturity Height(m) Heightand directionof first significant branch (m) (mm) Diam radius RPA (m) Area RPA (m2) Spread Spread Spread Spread Category Subcategory Expectancy Life PhysCondition work Tree recommendations 1;2 No action T20 Common Oak Semi-mature 10 3m S 320 3.8 46 3.5 B >40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T21 Holm Oak Mature 9 2.5m 350 4.2 55 2 C 10 to 20 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T22 Holm Oak Mature 18 5m S 480 5.8 104 4 7 6 3 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 No action T23 Common Ash Mature 18 5m S 460 5.5 96 4 6 4 4 B 20 to 40 yrs Fair 1;2 No action T24 Common Beech Mature 20 5m N 1030 12.4 480 8 A >40 yrs Good 1;2 No action T25 Sycamore Mature 16 3m E 710 8.5 228 7 A >40 yrs Good 1;2 No action T26 Common Hazel Mature 10 n/a 100 1.2 5 3 B >40 yrs Good 1;2 Consider removal T27 Sycamore Mature 15 1.8m N 490 5.9 109 7 B >40 yrs Fair

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

7th August 2020 14

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

Appendix B - Photographic record of selected trees

Hedgerow H4 containing mature oak trees Oak tree T5

7th August 2020 15

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

Holm oak trees on neighbouring land and large beech T24 in background Sycamore T27 which stands too close to the wall and should be removed

7th August 2020 16

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

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

7th August 2020 17

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3 Appendix D - BS 5837:2012 Table 1 Cascade chart for tree quality assessment

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

Appendix E ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT Land at The Walled Garden, Coltishall

Scope of the Works 1. The document provides a methodology for the protection of trees during the proposed development at the above site and should be read in conjunction with the Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in Appendix F and Timetable for Protection Works below. 2. The main features in the protection of the retained trees on site are as follows: • Installation of Minimal-Dig access road • Installation of additional temporary ground protection • Provision of temporary protective barriers • Protective measures must be in place prior to any ground or construction works take place.

Timing of Works 3. Tree protection works will be completed in the order indicated below. 4. The exact commencement date is yet to be decided, however, the timetable provides the order in which the works need to be implemented to ensure the trees are suitably protected and states when specific arboricultural input will be required.

Item Operation Before During On starting Construction Completion Works Works 1. Carry1 out a pre-commencement site meeting to discuss X any. tree protection matters arising 2. Install Minimal-Dig access road X

3. Erect3 temporary protective fencing (thick pink line) on X edge. of the CEZ as specified in the AMS and TPP 4. Erect4 warning signs on fencing around each CEZ X stating. “Construction Exclusion Zone - Keep Out”. 5. Installation of additional temporary ground X protection 6. Maintain5 Protective fences and signs in good condition. X . 7. Remove6 protective fencing and temporary ground X protection. 8. Check7 condition of the protected trees and X consider. if remedial works are necessary.

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

Tree Protection Barriers 5. The important retained trees will be protected by erecting protective fencing as shown on the Tree Protection Plan (TPP). Access for construction traffic and any subsequent delivery by heavy vehicle will use the existing gateway at the southern corner and will obviate the need for a CEZ around the trees on Belaugh Green Lane. 6. Temporary barriers will be erected as shown by the thick pink lines on the TPP to form the Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ). The barriers will consist of 2m tall welded mesh panels (Heras) supported on rubber or concrete feet. The fence panels should be joined together using a minimum of two anti-tamper couplers installed so they can be removed from the inside of the fence. The distance between couplers should be at least 1m and be uniform throughout the fence. Panels should be supported on the inner side by stabilizer struts which should normally be attached to a base plate and secured with ground pins. Where the fence will be erected on hard surfacing or it is otherwise unfeasible to use ground pins the struts should be mounted on a block tray.

Fig 1: Temporary protective fencing as recommended by the British Standards (2012). Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

7. Notices should be erected on the barriers forming each CEZ stating “Construction Exclusion Zone – No Access “. These should face outwards towards the work area. Signs must be maintained in good condition and remain in place until completion of the works. 8. Barriers will be maintained throughout the duration of the works, ensuring that access is denied to the CEZ throughout the process.

Minimal Dig access driveway 9. A Minimal-Dig method of construction for the driveway is specified. The driveway parallel to Belaugh Green Lane will carry only domestic car traffic. 10. The drive will follow the existing compacted headland and allow a buffer of a minimum of 2m from the base of the hedgerow and trees. It will be constructed by scraping to a level surface, excavating no deeper than 150mm, laying a geotextile sheet and overlain by a surface layer of gravel. The construction of the surface should not be set lower than 150 and any near surface roots over 20mm should be retained as damage to or severance of any roots over this diameter may affect the stability and health of retained trees. There will be no edging. To avoid localized compaction, temporary additional ground protection will overlay the gravel where the driveway crosses the RPA of important retained trees as shown on the Tree Protection Plan. The proper source of advice on a finished design are the structural engineers for the project to ensure it is fit for the intended loading and ground conditions. The design must also take full account of arboricultural advice. 11. At the new access a Highways compliant specification will be required where the driveway joins the public road. This will be centered between T1 and T2, not exceed 4m in width, have retaining kerbstones set no deeper than 150mm and use a permeable asphalt surfacing. The proper source of advice on a finished design are the structural engineers for the project to ensure it is fit for the intended loading and ground conditions.

Temporary Ground Protection 12. Where the new driveway crosses the RPA of retained trees, it should be reinforced by the implementation of surface compaction protection to at least a minimum standard as prescribed in BS 5837: 2012 in the area shown on the tree protection plan in Appendix F below. 13. Temporary ground protection during construction should be capable of supporting any traffic using the site without being distorted or causing compaction of the underlying soil.

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

a) for pedestrian movements only, a single thickness of scaffold boards placed either on top of a driven scaffold frame, so as to form a suspended walkway, or on top of a compression- resistant layer (e.g. 100 mm depth of woodchip), laid onto a geotextile membrane;

b) for pedestrian-operated plant up to a gross weight of 2 t, proprietary, inter-linked ground protection boards placed on top of a compression-resistant layer (e.g. 150 mm depth of woodchip), laid onto a geotextile membrane;

c) for wheeled or tracked construction traffic exceeding 2 t gross weight, an alternative system (e.g. proprietary systems or pre-cast reinforced concrete slabs) to an engineering specification designed in conjunction with arboricultural advice, to accommodate the likely loading to which it will be subjected.

Storage Shipping Containers, Site Huts and Temporary Buildings 14. All storage containers, site huts and temporary buildings will be sited outside the CEZ.

Additional Precautions 15. The movement of plant in proximity to retained trees should be conducted under the supervision of a banksman to ensure adequate clearance from the branches of the trees. Hydraulic cranes, forklifts, excavators or piling rigs (other than small rigs used for mini piling) must be avoided in the immediate vicinity the crown of the trees. 16. Cement, oil, bitumen or any other products which spillage would be likely to be detrimental to tree growth should be stored well away from the outer edge of the RPA of retained trees. Precautions should include ensuring all toxic liquids are stored in fully bunded containers. Spill kits including absorbent materials must be available on site to deal with any accidental spillages that may occur. 17. Lighting of fires on site should be avoided. Where they are unavoidable they must be at such a distance from retained trees that there is no risk of the heat causing fire damage to the trunk or branches. Full account must be taken of wind direction. Fires must be attended at all times until they are completely extinguished.

Service Trenches 18. No details of new service runs have been provided at this stage. They should be routed to avoid the RPAs of trees. If this is not possible, special techniques must be employed to place the services within the RPA of the trees. The British Standard suggests a range of trenchless methods suitable for various applications including micro-tunnelling, surface launched

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3

directional drilling, pipe ramming and impact moleing/thrust boring. It is important common ducts should be used where it is not possible to avoid the RPA. Further guidance on installing underground services adjacent to trees can be found in the NJUG Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees (Volume 4 Issue 2). This document outlines a number of techniques that may be used for trenching near trees, including trenchless techniques, discontinuous trenching and hand digging. 19. It will be necessary to prepare detailed plans for these services that should be produced in conjunction with an arboriculturist, and include allowance for the space needed for access for the installations, and the levels across the proposed area. 20. Any overground services including CCTV must also be positioned to avoid the need for any regular or detrimental pruning to the trees.

Walled Garden Coltishall - Arboricultural Report v1.3 Appendix F – Tree Protection Plan