Arboricultural Report

Potential development at 36 Church Road Cantley

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report v1.0

Client Mr Philips 36 Church Road Cantley Norfolk NR13 3SS

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

Document Arboricultural Report

Version 1.0 Date first issued 29th September 2017 Author Ben Hogben BSc Hons, Dip Surv (Rural), MICFor

Reviewer

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

29th September 2017 2

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report 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 Default Specification for Protective Barrier

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

29th September 2017 3

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report v1.0

Summary

• This report provides the results of a tree survey of land within the curtilage of No. 36 Church Road, Cantley 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 interrogation of their website confirms that there is no Conservation Area in Cantley and communication with the Council confirms that that none of the trees are covered by Tree Preservation Orders.

• It is anticipated that most of the trees would need to be removed to successfully develop the site. The trees on adjacent land can be successfully protected from development activity.

• Recommended root protection areas are mapped in this report. Once a design layout is proposed a detailed method statement can be drafted to protect the retained trees.

• We consider that development can be accommodated with minimal impacts on the arboricultural interest of the site subject to suitable design and tree protection measures.

29th September 2017 4

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report v1.0

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. BH Trees and Woodland Consultancy Ltd has been commissioned to prepare an arboricultural report for land at 36 Church Road, Cantley, Norfolk. 1.2. The site access is located at grid reference TG 638085 303947. 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.

29th September 2017 5

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report v1.0

3. DESKTOP REVIEW 3.1 The proposed potential development site is located at 36 Church Road, Cantley. Cantley is a village and in the English county of Norfolk and stands within Special Protection Area. The village lies on the north bank of the , some 17 km east of the city of Norwich, 15 km south-west of the town of and the same distance north-west of the Suffolk town of Lowestoft. 3.2 The site ownership extends to approximately 1500m2 which includes the existing bungalow and an extensive back garden. It is suggested that there is sufficient space to provide an access and driveway leading from Church Road past the bungalow to a new dwelling house/houses in the back garden.

3.3 The local planning authority is Broadland District Council and interrogation of their website confirms that there is no Conservation Area in Cantley and communication with the Council confirms that that none of the trees are covered by Tree Preservation Orders..

The Site

Figure 1; Site location

29th September 2017 6

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report 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. 4.2 The site is currently in use as a domestic formal garden with intricate mature landscaping. Well-established, semi-mature trees are growing near an ornamental pond close to the dwelling house, to the rear of the garden are some disused animal pens and glasshouses. The garden is subdivided by over-mature conifer hedges in poor condition. 4.3 The soils are slightly acid, loamy and freely draining of low natural fertility. The broadly flat, rural landscape of the Broads National Character Area (NCA 84) occupies the eastern edge of 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. 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. 4.4 There is no Conservation Area in Cantley and the site falls just outside the Broads Authority Executive Area and the Broadland Special Protection Area. 4.5 On the first edition OS maps of the 1880s, the area is open agricultural land and the ancient field pattern is just about still discernible. There is no aerial photograph record earlier than 1988 when the current village layout is well established. Most of the boundary trees and hedges are in evidence but little of the internal landscaping. 4.6 The trees are thus all semi-mature, many relatively fast-growing and mostly exotic species. 4.7 There are restricted views from the public road onto the site, but otherwise the site is well screened from public view by boundary vegetation and existing structures. It is considered that the proposed development would cause minimal visual intrusion provided care is taken with the design.

29th September 2017 7

Figure 2: Tree Survey 36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report v1.0

Figure 3: Tree Constraints Plan

29th September 2017 9

5 ASSESSMENT OF ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 A number of trees would need to be removed to create sufficient space to develop the site, and the northern boundary hedgerow would be vulnerable to the construction of an access road alongside it. The internal conifer hedges are in a poor condition their loss would have minimal impact. 5.2 There is a fine semi-mature cedar tree T10 that dominates the garden and it is anticipated that this may be lost to provide access. It is considered that most of the trees inside the boundaries would need to be removed to allow sufficient space for development, however, apart from the cedar tree, the remaining trees are of moderate quality, mostly given a quality category “C” and should not be considered as a constraint on development. The moderate quality classification is a reflection of their relatively short life expectancy, low landscape contribution or other irremediable defect. There are no high quality category “A” trees on the site. 5.3 The cascade chart for tree quality assessment from BS5837:2012 is reproduced in appendix C. 5.4 The existing garden layout includes a number of groups of shrub species, mostly of exotic species. This is low vegetation that is getting over mature and may be replaced at any time. 5.5 There are some trees on neighbouring land outside the control of the applicant beyond the eastern boundary. One of these, T4, is a category B ash tree that stands at some distance from the boundary and largely beyond the impacts of development, and whilst the others are of only low quality, they are potentially large stature trees and it would be prudent to locate any dwelling at sufficient distance from them to avoid a regular nuisance of falling tree debris and shading from this aspect. Table 1 –Quality assessment of trees recorded in survey in accordance with BS5837:2012

TOTALS Potentially to Trees Groups Hedges be removed

Category U 0 0 0 0 0

Category A 0 0 0 0 0

Category B 2 0 0 0 1

Category C 6 2 1 11 6

TOTALS 8 2 1 11 7

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report v1.0

6 ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT - Guidance

Tree Work

6.1 No tree work is recommended at the present time. 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. The protection of the RPA of any retained trees should be reinforced with protective fencing to a minimum specification as described in appendix B.

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.

29th September 2017 11

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report v1.0

7 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 The trees on the site are generally of moderate quality exotic ornamental species in a formal garden setting. Most of the internal trees and shrubs would need to be removed to provide space to develop the site but the trees provide little environmental benefit and can readily be replaced by new landscaping.

7.2 Once a more detailed layout has been designed, a detailed method statement can be produced to protect the retained trees for we consider that development can be accommodated 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.

29th September 2017 12

Appendix A Tree Survey Detail

ꭞ

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

- - - -

Tree ID Common Name Maturity Height (m) Height and direction of first branchsignificant (m) (mm) Diam RPA (m) radius RPA Area (m2) Spread Spread Spread Spread Category Sub category Life Expectancy Phys Condition Tree work recommendations Comment Semi- T1 Sycamore mature 13.5 6m W 340.0 4.1 52 4 5 3 4 C 1;2 >40 yrs Fair No action Semi- T2 Sycamore mature 13 6m W 360.0 4.3 59 2 4 3 4 C 1;2 >40 yrs Fair No action Semi- T3 Common Holly mature 6 n/a 184.4 2.2 15 3 2 2 2 C 1;2 20 to 40 yrs Fair No action T4 Common Ash Mature 15 5m E 721.1 8.7 235 8 8 6 5 B 1;2 >40 yrs Fair No action Cherry plum H5 hedgerow Mature 2 n/a 0.0 0.0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a C 1;2 20 to 40 yrs Fair No action Semi- T6 Italian Cypress mature 10 n/a 280.9 3.4 36 2.5 C 1;2 >40 yrs Fair No action Semi- T7 Italian Cypress mature 10 n/a 240.0 2.9 26 2.5 C 1;2 >40 yrs Fair No action Mixed shrub S8 group Mature n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a C 1;2 20 to 40 yrs Fair No action Mixed shrub S9 group Mature n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a C 1;2 20 to 40 yrs Fair No action Semi- T9 Deodar Cedar mature 14.5 1m SW 540.0 6.5 132 6 5 6 5 B 1;2 >40 yrs Fair No action Semi- T10 Lawson Cypress mature 10 n/a 280.0 3.4 35 2 2 2 2 C 1;2 20 to 40 yrs Fair No action

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

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report v1.0 Appendix B

British Standard BS 5837:2012 Default specification for protective barrier

29th September 2017 14

Appendix C

BS 5837:2012 Table 1 Cascade for tree quality assessment

36 Church Road Cantley - Arboricultural Report v1.0

29th September 2017 16