Botany Bay, Chorley

Arboricultural Impact Assessment

Botany Bay, Chorley

16th February 2021

Report No: Date Revision Author / Checked

10510_R03a 16th February 2021 A Jack Jewell BA (Hons) MLA CMLI

Jamie Pratt FdSc BSc (Hons) MArborA

This report, all plans, illustrations and other associated material remains the property of Tyler Grange Group Ltd until paid for in full. Copyright and intellectual property rights remain with Tyler Grange Group Ltd.

The contents of this report are valid at the time of writing. Tyler Grange shall not be liable for any use of this report other than for the purposes for which it was produced. Owing to the dynamic nature of arboricultural resources, if more than twelve months have elapsed since the date of this report, further advice must be taken before you rely on the contents of this report. Notwithstanding any provision of the Tyler Grange Group Ltd Terms & Conditions, Tyler Grange Group Ltd shall not be liable for any losses (howsoever incurred) arising as a result of reliance by the client or any third party on this report more than 12 months after the date of this report.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley

10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Contents

Section 1: Introduction 1 Section 2: Baseline Information 2 Section 3: Arboricultural Impact Assessment 8

Appendices

Appendix 1: Planning Policy Context Appendix 2: Tree Survey Methodology, Constraints Mapping and Limitations Appendix 3: Cascade Chart for Tree Quality Assessment Appendix 4: Tree Survey Schedule

Plans

10510/P23: Tree Constraints Plan 10510/P24a: Tree Retention and Removal Plan

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley

10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Section 1: Introduction

1.1. This report has been prepared by Tyler Grange Group Ltd (TG) on behalf of FI Real Estate Management to inform a planning application for a proposed development of industrial and commercial buildings, main and secondary circulation roads, car and HGV parking, landscaping and ancillary works and infrastructure at land Canal Mill, Botany Bay Chorley (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’).

1.2. The site is located to the east of the M61 Junction 8, west of Great Knowley and south of the A674 at the north-eastern edge of the built up area of Chorley (OS Grid Reference SD 590 192).

1.3. The site is allocated for employment use under Policy EP1 of the Chorley Local Plan. The site also benefits from an extant outline planning consent for proposed re-development works including demolition and retail use with associated car parking, highways works and landscaping (ref. 17/00715/OUTMAJ). Planning permission was granted in October 2019.

1.4. The site comprises a comprises 8.17 hectares and contains the existing Canal Mill building (Botany Bay) and associated hard surfacing and access roads. It is predominantly flat with the land rising to the north, north-west forming an embankment along the A674. The north and south eastern parcel slope up from west to east towards Blackburn Road to approximately 110 - 115m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

1.5. Internal tree cover includes an arrangement of scattered young car park trees and associated shrub planting. Stands of defunct hedgerow cover and scattered regenerative tree stock align the Leeds and Liverpool Canal which runs parallel to the site’s eastern boundary. The principal tree stock of merit relates to the belts of western and northern boundary roadside embankment planting associated with the M61 and A674 corridors, this forming a verdant backdrop and roadside screen.

1.6. A full BS5837 tree quality survey of the site was undertaken in November 2020.

1.7. The report sets out the baseline findings of the tree survey and confirms the retention of existing moderate value (Category B) tree cover towards the site boundary with proposed tree removals limited to the loss of internal stands of Category C (low value) tree cover and occasional Category B specimens to facilitate the proposed development.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 1 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Section 2: Baseline Information

Site Description

2.1 The site boundary is shown at Figure 2.1 below. The site currently comprises the existing Canal Mill surrounded by car parking facilities and arable land. The Canal Mill building, currently utilised as a shopping and leisure facility, is a recognisable local feature due to its isolated position adjacent to the M61. However, its structure is neither nationally nor locally listed in status.

2.2 Comprising a mix of cleared ground, hardstanding and built form the existing tree cover is limited to pockets of boundary roadside tree cover and regenerative stock, defunct stands of naturalised hedgerow trees to the east and belts of roadside embankment planting to the west and north.

Figure 2.1 – Aerial Imagery / Site Boundary (Aerial Imagery © Google 2020)

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 2 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

2.3 The site’s principle moderate value (Category B) tree stock is present to the western site boundary (G4 – Photo 2.1) forming a linear belt of screen planting interspersed with mature tree cover, comprising a mix of Sycamore, Common alder, Common hawthorn, Common ash.

2.4 Larger individual specimens within G4 appear to be concentrated towards the western roadside edge of the group, away from the site side, growing on steeply sloped ground forming a roadside embankment to the M61 corridor. The site side, on more level ground, becomes increasingly scrubby and of a generally lower individual quality, likely partly due to waterlogged ground and poor drainage.

Photo 2.1 – G4

2.5 Further roadside screening is provided by group G8 (see Photo 2.2) forming a mix of Leyland Cypress and Common alder.

2.6 Internal tree cover comprises a scattered arrangement of predominantly low value (Category C) and young car park trees (T9 – T20 and group G7 – see Photo 2.3) with occasional Category B (moderate value) tree cover present within the arrangement of car park trees and shrubs associated with the eastern frontage to the on-site Canal Mill building (including T8 and T9).

2.7 H1 (see Photo 2.4) provides a linear stand of canal-side hedgerow cover, forming a low level screen into the areas of hardstanding within the site. Such vegetation is defunct in places, requiring re-stocking to enhance the screening value and habitat connectivity across the eastern site boundary.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 3 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

2.8 Remaining tree cover provides a largely naturalised arrangement of site boundary roadside embankment tree planting (G2 / G3 – see Photo 2.5) and naturalised / self-seeded regenerative stock of generally low value.

Photo 2.3 – G7 / T19

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 4 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Photo 2.4 – H1

Photo 2.5 – G2 / G3

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 5 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

2.9 The site falls within the local planning authority of Chorley Council. A summary of the local planning policy context relating to arboricultural matters is provided at Appendix 1 to the rear of this report.

2.10 In summary, local planning policy objectives seek to retain existing trees which are important to the character and appearance of the local area in conjunction with new development proposals and seeks to enhance local biodiversity and Green Infrastructure provision through increasing tree cover and the linking of retained habitats, particularly those of nature conservation and / or habitat value.

Tree Survey Summary

2.11 The survey was completed in accordance with BS5837 and the methodology as detailed at Appendix 2 to the rear of this report. In accordance with the above recommendations, the tree survey included all trees within / in influence of the site and the site boundaries that were over 75mm diameter at breast height (dbh).

2.12 Measured topographical survey data was used to inform the locations and surrounding context of the sites individual and groups of trees. Any trees not included within the topographical survey have been approximated using measurements taken during the tree survey and further informed by aerial photography.

2.13 A total of 27no. individual trees, 10no. groups of trees and a single hedgerow were identified during the tree survey of the site. The survey findings are illustrated on the Tree Constraints Plan (‘TCP’ 10510/P23) located at the rear of this report. The TCP shows the distribution of the trees surveyed together with details of their constraints to new development in accordance with BS5837, including:

• Tree Quality Gradings;1

• Root Protection Areas (RPA’s);2

• Tree canopy spreads;3

• Tree Shading.4

2.14 Findings for each of the tree groups surveyed are detailed in the Tree Survey Schedule (see Appendix 4). This provides a tabulated record of the trees surveyed, including reference numbers, species composition, tree dimensions, life stage, physiological and structural condition, and the arboricultural value of each survey entry.

Tree Grading Summary

2.15 The trees surveyed have been categorised using the ‘cascade chart for tree quality assessment’ (see Appendix 3) recommended by the BS5837. Grading subcategories (1, 2 and 3) are intended to reflect the arboricultural, landscape and cultural values, respectively. The grading system allows

1 The value of arboricultural features surveyed in accordance with the methodology set-out in Appendix 3. 2 A layout design tool indicating the minimum area around a tree deemed to contain sufficient roots and rooting volume to maintain the tree’s viability, and where the protection of the roots and soil structure is treated as a priority. See further explanation at Appendix 3. 3 Dimensions of the trees crown spread and clearance from ground level. See further explanation at Appendix 3. 4 Shade cast by existing trees which may affect the availability of sunlight and daylight within a new development. See further explanation at Appendix 3.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 6 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

informed decisions to be made concerning the design and impact of potential development in relation to the arboricultural value of the trees surveyed.

2.16 Surveyed trees groups comprise a mix of Low Value (Category C) and Category B (Moderate Value / Quality) boundary trees with no ‘Category A’ (High Value / Quality) specimens being present.

2.17 Category C trees represent largely unremarkable examples in terms of species, quality, context and condition. Category C trees are denoted by a Grey tree canopy outline as illustrated on the TCP. These provide limited or transient benefits in the existing site context which may be readily replaced.

2.18 Category B trees are denoted by a ‘Blue’ tree canopy outline as illustrated on the TCP. Category B trees include specimens or groups with notable maturity and / or good future potential, whilst not representing a tree or groups of trees with any particularly distinctive distinct arboricultural functions or merit.

Tree Preservation Orders

2.19 As shown on the ‘My Maps’ section of Chorley Council’s website, there are no Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) present on-site at the time of writing.

2.20 The site does not lie within a Conservation Area.

2.21 No ancient or Veteran trees or woodlands are present on nor in the vicinity of the site.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 7 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Section 3: Arboricultural Impact Assessment

3.1. This Arboricultural Impact Assessment is informed by a composite of the tree survey findings and the proposed layout drawing. The Tree Retention and Removal Plan (‘TRRP’ Ref. 10510/P24a) illustrates that vegetation removal is predominantly limited to the clearance of internal tree stock and site-side sections of site boundary groups to facilitate the proposed development. Tree losses will comprise:

• The removal of tree group G7 and trees T7 - T20 due to conflicts with proposed internal hardstanding and Block G development;

• Partial removal of G4 and G5 site-side vegetation back to site boundary as shown on the TRRP to achieve clearance from blocks F and E;

• Pruning back of G10 to boundary to south western edge of the site to achieve suitable clearance from proposed parking bays; and

• Pruning back of G2 and G3 site-side canopies to site boundary to achieve clearance from blocks C and D.

3.2. The tree stock to be removed is predominantly low value stock, with trees T8 and T9 identified as moderate value in the context of the surrounding car park planting but in themselves providing limited wider amenity or arboricultural benefits. The proposed development footprint has also been cited so as to allow the retention of the adjoining roadside embankment screening vegetation and eastern boundary hedgerow stock, limiting wider amenity impacts.

Avoidance of Root Protection Areas and Canopy Shading

3.3. As illustrated on the TRRP whilst sections of lower value site-site vegetation will be removed to implement the proposed scheme, the development will be located beyond the RPAs of any retained tree cover. Whilst the scheme will remove much of the internal tree cover as described above, this is as a result of pulling the development east and westwards away from the roadside boundaries and canal path hedgerow in a bid to retain and safeguard these groups. This on balance is a preferable development footprint from an arboricultural perspective allowing the best trees within G4 (Category B) to be safeguarded, providing an opportunity to retain and strengthen H1 and the remaining roadside belts of tree cover to the north and west.

New Planting

3.4. A landscape strategy drawing has been prepared to accompany the planning submission, illustrating how the soft landscape design response can be delivered in a way which complements and strengthens the network of boundary tree and hedgerow cover. The proposals seek to enhance the provision of eastern boundary tree cover, providing a linear strip of native woodland trees, comprising a matrix of whips and scattered light standard trees. The site’s existing boundary stock is to be strengthened with new hedgerow planting to re-stock gaps and to strengthen enclosure along the adjoining canal path. An eco-tone of habitats will be created along the site-side development edge via the planting of new native understorey vegetation comprising a mix of wildflower grasses and shrubs. Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 8 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

3.5. There is also an opportunity to replace the proposed internal car park trees which will be removed as part of the development with the provision of new ornamental tree planting towards the northern incidental landscape areas and car parking spaces in and around blocks A – D. Such planting will assist with creating internal greening and softening of built form. Shrubs, strips of hedgerow planting and pockets of grassland will provide under storey seasonal interest and further assist in softening the internal spaces.

3.6. A proposed attenuation area towards the western site boundary will also be planted with a mix of grasses and wet-woodland style trees. This is to include Emorsgate EM8 - Meadow Mixture for Wetlands (for the basin bottom) and Emorsgate EP1 - Pond Edge Mixture (for the basin edges). Trees to the edge of the attenuation area will include Alder, Birch, Goat Willow and Elder.

Construction Mitigation

3.7. It will be necessary to demonstrate how the above and below ground structures of retained tree cover will be protected during the site preparation and construction phases of development in accordance with BS5837:2012. It is therefore recommended that a full Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) is prepared as part of a reserved matters application, or to discharge applicable and suitably worded pre-commencement planning Conditions.

3.8. An AMS will set out a practical and robust strategy for the protection of retained trees for the site preparation, construction of the proposed access arrangement and the wider development works. The AMS scope would typically be agreed in writing with the LPA but is recommended to include:

• a schedule and specification of any tree works; • specifications for barriers and ground protection; • procedures for any specialist construction techniques and any supervised excavations within RPAs; • phasing of work; • an auditable system of site monitoring; and • a Tree Protection Plan.

Conclusion

3.9. A BS5837 tree quality survey and arboricultural impact assessment has been undertaken to inform the proposed re- development proposals at land at land Canal Mill, Botany Bay Chorley. The site is allocated for employment use under Policy EP1 of the Chorley Local Plan.

3.10. The development will require the removal of internal sections of predominantly low value car park tree planting which is of limited amenity value beyond the confines of the site. Eastern boundary hedgerow cover will be retained and enhanced and the site’s principal boundary stock to the west and north will be retained following some minor clearance to the lower value site-side portions of regenerative tree cover. No TPO tree cover will be impacted.

3.11. As part of mitigating the removal of existing tree cover, proposed layout includes a commitment to offering direct tree loss replacement and enhancements to the network of boundary vegetation. The level of new planting throughout the site is expected to substantially increase the canopy area

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 9 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

of the site, reinforce the site boundaries, and enhance the long-term amenity potential of the site’s overall tree stock given the limited extent of vegetation removal which is envisaged at this stage.

3.12. The site also benefits from an extant outline planning consent for proposed re-development works including demolition and retail use with associated car parking, highways works and landscaping (ref. 17/00715/OUTMAJ). The required tree removal works to facilitate the revised development are consistent with the losses which have been consented previously. The development proposals are therefore considered acceptable in arboricultural terms and demonstrate conformity with local planning policy aspirations pertinent to trees given the appropriate balance of loss and replacement which is being sought.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Page 10 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Appendix 1: Planning Policy Context

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley

10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Appendix 1: Planning Policy Context

A1.1 Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) the requirement to consider trees as part of development is a material planning consideration and will be taken into account in the determination of planning applications. Applicable arboricultural planning policy that relates to the site is set out below at a National and Local level.

National Planning Policy

A1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in planning decisions and outlines the Government’s planning policies for England, setting out how these are expected to be applied. The consideration for existing trees and woodlands in the context of planning and new development is set out within Section 15 ‘Conservation and Enhancing the Natural Environment’.

A1.3 Paragraph 170 provides a series of prerequisites to inform how planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. This includes “protecting and enhancing valued landscapes” and “recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside”. The value of ecosystem services is also noted, including the “economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland”.

A1.4 Paragraph 170 also recognises the consideration for “minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity”. This includes the need to establish cohesive ecological networks that are “more resilient to current and future pressures”.

A1.5 Paragraph 171 addresses the need to take a “strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure” adding that plans should be made for the “enhancement of natural capital at the catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries”.

A1.6 Paragraph 174 includes ways in which biodiversity should be protected and enhanced, such as plans that “identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats’, as well as “wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them”.

A1.7 Paragraph 175 highlights a series of principles that local planning authorities should apply when determining planning applications, stating that “if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”.

A1.8 Paragraph 175 also adds that “development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensatory strategy exists”.

A1.9 At a national level, the consideration for trees is recognised in the context of their contribution green infrastructure and biodiversity networks, and also in terms of their contribution in landscape terms to the local setting and character to a place. Great weight is also applied to the importance of

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Appendix 1 Page 1 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

conserving existing aged trees, including ancient woodland and trees and trees considered to be ‘veterans’.

Local Planning Policy

A1.10 The site falls within the local planning authority of Chorley Council. Planning policy within the district are currently contained within a number of statutory documents relevant to this chapter:

• The Central Lancashire Core Strategy (adopted 2012); and • The Chorley Local Plan (adopted 2015).

A1.11 A summary of the applicable local planning policies relating to arboricultural matters is provided below.

The Central Lancashire Core Strategy (adopted 2012)

A1.12 This document sets out the vision and objectives for the development of Central Lancashire to 2026 and includes strategic objectives and policies on key issues.

A1.13 Policy 18: Green Infrastructure encourages the “management and improvement of environment resources, through the protection and enhancement of existing assets that provide economic, social, environmental benefits and “secure mitigation and/or compensatory measures where development would lead to the loss of, or damage to, part of the Green Infrastructure network.”

The Chorley Local Plan (adopted 2015)

A1.14 This document provides the local level of detail, ensuring that the strategic objectives detailed above are implemented by Chorley Council at a district level.

A1.15 Policy BNE1 Design Criteria for New Development details the design requirements for new development within the Borough, including a requirement to ensure that “The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on important natural habitats and landscape features such as historic landscapes, mature trees, hedgerows, ponds and watercourses. In some circumstances where on balance it is considered acceptable to remove one or more of these features then mitigation measures to replace the feature/s will be required either on or off-site.”

A1.16 Policy BNE10 Trees recognises that trees, woodland areas and hedgerows make a valuable contribution to the character of the landscape, this policy states “Tree planting will be required as part of new development proposals and an associated maintenance scheme.”

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) & Guidance (SPG) and Other

Planning Guidelines for Trees and Development (September 1999)

A1.17 This SPD states “A well designed scheme will respect the local environment and provide for the protection of trees and other valuable landscape features. The resultant development will be of a higher quality and more attractive to potential purchasers and occupiers.”

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Appendix 1 Page 2 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Appendix 2: Methodology, Constraints, Mapping and Limita- tions

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley

10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Appendix 2: Methodology, Constraints, Mapping and Limita- tions

Field Work

A2.1 In accordance BS5837, the tree survey included all trees within / in influence of the site and the site boundaries that were over 75mm diameter at breast height (1.5m).

A2.2 Measured topographical survey data (supplied by others) was used to inform tree locations their surrounding context. Any trees not identified on the topographical survey are prefixed with (*) and their locations have been approximated using measurements during the tree survey and further informed by aerial photography where required.

A2.3 The trees surveyed were visually inspected from ground level only. No invasive investigations or climbing inspections were necessary to confirm visual or audible signs of defect or debility and no tissue or soil samples were undertaken. For further clarification please refer to the tree survey explanatory notes in below.

Tree Numbers

‘T’ prefixes have been used to identify individual trees and commence with ‘T1’. ‘G’ prefixes have been used to identify groups of trees. ‘H’ prefixes have been used to identify hedgerows. ‘W’ prefixes have been used to identify woodlands.

Species

A2.4 Species are listed by their common name, both in the schedule and in the report text.

Height and Stem Diameter

A2.5 The stem diameter is measured at 1.5m above ground level and given in millimetres (mm). Tree heights are measured in metres (m) using a clinometer where access and land typography allowed. In instances where access to tree’s stem and height measurements were not possible, the dimensions have been estimated by eye.

Crown Spread and Height of Crown Clearance

A2.6 Radial crown spread is measured in metres and is listed for each of the four cardinal points where access has been possible to obtain a measurement. Where access was not possible to measure the spread of the canopy, such distances have been estimated by eye or informed by aerial photography.

A2.7 The measured canopy shapes have been plotted on the Tree Constraints Plan at the four cardinal points. For groups of trees, the extent of the canopy has been measured as an average across the group and plotted using the topographical survey mapping. In some instances, Tyler Grange will use aerial photography to inform the canopy spread of larger tree groups and woodlands where topographical data is limited for such features.

A2.8 The distance between the ground level and the first significant branch or radial tree crown, whichever is the lower, has been measured in metres.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Appendix 2 Page 1 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Age Class

A2.9 The age of each tree is defined as follows:

Young - within the first third of reaching full maturity; Semi-Mature - within the second third of reaching full maturity; Early-Mature - within the last third of reaching full maturity; Mature - specimen at full maturity; and Veteran – tree that, by recognised criteria, shows features of biological, cultural or aesthetic value that are characteristic of, but not exclusive to, individuals surviving beyond the typical age range for the species concerned.

Physiological and Structural Condition

A2.10 The physiological or structural condition of each tree is defined as either; good, fair, poor or dead. For each tree, where appropriate, notes on the structural integrity are provided on form, taper, forking habit, storm damage, decay, fungi, pests, etc.

A2.11 An assessment of a tree’s physiological condition is defined as:

Good – fully functioning biological system showing expectant vitality for the species i.e. normal bud growth, leaf size, crown density and wound closure.

Fair – fully functioning biological system showing below average vitality i.e. reduced bud growth, smaller leaf size, lower crown density and reduced wound closure.

Poor – a biological system with limited functionality showing clear physiological decline, disease or significantly below average vitality i.e. limited bud growth, small and chlorotic leaves, low crown density and limited wound closure.

Dead – tree observed to fully dead with no living parts.

A2.12 An assessment of a tree’s structural condition is defined as:

Good – no significant structural defects.

Fair – structural defects which could be alleviated through remedial tree surgery or arboricultural management practices

Poor – structural defects which cannot be alleviated through tree surgery or arboricultural management practices.

Tree Quality Gradings

A2.13 The value of trees have been assessed in accordance with the BS5837 Cascade Chart for Tree Quality Assessment (See Appendix 3). Grading subcategories (1, 2 and 3) reflect arboricultural, landscape and cultural values respectively.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Appendix 2 Page 2 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Root Protection Areas

A2.14 The Tree Constraints Plan shows the approximate extent of Root Protection Areas (RPAs). The RPAs have been plotted and calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in Appendices C and D of BS5837, using the tree stem diameter dimensions obtained during the site visit.

A2.15 Plotted RPAs serve as a layout design tool indicating the minimum area around a tree deemed to contain sufficient roots and rooting volume to maintain the tree’s viability, and where the protection of the roots and soil structure is treated as a priority.

A2.16 Where pre-existing site conditions or other factors indicate that rooting may occur asymmetrically, a polygon of equivalent area should be produced. Modifications to the shape of the RPA should reflect a soundly based arboricultural assessment of likely root distribution observed on-site. Any deviation in the RPA from the original circular plot should take account of the following factors whilst still providing adequate protection for the root system:

a) the morphology and disposition of the roots, when influenced by past or existing site conditions (e.g. the presence of roads, structures and underground apparatus);

b) topography and drainage;

c) the soil type and structure; and

d) the likely tolerance of the tree to root disturbance or damage, based on factors such as species, age, condition and past management.

A2.17 The plotted RPAs have therefore informed the design of the proposed development where possible. While developing within RPAs should be avoided, special working methods can be adopted to alleviate the RPA disturbance for cases where the development is considered necessary and unavoidable.

Tree Canopies and Shading

A2.18 The distribution of tree canopy cover on and within influence of the site is illustrated on the TCP. Canopies have been plotted at cardinal points for individual and groups of trees. The Tree Survey Schedule included at Appendix 4 to the rear of this report lists the vertical clearance from site ground level to significant tree branching of individual trees. This measurement informs the impacts of accessibility and development beneath tree canopies.

A2.19 The principal tree shadow constraints are shown on the TCP and have been plotted in accordance with BS5837 using the current height of surveyed trees. The indicative shade cast by existing surveyed trees signifies the area within which the amenity interests of shading, available daylight and the proximity of trees to any future site uses may be impacted upon should a tree be retained as part of development.

A2.20 Where shading is unavoidable, the potential adverse impact of shadowing should also be reviewed on balance with the positive aspects of retaining a degree of canopy shade. BS5837:2012 (para. 5.3.4, a) NOTE 1) states that "shading can be desirable to reduce glare or excessive solar heating, or to provide comfort during hot weather. The combination of shading, wind speed/turbulence reduction and evapotranspiration effects of trees can be utilised in conjunction with the design of buildings and spaces to provide local microclimatic benefits".

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Appendix 2 Page 3 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Limitations

A2.21 The comments made are based on observable factors present at the time of inspection. Although the health and stability of trees in their current context is an integral part of their suitability for retention, it must be understood that this report is not a tree risk assessment and should not be construed as such. While every attempt has been made to provide a realistic and accurate assessment of the trees’ condition at the time of inspection, it may have not been appropriate, or possible, to view all parts or all sides of every tree to fulfil the assessment criteria of a risk assessment.

A2.22 No tree can be considered entirely safe, given the possibility that exceptionally strong winds could damage or uproot even a mechanically ‘perfect’ specimen. It is therefore usually accepted that hazards are only recognisable from distinct defects or from other failure-prone characteristics of the tree or the site. An assessment of the potential influence of trees upon existing buildings or other structures resulting from the effects of trees upon shrinkable load-bearing soils or the effects of incremental root or branch growth, are specifically excluded from this report.

Un-assessable Risks

A2.23 Any alteration to the application site or development proposals could change the current circumstances and may invalidate this report and any recommendations made.

A2.24 The Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended) makes it an offence to disturb nesting birds or recklessly endanger a bat or its roost. Bats are also a European protected species and are additionally protected under the Conservation (Habitats & c) Regulations 1994 and 2010 (as amended). The survey findings, constraints, opportunities and design or mitigation recommendations included within that report must be read alongside this document.

A2.25 A lack of recommended work does not imply that a tree does not pose an unacceptable level of risk and likewise, it should not be implied that a tree will present an acceptable level of risk following the completion of any recommended work.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Appendix 2 Page 4 10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Appendix 3: BS 5837:2012 Cascade Chart for Tree Quality As- sessment

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley

10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

Appendix 3: BS 5837:2012 Cascade Chart for Tree Quality Assessment

TREES FOR REMOVAL

Category and Definition Criteria Identification on Plan Category U Trees that have a serious, irremediable, structural defect, such that their early loss is expected due to Those in such a condition that collapse, including those that will become unviable after removal of other category U trees (i.e. where, they cannot realistically be re- for whatever reason, the loss of companion shelter cannot be mitigated by pruning). tained as living trees in the con- Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, and irreversible overall decline. text of the current land use for Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other trees nearby or very DARK RED longer than 10 years low-quality trees suppressing adjacent trees of better quality. (NOTE: Category U trees can have existing or potential conservation value which it might be desirable to preserve)

TREES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION

Criteria - Subcategories Identification on Category and Definition 1. Mainly Arboricultural 2. Mainly Landscape Values 3. Mainly Cultural Values, Plan

Values including Conservation Category A Trees that are particularly good Trees, groups or woodlands of Trees, groups or woodlands of Trees of high quality with an examples of their species, particular visual importance as significant conservation, historical, estimated remaining life expec- especially if rare or unusual; or arboricultural and/or landscape commemorative or other value tancy of at least 40 years those that are essential features (e.g. veteran trees or wood- components of groups or pasture)

formal or semi-formal LIGHT GREEN arboricultural features (e.g. the dominant and/or principal trees within an avenue)

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Appendix 3

Page 1 th 10510_R03a_16 February 2021_JJ_MM

TREES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION

Category B Trees that might be included in Trees present in numbers, Trees with material conservation or Trees of moderate quality with category A, but are usually growing as groups or other cultural benefits. an estimated remaining life downgraded because of woodlands, such that they expectancy of at least 20 years impaired condition (e.g. attract a higher collective rating presence of significant though than they might as individuals; or remedial defects, including trees occurring as collectives but unsympathetic past situated so as to make little management and storm visual contribution to the wider MID BLUE damage), such that they are locality unlikely to be suitable for retention for beyond 40 years; or trees lacking the special quality necessary to merit the category A designation.

Category C Unremarkable trees of very Trees present in groups or Trees with no material Trees of low quality with an limited merit or such impaired woodlands, but without this conservation or other cultural estimated remaining life condition that they do not conferring on them significantly value. expectancy of at least 10 years, qualify in higher categories. greater collective landscape

or young trees with a stem value; and/or trees offering low GREY diameter below 150mm or temporary/transient landscape benefit.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley Appendix 3

Page 2 th 10510_R03a_16 February 2021_JJ_MM

Appendix 4: Tree Survey Schedule

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley

10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM

BS5837: 2012 Tree Survey Schedule Botany Bay, Chorley 10510_TSS01

Crown Spread (m) Crown Root Tree Common Species Height Trunk Physiological Structural BS5837 RPA Clearance Age Class Comments Protection Number Name (m) Diameter (mm) Condition Condition Category Radius (m) (m) Area (m2) NSEW

Tree stands adjacent to highway on field T1 Silver birch 8m 235 3 3.5 4 2.5 2 E/Mat Good Fair C.1 embankment. Small individual with limited 2.82m 25 wider value.

Stands on embankment between towpath and T2 Sycamore 8m 250 3 3 3 3 2 S/Mat Good Fair C.1 access road within area of dense bracken. 3m 28 Radial canopy. Limited wider value.

Not on topo survey. Stands on embankment between towpath and access road within area T3 Wild cherry 4m 260 3 3 3 3 2 S/Mat Good Fair C.1 3.12m 31 of dense bracken. Radial canopy. Limited wider value.

Not on topo survey. Stands on embankment between towpath and access road within area T4 Common ash 6m 190 3 3 3 3 2 S/Mat Declining Declining U of dense bracken. Splitting stems and dieback _ _ in canopy symptomatic of ash dieback. Long term value very limited.

Stands in vegetation adjacent to canal T5 Common hawthorn 6m 170 3 3 3 3 1 Mat Good Fair C.1 2.04m 13 footbridge

Stands on embankment between towpath and T6 Pedunculate oak 5m 55 3 3 3 3 2 Mat Good Fair C.1 0.6m 1 access road within area of dense bracken.

Multistemmed goat willow failed at basal T7 Goat willow 9m Av. 200 (6x) 6 6 6 6 0.5 Mat Fair Poor U union. Several limbs lay on ground, remaining _ _ stems likely to fail in short term.

1 17/11/2020 BS5837: 2012 Tree Survey Schedule Botany Bay, Chorley 10510_TSS01

Better of several car park landscape trees T8 Whitebeam 5m 210 3 3 3 3 2 E/Mat Good Good B.1 2.52m 20 within planting bed. Limited wider contribution.

Better of several car park landscape trees T9 Whitebeam 5m 210 3 3 3 3 2 E/Mat Good Good B.1 2.52m 20 within planting bed. Limited wider contribution.

Stands in shrub bed, base obscured. Well T10 Deodar cedar 8m 150 2 2 2 2 0.5 S/Mat Good Good C.1 1.8m 10 established. Readily transplanted or replaced.

Small car park tree. Readily transplanted or T11 Whitebeam 3m 90 2 2 2 2 2 Yng Good Good C.1 1.08m 4 replaced.

Small car park tree. Readily transplanted or T12 Wild cherry 2m 100 2 2 2 2 1.5 Yng Good Good C.1 1.2m 5 replaced.

T13 Crab apple 3m 90 2 2 2 2 1.5 S/Mat Fair Fair C.1 Small car park tree. Readily replaced. 1.08m 4

T14 Whitebeam 3m 100 2 2 2 2 1.5 S/Mat Good Fair C.1 Small car park tree. Readily replaced. 1.2m 5

2 17/11/2020 BS5837: 2012 Tree Survey Schedule Botany Bay, Chorley 10510_TSS01

T15 Whitebeam 3m 130 2 2 2 2 1.5 S/Mat Good Fair C.1 Small car park tree. Readily replaced. 1.6m 8

T16 Whitebeam 3m 120 2 2 2 2 1.5 S/Mat Good Fair C.1 Small car park tree. Readily replaced. 1.44m 7

T17 Whitebeam 3m 95 1 1 1 1 1.5 S/Mat Good Good C.1 Small car park tree. Readily replaced. 1.14m 4

T18 Whitebeam 3m 95 1 1 1 1 1.5 S/Mat Good Good C.1 Small car park tree. Readily replaced. 1.14m 4

T19 Whitebeam 3m 95 1 1 1 1 1.5 S/Mat Good Good C.1 Small car park tree. Readily replaced. 1.14m 4

T20 Whitebeam 3m 115 2 2 2 2 1.5 S/Mat Good Good C.1 Small car park tree. Readily replaced. 1.38m 6

Stands adjacent to site internal road and T21 Sycamore 5m 315 5 4.5 4 4.5 2 E/Mat Good Good B.1 3.78m 45 towpath. Good future potential.

3 17/11/2020 BS5837: 2012 Tree Survey Schedule Botany Bay, Chorley 10510_TSS01

Not on topo. Stands within hedgerow. Multistemmed ash With advanced ash T22 Common ash 8m Av. 150 (7x) 4 4 4 4 5 E/Mat Poor Declining U dieback. Severe necrotic lesions _ _ in many structural limbs and dieback throughout canopy.

Stands in hedgerow adjacent to towpath. Large individual, broad radial canopy. T23 Common ash 14m 560 7 8 7 6.5 5 Mat Fair Fair C.1 Indications of ash dieback within canopy 6.72m 142 although not advanced. Long term value likely limited.

Stands in hedgerow. Previously topped at 100, 130, 130, T24 Sycamore 8m 4 4 4 4 2 S/Mat Fair Fair C.1 1.5m likely with hedge cutting. regrown from 3.1m 30 150 this point

Tree within boundary vegetation adjacent to T25 Goat willow 6m 270 5 5 5 5 1 E/Mat Good Fair C.1 towpath. Low radial canopy. Limited wider 3.24m 33 contribution.

Regnerative growth, defunct stand of T26 Goat willow 5m 130 2 4 2 4.5 1 E/Mat Good Fair C.1 boundary vegetation adjacent to towpath. 1.56m 8 Limited wider contribution.

Regnerative growth, defunct stand of T27 Goat willow 6m 270, 250, 225 5 5 5 5 1 E/Mat Good Fair C.1 boundary vegetation adjacent to towpath. 5.2m 84 Limited wider contribution.

Group of trees on roadside embankment Field maple, Grey adjacent to canal. Actual number of trees not alder, Common represented on topo survey. Dense cluster of G1 4 - 10m 90 - 250Mixed 0.5 S/Mat Fair Good C.1.2 3m _ apple, Grey poplar, aspen with other species interspersed. Aspen, Wild cherry Provides screening / buffer, limited individual value of any trees.

4 17/11/2020 BS5837: 2012 Tree Survey Schedule Botany Bay, Chorley 10510_TSS01

Sycamore, Common Scattered scrub and trees on embankment. hawthorn, Common Very limited info on topo survey. ash, Grey poplar, Predominantly scrubby hawthorn interspersed G2 3 - 12m 90 - 300Mixed 0.5 E/Mat Fair Good C.1.2 3.6m _ Wild cherry, with some larger individual trees. Overall Pedunculate oak, limited in value to wider area by size and Goat willow scrubby nature.

G3 Grey poplar, Aspen 5 - 12m 60 - 240Mixed 0.5 S/Mat Fair Good C.1.2 Dense cluster group on embankment. 2.88m _

Dense group on embankment. Group edge estimated as some removals have been carried out prior to tree survey and not reflected on topo survey. Larger individuals appear to be concentrated towards roadside Sycamore, Common edge of group on sloped part of embankment, alder, Common G4 3 - 15m 80 - 350Mixed 0.5 Mat Fair Fair B.2 while on site side on level ground becomes 4.2m _ hawthorn, Common more scrubby and low quality, likely partly due ash to waterlogged ground and poor drainage. Several failed uprooted alder within group To northeast edge. As a whole group provides a landscape buffer from highway. Limited individual value of trees within group.

Sycamore, Silver Continuation of scattered tree and scrub on birch, Common roadside embankment. Regen from group G5 hawthorn, Common 3 - 13m 80 - 270Mixed 0.5 S/Mat Fair Fair C.1.2 3.24m _ encroaching beyond fence into site. Very ash, Wild cherry, limited value. Goat willow

Typical Leyland Cypress tall hedge / group. G6 Leyland cypress av. 16m 300Mixed 1 Mat Fair Good C.1.2 Provides screening from highway. Limited 3.6m _ long term value.

5 17/11/2020 BS5837: 2012 Tree Survey Schedule Botany Bay, Chorley 10510_TSS01

Very small cluster of Scots pine in car park G7 Scots pine 2 - 5m 60 - 150Mixed Young Fair Good C.1.2 1.8m _ planting bed.

Common alder, Dense cypress hedge adjacent to motorway G8 Av. 8m av. 250Mixed 0.5 E/Mat Fair Good B.2 3m _ Leyland cypress embankment.

Dense group of laurel adjacent to towpath and G9 Cherry laurel Av. 7m av. 130Mixed 0.5 E/Mat Fair Good C.1.2 1.56m _ small road. Dense screen, limited wider value.

Very limited detail of group on topo. Dense, Grey alder, Common largely inaccessible group between small hawthorn, Wild internal road and motorway. Group wraps G10 2 - 14m 100 - 350Mixed 0.5 Mat Fair Fair C.1.2 4.2m _ cherry, Cherry laurel, around utility building. Provides screening Goat willow from motorway but trees of limited individual value. Linear stand of towpath hedgerow trees with scrubby margins and naturalised form. Hawthorn, Ash, H1 2 - 4m av. 100 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 E/Mat Fair Fair C.1.2 Predominantly scrubby hawthorn interspersed 1.2m _ Elder with some larger individual trees. Some low level screening / amenity value.

6 17/11/2020

Plans

10510/P23: Tree Constraints Plan 10510/P24a: Tree Retention and Removal Plan

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley

10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM M

A674 G1

Canal

A674 G2

Canal

A674 T2 T3 G2 T4 cont. T5 T6

A674

H1 cont.

A674

Canal

M61 - Slip Road H1 cont.

Canal

M61 - Slip Road H1 cont. G5 T10 T8

1 T7 T9 T12 G7 T19 T11 T14 T13 T18 T17 T15 T20 G6 T16

Canal

M61 - Slip Road H1 cont.

Canal

T21

H1 cont.

T22

M61 - Motorway H1

T23 T24 T25

Canal T26 T27 G9

G10

Canal

B6228

Category C - Trees of low Site Boundary quality and value BS5837 Canopy Shading Extents

Category U - Declining / Poor Category B - Trees of Quality and Condition. Unlikely moderate quality and value BS5837 Calculated Root Protection Areas 3 Jordan Street, Manchester, M15 4PY to remain as living specimen in t: 0161 236 8367 current context for >10 years www.tylergrange.co.uk

This document should not be relied on or used in circumstances other than Tree Constraints Plan Project Botany Bay, Chorley those for which it was prepared and for which Tyler Grange was appointed. Tyler Grange accepts no responsibility for this document to any other party Drawing No 10510/P23 other than the person by whom it was appointed N Date November 2020 &RS\ULJKW7\OHU*UDQJH*URXS/WG 1:2000 @ A2 T1 G1

Pruning back of G2 and G3 G2 site-side canopies to site boundary to achieve clearance from blocks C and D G3

A 6 7 4 T2 T3 G2 T4 cont. T5 T6

H1 cont.

H1 cont. G5 T10 T8 Partial removal of G4 and G5 T7 Removal of internal tree group T9 T12 site-side vegetation back to G7 T19 G7 and trees T7 - T20 due to site boundary as shown to T11 T14 conflicts with proposed internal T13 T18 achieve clearance from blocks T17 hardstanding and Block G T15 T20 F and E development

G6 T16

L E E D S & L I V E R P O O L C A N A L L A A N N A A C C L L O O O O P P R R E E V V I I L L & & S S D D E E E E L L

H1 cont.

T21

H1 cont.

T22

T23 T24 T25 T26 T27 G9

G10

Site Boundary Retained Category C Trees - BS5837 Canopy Shading Extents low quality and value

Retained Category B Trees - moderate quality and value Trees proposed for removal BS5837 Calculated Root Protection Areas 3 Jordan Street, Manchester, M15 4PY t: 0161 236 8367 www.tylergrange.co.uk

This document should not be relied on or used in circumstances other than Tree Retention and Removal Plan Project Botany Bay, Chorley those for which it was prepared and for which Tyler Grange was appointed. Tyler Grange accepts no responsibility for this document to any other party Drawing No 10510/P24a other than the person by whom it was appointed N Date November 2020 &RS\ULJKW7\OHU*UDQJH*URXS/WG 1:2000 @ A2

Tyler Grange Group Limited Marsden Estate, Rendcomb. Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 7EX Tel: 01285 831804 www.tylergrange.co.uk Birmingham・Cotswolds・Exeter・London・Manchester

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Botany Bay, Chorley

10510_R03a_16th February 2021_JJ_MM M