The Urban Forestry Organisation Limited
Tree Constraints Plan Relating to the Site for Proposed Community Centre, Fontley Road, Titchfield, Hampshire, PO15 6QR
Commissioned by Alykhan Tejani of Better Prepared Ltd
and compiled by Chris Rose B.Sc (For).
MICF. CEnv
Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 3
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS.................................................................................. 4
BACKGROUND...................................................................................................... 5
PROPOSALS FOR TREE RETENTION……………………………………...6
REVISED TREE REPORT FORMS...................................................................... 7
LOCATION DRAWING TREE RETENTION AND REMOVAL............................. 8
THE ROOT PROTECTION AREA (RPA).............................................................. 9
ROOT PROTECTION AREA DRAWING.............................................................. 10
THE TREE CONSTRAINTS PLAN (TCP)............................................................ 11
TREE SHADOW PLOT.......................................................................................... 14
SHADING PERCENTAGES................................................................................... 15
Introduction
These plans, assessments and statements have been compiled by Chris Rose, the Managing Director of the Urban Forestry Organisation Limited. Chris obtained a degree in forestry from Aberdeen University in 1969. He became a member of the Institute of Chartered Foresters in 1982 and currently acts as a mentor for candidates wishing to take their Part II entry examinations, in the arboriculture specialism, for membership of that Institute. He is also a member of the Confederation of Forest Industries and the Royal Forestry Society. Chris has worked in both the private and public sector gaining a wealth of experience in Arboriculture, Forestry and Landscape Management. He has over thirty years experience working with trees in Milton Keynes and has received two Centre of Excellence Awards from the Forestry Authority for his arboricultural and landscape work in that town.
This work which was undertaken following instructions from Alykhan Tejani of Better Prepared Ltd, involves the preparation of a Tree Constraints Plan (TCP), an Arboricultural Implications Assessment, (AIA), an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and a Tree Protection Plan, (TPP) relating to the trees which may be affected by the development of the proposed Community Centre at Fontley Road, Titchfield, Hants.
This current task is underpinned by our Tree Condition Report of 17 September 2010.
Definitions
From British Standard 5837:2005
Root Protection Area (RPA)
A layout design tool indicating the area surrounding a tree that contains sufficient rooting volume to ensure the survival of the tree, shown in plan form in square metres.
Tree Constraints Plan (TCP)
A plan prepared by an arboriculturalist for the purposes of layout design showing the RPA and representing the effect that the mature height and spread of retained trees will have on layouts through shade.
Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ)
An area based on the RPA, identified by an arboriculturalist, to be protected during development including demolition and construction work, by the use of barriers and/or ground protection fit for purpose to ensure the successful long term retention of a tree.
Tree Protection Plan (TPP)
A scale drawing prepared by an arboriculturalist showing the finalised layout proposals, tree retention and tree and landscape protection measures detailed within the Arboricultural method statement (AMS), which can be shown graphically.
Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA)
A study, undertaken by an arboriculturalist, to identify, evaluate and possibly mitigate the extent of direct and indirect impacts on existing trees that may arise as a result of the implementation of any site layout.
Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS)
A methodology for the implementation of any aspect of development that has the potential to result in loss of or damage to a tree.
Background (Extract from previous Tree Condition Report)
The subject site carries very little in terms of trees with its boundaries and those trees are of poor quality and not worthy of retention if they create a significant constraint on the development proposals.
In fact, if the bungalow and its garden area are to be retained there are only two trees on the development area. These are a small squat Ash and a multistemmed Goat Willow.
The hedge on the eastern boundary of the development area adjacent to the horse paddock comprises Hawthorn and Blackthorn and again is of poor quality. There is a patch of scrubby Buddleia, Bramble and small fruit trees, next to a barn in the centre of the site, none of this is worthy of retention.
The perimeter hedges and woodland to the site are a completely different matter. They consist of some very old trees with a fairly wide range of species and provide excellent screening and wildlife habitat. They will need to be protected during the development process. The southern roadside hedge consists of Oak, Field Maple, Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Elder. The northern and eastern woodland boundaries have some very large Oak with Ash, Field Maple and Goat Willow. On the boundary with Fontley Road the internal plants are tall straggling hawthorn. These could be layered to prolong their life and to create a stock proof barrier.
There are four trees within the grounds of the bungalow. The multistemmed Hazel would benefit from coppicing. The rather old apple is in poor condition but is still producing fruit.
The Norway Spruce at the gable end of the bungalow is considered to be too close to the structure of the building and is likely to conflict with the foundations of the property. It should be removed. The Silver Birch adjacent to the retaining wall to the access road appears to have damaged the structure of that wall. It too should be removed.
Proposals for Tree Retention, Tree Removal and Tree Replacement
In our previous work and in accord with British Standard 5837 Trees in Relation to Construction we made the following recommendations in relation to the retention or otherwise of the various category gradings:
Category A Trees – Those of high quality and value: in such a condition as to be able to make a substantial contribution for a minimum of 40 years.
Recommendation: To be retained.
Category B Trees – Those of moderate quality and value: in such a condition as to make a significant contribution for a minimum of 20 years.
Recommendation: To be retained if at all possible.
Category C Trees – Those of low quality and value: currently in adequate condition to remain until new planting can be established or will be deemed not worthy of retention where they impose a significant constraint on the development or redevelopment of the subject site.
Recommendation: Retain or remove according to individual circumstances.
Category R Trees – Those in such a condition that any existing value would be lost within 10 years and those which in the current context should be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management (includes dead, dying, disfigured, dangerous and significantly diseased trees)
Recommendation: Fell and remove.
Having studied the development proposals we have consolidated our views on tree retention and removal as follows:
It is clear that the woodlands and hedges on the outer boundaries of the site need to be conserved and protected during the development phase as they are mature, of good quality, and provide valuable screening and wildlife habitat.
The two internal trees, tree numbers 4 and 8 and the hedge between the development area and the horse paddock are all of poor quality and should be removed.
The following pages give the detail of the revisions in the format of Tree Survey Report Forms and a site layout drawing showing the trees which are to be removed.
Trees to be retained or removed can be summarised as:
|
Tree Number |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
Retain |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
Remove |
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
