The Urban Forestry Organisation Website 1

The Urban Forestry Organisation Limited

Tree Condition Survey

The Old Rectory, 16 School Lane, Sherington, Milton Keynes

Commissioned by Mr J J P Hine

and compiled by Chris Rose B.Sc (For). MICF. CEnv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 4

METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 5

LEGAL ASPECTS…………….…………………….………..…….……………….... 6

ESTIMATED REMAINING CONTRIBUTION....................................................... .8

AGE CLASSIFICATION……………………………………………..………………....8

TREE SURVEY - TREE CONDITION…………………………………………….….9

TREE SURVEY – COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………….…..…..10

TREE SPECIES FOUND ON THE SITE (LATIN AND COMMON NAMES)........12

KEY TO INSPECTION REPORT FORM............................................................... 12

TREE SURVEY REPORT FORM..........……………………………………………...13

TREE LOCATION AND CONDITION DRAWING……………….…………………..14

SELECTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS………………………………………………...…15

Executive Summary

Four trees were inspected in detail during this project.

Tree number 1 is a mature Hornbeam. Close inspection reveals that there is significant decay and a cavity, at least 300mm deep, near to the base of the main stem of this tree.

As this defect will progress over time and because the tree has short useful life expectancy the recommendation is for felling and removal.

The garden area of the Old Rectory already has a good and varied stock of trees which include other Hornbeams, Yew, Laburnum, Field Maple, Ash, Robinia, Walnut and some conifers, thus one for one replacement of tree number 1may not be required or indeed necessary.

Tree number 2 is a maturing Holly, which leans to the west, partly over the stable yard. It has decay and a developing cavity in the main stem. There is also a weak fork and the potential for a water pocket and consequent decay at the point where the main stem breaks into two limbs. The condition of this tree will only decline and removal is the preferred option at the present time.

Tree number 3 is a mature Ash which is in good condition. From an aesthetical viewpoint the tree would appear more pleasing as single specimen rather than a constituent of a mass of planting. With some crown lifting and thinning it would be a focal point at the end of the drive leading to the stable yard, providing a sense of scale and maturity. This tree should be retained.

Tree number 4 is an over mature Pissards Plum which provides an interesting colour variance to the landscape of the garden area. Unfortunately there is extensive decay present in the main stem and the tree is in imminent danger of collapse. Consequently it should be removed as soon as practicable. Once removed there would be ample space to replant with the same or a similar species.

The Old Rectory is within the Sherington Village Conservation Area and appropriate application needs to be made to the Milton Keynes Council before any tree work is undertaken.

Introduction

The survey was carried out 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 Society for the Environment and thus is a Chartered Environmentalist. In addition Chris is a member of the Confederation of Forest Industries and the Royal Forestry Society. He has worked in both the private and public sector gaining a wealth of experience in Arboriculture, Forestry and Landscape Management. He has over thirty five 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 particular survey was carried out following instructions from Mr J J P Hine, the owner of the Old Rectory. The site survey work was undertaken on Saturday 10^th July 2010. All measurements and comments are included within the report. The basis of the report is the format recommended in the new, revised British Standard 5837:2005, Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations.

Our instructions were to survey the trees adjacent to the Stable Yard which Mr and Mrs Hine are proposing to redevelop and provide a smaller property to act as their future dwelling house. Four individual trees were surveyed using the methodology stated below and then categorised using the collected data, a visual inspection and the parameters given in BS 5837 as follows. The other vegetation on the site was classified in a similar way.

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.

Methodology

The on site survey took place on Saturday 10^th July 2010. A total of four individual trees were inspected and surveyed in detail during this project.

The standard data collected on site for those trees was follows:

Tree height, crown height clearance and diameter data was measured using a Laserace Hypsometer produced by Measuring Devices Limited.

Crown spread on the four compass points was either measured using a Laserace Hypsometer or measured with a standard metric tape or estimated by pacing, or simply by estimating when the crown spread was over adjacent private property or otherwise inaccessible.

The measured data was sent to a Trimble Geo XT hand held GPS receiver and mobile computer, via a bluetooth connection, in order to check and compile accurate positional data.

Photographs were taken with a Ricoh Caplio 500SE GPS enabled digital camera.

The tree condition, in terms of Category Grading, was judged visually using the guidelines produced later in the report. The physiological and structure condition of each tree was assessed using the surveyor’s skills and experience.

Age class was estimated from an examination of the tree in question.

The data collected is attached.

The comments and recommendations for tree work were compiled using the data collected and the surveyors training and experience, together with his personal library of technical publications

Legal Aspects

Our brief did not include consulting with the Local Authority regarding Tree Preservation Orders and Conservation Area status which may relate to the site.

We do know, however, that the Old Rectory is within the Sherington Village Conservation Area. We are not aware of any trees within the grounds of the Old Rectory which are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders.

The Conservation Area status of the site places a duty on the owner of any trees within the Conservation Area to consult with the Local Authority before any tree work is undertaken. There is a six week notification period and failure to observe this may result in prosecution.

Tree felling operations may also be covered by the Forestry Act 1967 which will require the grant of a felling licence, by the Forestry Commission, before a start is made on felling of any substantial trees.

A felling licence is not required to fell growing trees when, in any quarter, up to five cubic metres of timber are to be felled, providing not more than 2 cubic metres are sold.

There are other exemptions when a felling licence is not required, for example where trees are in gardens or churchyards and when trees are dead or dangerous it is not necessary to obtain a felling licence before removal of those trees.

However we suggest the simplest and most conservative form of threshold is to apply for a felling licence when it is proposed to fell substantial and growing trees and the quantity of timber yield is greater than two cubic metres.

We are not aware of the ultimate proposals regarding the trees on the subject site so we cannot say at this point in time whether or not a felling licence may be required. Although it seems most unlikely that a felling licence will be required as there are few trees of any great stature on the site.

Tree work or tree removal (or indeed development) will give rise to wildlife and habitat considerations. Some of the relevant guidance and statute is included in The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and in Planning Policy Statement 9: (PPS9) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation which sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. PPS9 replaces Planning Policy Guidance 9: Nature Conservation (PPG9) published in October 1994.

Depending on the species involved it may be illegal to kill or injure the animal or disturb its habitat, important species are Bats (all species), Badgers, Great Crested Newts, Snakes and several Bird species (although this list is not exhaustive).

On the 21 August 2007 changes were made in England and Wales to the above mentioned Regulations in relation to European Protected Species. Probably the most significant change for anyone involved with the management of mature trees is that there is no longer a defence that the damage was incidental and occurred as a result of a lawful activity. Therefore, for example, damaging or destroying a concealed breeding site or resting place of a protected species during lawful felling or pruning operations is an offence even though the damage was not intended.

On 1 April 2010 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 came into force. Theseare now the principal means by which the Habitats Directive is transposed in England and Wales. This updates and consolidates all the amendments to the Regulations since they were first made in 1994. There are few changes that effect licensing and advice (except in the marine environment). However, it should be noted that restructuring to make the legislation easier to understand has resulted in alterations to the numbering of the various provisions.

Alternative solutions to a problem involving trees must now be considered and as appropriate rejected before accepting that damage to a protected species or its habitat is inevitable. A licence is required when there is no alternative to proposed work that will result in an offence being committed. Licence application forms are available for downloading from the Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies’ web sites.

Accordingly, in terms of wildlife and habitat our best advice is to secure the services of an appropriately qualified and experienced Ecologist to survey the trees and the surrounding site and make an appropriate report before any substantive works take place on the site. We understand that this work has already been instructed.

Generally it should be borne in mind that trees are living organisms and their condition can change rapidly in response to environmental variables. Our remarks on tree condition and our comments and recommendations refer to the date of survey and cannot be assumed to remain unchanged over time.

Whilst there is no such thing as a completely safe tree, regular inspection of trees is recommended to reduce the foreseeable risks associated with trees and to cover the landowner’s duty of care.

There is currently no published guidance from the UK insurance industry on the frequency of tree inspections. In the German courts a bi-annual routine inspection is normally expected for older street trees, giving an indication of the rapidity of change in condition that can occur.

Estimated Remaining Contribution in Years

The Estimated Remaining Contribution in Years (ERC) is based on currently known factors of the possible remaining life of the tree as an asset. Clearly, it is impossible to predict changes in condition which may occur in the future and ERC reflects what is considered reasonable under existing circumstances. The following classification is employed:

Death or removal is likely within less than 10 years

Death or removal is likely within 10-20 years.

Death or removal is likely within 20-40 years

Death or removal is likely beyond a period of 40 years

ERC will be dependent on the interaction of the typical longevity of the species, its current age and condition with prevailing environmental factors ERC is also dependent on future tree management which can extend useful life in some instances.

Age Classification

The following classification is employed:

1 - Young: Saplings and young trees under 10 years of age

2 - Middle Aged: Trees older than 10 years but less than one third of the life expectancy of their species, normally making substantial extension growth.

3 - Mature: Trees between one third and two thirds of the life expectancy of their species. More or less full height and large girth, increasing only slowly.

4- Overmature: Trees beyond two thirds of the life expectancy of their species. No significant extension growth. Crown starting to break up and decrease in size.

5 – Veteran Trees are beyond the over mature stage but because of their size and age are significant features within the landscape and which can be rejuvenated and conserved by appropriate management.

Tree Survey – Tree Condition

The tree surveyor assessed the individual condition of all trees identified within the area. The assessment of condition is based on a visual and professional view.

Each tree was assessed by consideration of the following;

a) the health, vigour and condition of the tree,

b) any structural defects, and its life expectancy,

c) the size and its form and the suitability of its position,

d) the location as regards the position of other relevant features.

The individual tree is assessed and then placed into one of the following categories;

A GOOD (GREEN) Trees which should be retained

vigorous and healthy trees, of good form and in scale with its position

trees that screen and soften the affect of existing structures and are particularly important visually

trees of rarity and/or of historical or commemorative value

B MODERATE (BLUE) Trees which should be retained if at all possible

immature trees with potential to attain category A status

trees that would have been in category A but failed because of number of defects or impaired condition

C POOR (YELLOW) Trees which could be retained if they do not impose a significant constraint on development, otherwise trees not worthy of retention

trees where defects are numerous and/or the tree is in decline

immature trees, or those of little merit

overmature trees where replacement is the best long term option

R DEAD OR DYING (RED) Trees which should be removed

dead or dangerous trees

trees with insecure rooting

trees with fungal fruiting bodies on the main bole or at the base of the tree

trees with significant cavities

trees where risk will be increased by the removal of the trees around them

Tree Survey – Comments and Recommendations

Our commission relating to The Old Rectory involved consideration of the trees in close proximity to the stable yard where Mr and Mrs Hine are considering a redevelopment project to create a new home for themselves. We have been asked to consider the trees in the light of that proposal.

Four trees were inspected in detail during this project.

Tree number 1 is a mature Hornbeam with a wide spreading crown. Although this tree appears to be a good specimen at first sight a closer inspection reveals that there is significant decay and a cavity, at least 300mm deep, near to the base of the main stem at a location where a side stem has been removed in the past. This defect will progress over time and the tree will become unsafe in the near future. Our recommendation is to fell and remove the tree. There is ample space in the surrounding area to plant a replacement tree although the garden of the Old Rectory already has a good and varied stock of trees which include other Hornbeams, Yew, Laburnum, Field Maple, Ash, Robinia, Walnut and some conifers, thus one for one replacement may not be required or indeed necessary.

Tree number 2 is a maturing Holly, apparently self seeded, which leans to the west, partly over the stable yard. This tree has decay and a developing cavity in the main stem where a branch has been removed in the past. There is also a weak fork and the potential for a water pocket and consequent decay at the point where the main stem breaks into two limbs. Although the condition of the Holly is better than that of tree number 1 its condition will only decline and we consider that the removal of this tree to be the preferred option at the present time. Such removal will decrease the competition, imposed on the neighbouring Ash, for light, ground water and nutrients.

Tree number 3 is the previously mentioned mature Ash which is in good condition. It would benefit from the removal of competition from neighbouring trees and we believe, from an aesthetical viewpoint, the tree would appear more pleasing as a single specimen rather than a constituent of a mass of planting. With some crown lifting and thinning it could be a focal point at the end of the drive leading to the stable yard. It would provide a sense of scale and maturity for the new build proposal. In any event this tree should be retained.

Tree number 4 is an over mature Pissards Plum which provides an interesting colour variance to the landscape of the garden area. Although not particularly close to the Stable Yard, this tree was included in the survey because of the extensive decay present in the main stem and our view that it is in imminent danger of collapse. Our recommendation is that it should be removed as soon as practicable. The tree leans over the access route to the stable yard and the decay in the main stem is so extensive that there is very little strength and support available for a quite heavily branched crown. This is unfortunate as the tree does stand out as a particularly different specimen and as a colour feature. Once removed there would be ample space to replant with the same or a similar species.

The Old Rectory is of course within the Sherington Village Conservation Area and therefore the appropriate application needs to be made to the Milton Keynes Council before any tree work is undertaken.

INDEX OF TREE SPECIES FOUND ON THE SITE

Latin Name Common Name

Acer campestre Field Maple

Carpinus betulus Hornbeam

Fraxinus excelsior Ash

Ilex aquifolium Holly

Juglans spp Walnut

Laburnum anagyroides Laburnum

Prunus pissardii Pissards Plum

Robinia pseudoaccacia Robinia

Taxus baccata Yew

KEY TO INSPECTION REPORT FORM