Tree Survey & Constraints Plan in Accordance With Bs 5837:2012

TREE SURVEY & CONSTRAINTS PLAN
IN ACCORDANCE WITH BS 5837:2012
Proj. No Innovation Park Northern and Southern Areas, Rochester Airport,

6953 Chatham, Kent, ME5 9SD
Client: LDA Design
Date of Report: 06/09/2018

Contact Details
Client – LDA Design
Address Contact Tel: 01733 310471

17 Minsters Precincts Mr Charlie Mitchell E-mail: [email protected]
Peterborough
PE1 1XX
Local Planning Authority – Medway Council
Address Trees Officer Tel: 01634 331700

Gun Wharf E-mail: [email protected]
Dock Road
Chatham
Kent
ME4 4TR
Arboricultural Consultant – Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants Limited
Address Report Author: Tel: 01284 765391

5 Moseley’s Farm Mr Ben Figg E-mail: [email protected]
Business Centre
Fornham All Saints
Bury St Edmunds
Suffolk
IP28 6JY
6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

© 2018 Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants Limited
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 The Site
3.0 Tree Survey
4.0 Constraints upon Proposed Development
5.0 Conclusions
6.0 Recommendations
7.0 Limitations & Qualifications
8.0 References
9.0 Appendices

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Terms of Reference
1.1.1 Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants Limited has been commissioned by

LDA Design to prepare a Tree Survey and Constraints Plan for the existing
trees at Innovation Park Northern and Southern Areas, Rochester Airport,
Chatham, Kent, ME5 9SD.
1.1.2 The site survey was carried out on the 29th August 2018. The relevant
qualitative tree data was recorded in order to assess the condition of the
existing trees, their constraints upon the prospective development and the
necessary protection required to allow their retention as a sustainable and
integral part of any future permitted development.
1.1.3 Information is given on condition, age, size and indicative positioning of all the
trees, both on and affecting the site. This is in accordance with the British
Standard 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction -
Recommendations.
1.2 Scope of Works
1.2.1 The survey of the trees and any other factors are of a preliminary nature. The
trees were inspected on the basis of the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA)
method as developed by Mattheck and Breloer (1994). The trees were
inspected from ground level with no climbing inspections undertaken. It is not
always possible to access every tree and as such some measurements may
have to be estimated. Trees with estimated measurements are highlighted in
the schedule of trees. No samples have been removed from the site for
analysis. The survey does not cover the arrangements that may be required in
connection with the removal of existing underground services.
1.2.2 Whilst this is an arboricultural report, comments relating to non arboricultural

matters are given, such as built structures and soil data. Any opinion thus
expressed should be viewed as provisional and confirmation from an
appropriately qualified professional sought. Such points are clearly identified
within the body of the report.
1.2.3 An intrinsic part of tree inspection in relation to development is the assessment

of risk associated with trees in close proximity to persons and property. Most
human activities involve a degree of risk with such risks being commonly
accepted, if the associated benefits are perceived to be commensurate. In
general, the risk relating to trees tends to increase with the age of the trees
concerned, as do the benefits. It will be deemed to be accepted by the client
that the formulation of the recommendations for all tree management will be
guided by the cost-benefit analysis (in terms of amenity), of the tree work.
1.2.4 Where the trees inspected stand within woodland, the frequency with which
these trees/woodlands are accessed, or will be accessed, must be considered
as an integral part of the recommendations given for the future management of
these trees/woodlands. Priority will be given to those trees near existing and
proposed footpaths, public highways and the site boundaries where it is
assumed that the presence of persons and property will be more frequent and
therefore of a potentially higher risk. Many of the trees surveyed within the
woodland areas present little or no risk (barring exceptional circumstances) to
site users and could therefore be left unmanaged.

The decision regarding the frequency of use of these areas within the site, and
the management decisions taken based on this frequency, must ultimately be
the responsibility of the client.
1.3 Documentation
1.3.1 The following documentation was provided prior to the commencement of the
production of this report;
• Email of instruction from Mark Williams dated 1st August 2018

• Definition of site boundary
• Aerial survey
2.0 The Site

2.1 Site Overview
2.1.1. The site is contained within two separate areas: the first to the south of
Rochester Airport and the second currently part of the northern section of the
airport. The southern section is currently a storage site for caravans. The
arboricultural features on this site are mainly contained within a woodland belt
which encircles the site providing high level of screen and habitat value. This
woodland area has been subject to minimal intervention recently and is of
varying condition throughout. There are also several individual trees of different
species and conditions to be found scattered through this area. The northern
section comprises mostly shrubs and a few small, poor quality trees.
2.2 Soils
2.2.1 The soils type commonly associated with this site are slightly acidic loams and
clays with impeded drainage. They are of moderate to high fertility and support
a wide range of pasture and woodland type habitats. This soil type constitutes
approximately 10.6% the total English land mass.
2.2.2 The data given was obtained from a desk top study which provides indications
of likely soil types. By definition, this information is not comprehensive and
therefore any decisions taken with regards the management, usage or
construction on site should be based on a detailed soil analysis.
2.2.3 Further to item 2.2.2, this report provides no information on soil shrinkability. It
may be necessary for practitioners in other disciplines (e.g. engineers
considering foundation design) to obtain this data as required.
2.3 Statutory Tree Protection
2.3.1 Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants Limited have been unable to ascertain

whether the trees identified within this report are covered by local planning
authority administered statutory tree protection. In view of this, owners,
managers or any persons wishing to undertake work to any trees should
contact the local planning authority Medway Council, to ensure no such
protection measures exist.

2.3.2 Felling License
All trees within the United Kingdom are protected under the Forestry Acts. In
general, anyone felling more than 5 cubic metres of timber in any calendar
quarter requires a Felling License from the Forestry Commission. There are
exemptions however and these are as follows:-
A Felling License is not required in the following instances:
• To fell trees in a garden, an orchard, a churchyard, or a designated

open space (Commons Act 1899).
• To carry out surgery operations such as pruning, reduction, dead
wooding or pollarding.
• To fell less than 5 cubic metres in a calendar quarter. (Please note that
not more than 2 cubic metres in a calendar quarter may be sold).
• To fell trees which are 8 centimetres or less in diameter when measured
1.3 metres from the ground. Trees removed for thinning may have a
diameter of up to 10 centimetres and trees managed under a coppice
regime may have a diameter of up to 15 centimetres.
• To fell trees previously approved for removal under a Dedication
Scheme, or where Detailed Planning Permission has been granted.
Substantial fines exist for not complying with the requirements of a Felling
License.
3.0 Tree Survey

3.1 As part of this survey a total of sixteen individual trees, four groups of trees, four
areas of trees and one woodland have been identified. These have been
numbered T001 – T016, G001 – G004, A001 – A004 and W001 (inc. W001a)
respectively.
3.2 An accurate topographical survey was not available at the time of inspection.
Therefore, the position of each tree shown on the attached drawing no. 6953-D-
CP has been fixed by use of a hand-held GPS surveying unit. Given this, the
position of the trees must be considered indicative, although drawing no. 6953-
D-CP provides a fair representation of the relationship of the trees as distributed
across the site.
3.3 In order to provide a systematic, consistent and transparent evaluation of the

trees included within this survey, they have been assessed and categorised in
accordance with the method detailed in item 4.3 of BS 5837: 2012 “Trees in
Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations”. For
further information, please see the attached Explanatory Notes.
3.4 The detailed assessment of each tree and its work requirements with priorities
are listed in the attached Schedule of Trees.

3.5 Several items would benefit from tree surgery or additional investigation, be it
for health and safety, cultural, aesthetic, or structural reasons as detailed in the
attached Schedule of Trees. Including the trees recommended for felling, the
items requiring the most urgent intervention are as follows:
As soon as possible:
T001 Fell to ground level.

Within six months:
A004 Fell dead ash as indicated on drawing no. 6953-D-CP.

G004 Remove ivy from lower stems and undertake a close inspection when
able to access.
3.6 In accordance with item 4.2.4 (c) of BS 5837: 2012, the items inspected and
detailed within this report have been selected for inclusion due to the likely
influence of any proposed development on the trees, rather than strictly
adhering to the curtilage of the site. However, it must be understood that there
may be trees beyond the site and not included in this survey which may exert
an influence on the development. Where works for cultural, health and safety,
quality of life, or development purposes have been recommended on trees
outside the ownership of the site, these can only progress with the agreement
of the owner, except where it involves portions of the trees overhanging the
boundary.
4.0 Constraints upon Proposed Development

4.1 Physical Extent of the Trees
4.1.1 The Root Protection Areas (RPA) for the trees deemed worthy of retention are
indicated on the attached Drawing No. 6953-D-CP. These define the below
ground constraints of the trees.
4.1.2 The crown spreads of the trees deemed worthy of retention are also indicated
on the attached Drawing No. 6953-D-CP. These define the above ground
constraints of the trees.
4.2 Design Considerations
4.2.1 The combination of the above and below ground constraints outlined at 4.1
above, should be used to inform the layout and design of any proposed
development by considering the following principal factors;
4.2.2 Shade. Consideration will be needed regarding the size, positioning and
aspect of windows, together with the internal layout of dwellings in close
proximity to trees to ensure sufficient daylight enters rooms or buildings.
Consideration should also be given to the future growth potential of trees in
close proximity to prospective development.

4.2.3 Water Demand. The water demand of the trees deemed worthy of retention,
as listed by the NHBC, is given in the attached Schedule of Trees in order to
inform the foundation design process.
4.2.4 Siting. Ideally, the footprint of any proposed building should be no closer than
2 metres from the edge of any RPA or crown spread of any trees to be
retained. This is to ensure that sufficient room is provided to allow the
construction of the proposed development without any encroachment into the
RPA or under the crown spread. If it is considered acceptable and appropriate
to construct within the RPA, specialist engineering techniques (e.g. cantilever,
piling, or pad and above ground beam foundations) and ground protection
measures will be required to minimise the impact on the roots.
4.2.5 Practicality. It is important to ensure that any garden attached to a dwelling

has a significant area of open ground that is not covered by the crowns of
retained trees.
4.3 Construction Measures
4.3.1 In order to ensure that trees intended for retention are not harmed during the
construction processes, the following matters require consideration and
implementation as necessary. Please note that once the design is finalised,
Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants will provide a Preliminary Arboricultural
Method Statement & Tree Protection Plan that will satisfy the requirements for
obtaining planning permission.
4.3.2 Protective Fencing. The trees to be retained will need to be protected by the
use of stout barrier fencing. This fencing must be in accordance with the
requirements of BS 5837: 2012 and will be erected prior to any development
on the site, therefore ensuring the maximum protection. All tree protection
barrier fencing will be regarded as sacrosanct and, once erected, will not be
removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority
Arboricultural Officer.
4.3.3 Services. Ideally, all service runs will be routed outside of the RPA of any
retained trees. If a service has to be installed across an RPA, works must be
undertaken in accordance the guidance of the National Joint Utilities Group
Guidance Note 4 “Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of
utility apparatus in proximity to trees” (NJUG 4 paragraph 4) and installation of
such a method as to reduce any possible detrimental effect on roots to an
absolute minimum.
4.3.4 Hard Surfaces. Hard surfaces may be constructed under the crown spreads of
retained trees and within the RPA if specific detail is paid to the design and
specification. In these areas, the design will comply with the principles of the
Arboricultural Advisory Information Services (AAIS) Practice Note 12 "Through
the Trees to Development” - the only difference being that instead of a geo-grid,
a geo-textile base is provided, and the no-fines road stone is incorporated in,
and retained by, a geo-web cellular confinement system. Given the individual
requirements of each site, it is essential that a specialist engineer is consulted
to specify the construction detail. Where the hard surface proposed is
impermeable, it must not cover more than 20% of the RPA. Larger extents of
permeable surfacing may be acceptable, dependant on the individual
circumstances of the site.

5.0 Conclusions
5.1 The site is Innovation Park Northern and Southern Areas, Rochester Airport,
Chatham, Kent, ME5 9SD. This location has been subjected to a total health
and safety inspection, together with a consideration of the tree related
constraints on development.
5.2 Within the area specified for inspection, a total of sixteen individual trees, four
groups of trees, four areas of trees and one woodland have been surveyed.
These were found to be of mixed condition and age providing a variety of
amenity benefits.
5.3 Consideration is being given to undertaking development within the site, but no
definite layout has as yet been determined.
5.4 Ideally, all development should take place outside the RPA of the trees
considered most worthy or appropriate for retention thus allowing a traditional
construction process. It is usually technically possible (though not necessarily
desirable) to build within a very limited portion of the RPA of one or more trees
using specialist engineering techniques, but inevitably this is more difficult and
expensive than traditional construction methods and may not be acceptable to
the local planning authority.
5.5 Irrespective of any development proposals, a number of trees require attention

as detailed items in the Schedule of Trees. As recorded at item 3.5 above, three
individual tree requires urgent intervention and another four items need
attention within six months.
6.0 Recommendations
6.1 It is recommended that the siting and design of the layout considers the
presence of trees, particularly the highest quality, and where feasible seeks to
incorporate them within any proposed development.
6.2 Tree surgery should be completed as detailed in the Schedule of Trees. Where
this has been identified for reasons other than to permit development, this work
should be completed within the advised timescales irrespective of any
development proposals.
6.3 The tree surgery works proposed as part of the Survey are recommended to
mitigate any identified health and safety problems and to promote longevity in
retained trees in the context of a potential development site. To this end, should
these recommendations be overruled, this Survey stands as the opinion of
Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants Limited, and therefore any damage or
injury caused by trees recommended by this practice for felling or tree surgery
works, to which the proposed schedule of works has been altered or the tree
has been requested to be retained by the Local Planning Authority, cannot be
the responsibility of this practice.

7.0 Limitations & Qualifications
Tree inspection reports are subject to the following limitations and qualifications.
General exclusions
Unless specifically mentioned, the report will only be concerned with above ground
inspections. No below ground inspections will be carried out without the prior
confirmation from the client that such works should be undertaken.
The validity, accuracy and findings of this report will be directly related to the accuracy
of the information made available prior to and during the inspection process. No
checking of independent third-party data will be undertaken. Hayden’s Arboricultural
Consultants Limited will not be responsible for the recommendations within this report
where essential data are not made available or are inaccurate.
This report will remain valid for one year from the date of inspection but will become
invalid if any building works are carried out upon the property, soil levels altered in any
way close to the property, or tree work undertaken. It must also be appreciated that
recommendations proposed within this report may be superseded by extreme weather,
or any other unreasonably foreseeable events.
If alterations to the property or soil levels are carried out, or tree work undertaken, it is
strongly recommended that a new tree inspection be carried out.
It will be appreciated, and deemed to be accepted by the client and their insurers, that
the formulation of the recommendations for the management of trees will be guided by
the following: -
1. The need to avoid reasonable foreseeable damage.

2. The arboricultural considerations - tree safety, good arboricultural practice (tree
work) and aesthetics.
The client and their insurers are deemed to have accepted the limitation placed on the
recommendations by the sources quoted in the attached report. Where sources are
limited by time constraints or the client, this may lead to an incomplete quantification of
the risk.
Signed:
September 2018……………………………………………….
For and on Behalf of Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants Limited

8.0 References
British Standards Institute (2012) BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Design,
Demolition and Construction – Recommendations. BSI, London.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) Tree Preservation Orders
and trees in conservation areas.
Forestry Commission (2007) Tree Felling – Getting Permission. Country Services

Division, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Mattheck, C. and Breloer, H. (1994) Research for Amenity Trees No. 4: The Body
Language of Trees. HMSO, London.
NHBC Standards (2007) Chapter 4.2 ‘Building Near Trees’. National House-Building
Council.
NJUG 4 Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of utility apparatus in
proximity to trees. Issued 16th November 2007.
Patch, D. and Holding, B. (2006) Arboricultural Practice Note 12 (APN12), Through the
Trees to Development. Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service (AAIS).
Roberts, J., Jackson, N. & Smith, M. (2006) Research for Amenity Trees No. 8: Tree
Roots in the Environment. Department for Communities and Local Government.
HMSO, London.

9.0 Appendices
Appendix A Species List & Tree Problems
Appendix B Schedule of Trees
Appendix C Schedule of Works - Irrespective of Development
Appendix D Explanatory Notes
Appendix E Advisory Information & Sample Specifications
1. BS 5837: 2012 Figure 1 - Flow Chart – Design and Construction & Tree Care
2. European Protected Species and Woodland Operations Checklist (v.4)
3. BS 5837: 2012 Figure 2 - Default specification for protective barrier
4. BS 5837: 2012 Figure 3 - Examples of above-ground stabilizing systems
Appendix F Drawing No. 6953-D-CP

Appendix A - Species List & Tree Problems
Species List:
Ash Fraxinus excelsior

Aspen Populus tremula
Cherry Plum Prunus cerasifera
Cypress Cupressus spp.
Elder Sambucus nigra
English Oak Quercus robur
Field Maple Acer campestre
Goat Willow Salix caprea
Grey Poplar Populus canescens
Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna
Hornbeam Carpinus betulus
Hybrid Black Poplar Populus x canadensis
Leyland Cypress X Cuprocyparis leylandii
Rowan Sorbus aucuparia
Silver Birch Betula pendula
Snowy Mespilus Amelanchier lamarckii
Sweet Chestnut Castanea sativa
Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus
Wayfaring Tree Viburnum lantana
Wild Cherry Prunus avium

Tree Problems:
This gives a brief description of the problems identified in the attached Tree Survey.
Name: Ash Dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus):

Symptoms/Damage Symptoms of the disease can be visible on leaves, shoots, stems
Type: and branches of affected trees. In severe cases, the entire crown
shows leaf loss and dieback, which is often associated with the
formation of Epicormic shoots on branches and the trunk. Ash tree
showing symptoms of Chalara fraxinea are now widespread across
Europe and Britain.
Consequence: The disease caused leaf loss and crown dieback in affected trees
and often leads to tree death.
Control Measures: You can report suspect trees via the Forestry Commission Tree
Alert page t: www.forestry.gov.uk/treealert. You do not need to take
any particular action if you own infected Ash trees, unless serves
with a Plant Health Notice. You can slow the spread of the Ash
dieback disease by locally burning, burying or composting fallen
Ash leaves.
Name: Basal Suckers

Symptoms/Damage A profusion of shoots emanating from the base of the main stem
Type: close to ground level. Several species of trees but most notably
Limes produce suckers as part of their naturalised habit however in
some species this can be an indicator of elevated stress upon the
tree.
Consequence: Suckers do not cause direct harm to the tree in their self however
they can be problematic where they impede free use of space such
as where a tree is adjacent to a footpath or roadway. Where
suckers are established they can impede visibility of the basal area
of the stem and prevent identification of more significant defects
such as decay cavities or fungal growths. If left unchecked the
suckers can establish to become large limbs in their own right and
spoil the form of the tree and presenting issues for future
management as removal would leave large wounds around the
stem base providing opportunity for ingress of decay.
Control Measures: Regular pruning away of new sucker growth is recommended to
prevent the development of the issues mentioned above
dependent upon the implications and the trees location.
Name: Deadwood
Symptoms/Damage This relates to dead branches in the crown of the tree. In the
Type: majority of cases, this is caused by the natural ageing process of
the tree or shading due to its close proximity to neighbouring trees.
However, in some situations, it may be related to fungal, bacterial
or viral infection.
Consequence: Depending upon the location and mass of dead wood removal of
the affected tissue may be necessary to prevent harm to persons or
property as the wood will become unstable as it decays and in
some circumstances is likely to fall from the tree with little or no
warning.
Control Measures: Detailed monitoring should be undertaken on those trees showing
signs of excessive deadwood production to identify the underlying
cause.

Name: Epicormic growth
Symptoms/Damage This is the production of numerous shoots on the main stem and
Type: branches of the tree. They are produced by the bursting into life of
otherwise dormant buds. It is commonly associated with elevated
levels of stress on the tree.
Consequence: Whilst epicormic growth is usually symptomatic of an issue
elsewhere within the tree heavy proliferation can cause the trees
resources to become depleted or may mask significant structural
weaknesses within the framework of the tree.
Control Measures: Pruning off epicormic growth may be necessary to improve the
visual amenity of the tree or prevent the development of a hazard
or obstruction. No direct means of prevention are available other
than therapeutic measures to alleviate stresses on the tree.
Name: Ivy (Hedera helix)

Symptoms/Damage Ivy may grow to varying degrees on all areas of a tree from the
Type: base to the upper crown. It is possible that in doing so it will out-
compete the host tree for available light thereby suppressing the
host.
Consequence: This is generally only harmful to the tree on already unhealthy
specimens which may be constricted by large ivy stems around the
trunk or may have their top growth suppressed by a mass of
flowering shoots in the crown.
Control Measures: Ivy should only be removed if absolutely necessary because it
provides abundant cover to wildlife and then by severing twice
close to the ground and removing a length of stem thereby causing
the gradual dying away of the aerial parts of the plant providing
extended benefit to wildlife whist relieving the pressure on the tree.

Appendix B
Schedule of Trees
SCHEDULE OF TREES Innovation Park Northern and Southern Areas, Rochester Airport, Chatham, Kent Surveyed By: Ben Figg Date: 29/08/2018
Managed By: Ben Figg
TreeNo Species DBH Height Visual Crown Spread Problems / Comments BS Work Required Priority
Crown Lowest Cat
Min Dist Age Water Demand
Base Branch
On site RPA (m²) Aspect Aspect SULE Ground Cover
A001 Hornbeam, 350 11.5 Moderate N4.5, E4.5, S4.5, Mixed species area comprising a dense linear feature forming U No work required. 4
Elder, Cherry W4.5 boundary screen. Mostly over-mature elder and dying Hornbeam.
Plum, Field 4.2 0-2m M Moderate
Maple,
Yes Wayfaring Tree 55.4 <10 Years Dense undergrowth
A002 Ash, Sycamore, 170 12 Low N2.5, E2.5, S2.5, Dense mixed species area which is regularly coppiced to ensure C1 No work required. 4
Wild Cherry, W2.5 clearance for approach to neighbouring runway.
Sweet 2.04 0-2m EM Moderate
Chestnut,
Yes Hornbeam, 13.1 10 + years Dense undergrowth
Elder
A003 Ash, Wild 160 6.5 Moderate N2.0, E2.0, S2.0, An area of mostly dense shrubs containing some young self set trees. C2 No work required. 4
Cherry Plum, W2.0
Dogwood, 1.92 0-2m M High
Hawthorn,
Yes Viburnum 11.6 10 + years Dense undergrowth
A004 Sweet 400 21.5 Moderate N6.5, E6.5, S6.5, A mixed species area of even aged trees which are mostly healthy B2 Fell dead ash as indicated on drawing no. 2
Chestnut, Birch, W6.5 and of good condition and with adequate spacing. There is one dead 6953-D-CP.
Ash, English 4.8 0-2m M High Ash located centrally (see drawing no 6953-D-CP for approximate
Oak location).
Yes 72.4 20+ years Grass, Woodland
floor
G001 Sweet Chestnut 450 11 Moderate N3.0, E3.0, S3.0, Group of recently coppiced Chestnut which all appear healthy. There C2 No work required. 4
W3.0 was no safe access at the time of the survey to carry out a detailed
5.4 0-2m EM Moderate inspection.
Yes 91.6 10 + years Woodland floor
G002 Hornbeam 410 15.5 Moderate N6.0, E6.0, S6.0, A pair of trees which are of good condition and structure despite C2 No work required. 4
W6.0 having been topped in the past. There is some impact damage to
4.92 2.1-4m EM Moderate bases and visible surface roots, though with no decay evident and
these wounds should fully occlude in time, provided that further
Yes 76 20+ years Grass, Tarmac damage is avoided and the health of the trees is maintained.
G003 Aspen, Cypress 450 15.5 Moderate N4.5, E4.5, S4.5, A small group of poor quality trees exhibiting poor structural form. U No work required. 4
W4.5 Aspen have been topped in past but re-growth is poor. The cypress
5.4 0-2m EM High is becoming suppressed by neighbouring oak.
Yes 91.6 <10 Years Grass, Tarmac
Crown Lowest Cat
Base Branch
G004 Hybrid Poplar 600 19.5 High N6.0, E6.0, S6.0, A group of large poplars adjacent to a roadside. Trees are within a C1 Remove ivy from lower stems and 2
W6.0 fenced disused industrial area, so all dimensions are estimated. All undertake a close inspection when able
7.2 2.1-4m M High trees appear healthy. There is dense Ivy covering the stems, which to access.
may mask any defects.
Yes 162.9 10 + years Grass, Tarmac
T001 Silver Birch 300 10 Low N3.0, E3.0, S3.0, A dead Birch located at the edge of the woodland area currently U Fell to ground level. 1
W3.0 overhanging caravans and is heavily covered with Ivy.
3.6 2.1-4m SM Low
Yes 40.7 <10 Years Woodland floor
T002 Wild Cherry 130 5 Low N1.0, E1.0, S1.0, A small dead Cherry. U Fell to ground level. 2
W1.0
1.56 2.1-4m SM Low
T003 Silver Birch 200 10 Low N3.0, E3.0, S3.0, Dead Birch. U Fell to ground level. 2
W3.0
2.4 2.1-4m EM Low
T004 Field Maple 700 14.5 High N5.0, E5.0, S5.0, A mature tree located within an area of poorer quality trees on top of B2 No work required. 4
W5.0 a bund, forming an attractive landscape feature which could be
8.4 2.1-4m M Moderate usefully singled out if desired, provided that the removal of the bund
will not be required. Tree has good structural form and is healthy.
Yes 221.7 40+ years Grass, Woodland
floor, Dense
undergrowth
T005 Hornbeam 470 13.5 High N5.0, E5.0, S5.0, Tree has no visible defects and is in good condition and health. B1 No work required. 4
W6.5
5.64 2.1-4m M Moderate
Yes 99.9 40+ years Grass
T006 English Oak 480 15 High N4.5, E7.0, S7.5, A tree located at the end of a dense linear strip of trees which has C1 No work required. 4
W7.5 been managed as a pollard in the past. There is cracking in the
5.76 2.1-4m EM High surrounding concrete as a result of direct damage from the roots
through annual thickening. This tree appears healthy.
Yes 104.2 20 + years Tarmac, Concrete
T007 Snowy Mespilus 220 7.5 Low N3.0, E3.5, S4.0, A large stem has been removed leaving a large pruning wound which U No work required. 4
W3.5 will likely never fully occlude. This will likely lead to decay in future,
2.64 0-2m M Moderate therefore shortening the expected lifespan of the tree.
Yes 21.9 <10 Years Grass, Tarmac
Crown Lowest Cat
Base Branch
T008 English Oak 550 21 High N5.0, E8.0, S8.0, This tree has been topped in past but the subsequent re-growth has B1 No work required. 4
W9.0 developed a new crown with no significant defects apparent. The tree
6.6 0-2m M High is slightly asymmetric in shape due to the existence of the
neighbouring woodland. This tree appears healthy.
Yes 136.8 40+ years Grass, Tarmac
T009 Silver Birch 280 15.5 Moderate N3.5, E3.5, S3.5, A healthy tree, though of stunted form with visible surface roots C1 No work required. 4
W3.0 within the drip line.
3.36 0-2m EM Low
Yes 35.5 10 + years Grass
T010 Silver Birch 240 12 Moderate N3.5, E3.0, S4.0, A tree of stunted form with low vigour and visible surface roots within U No work required. 4
W3.0 the drip line.
2.88 0-2m EM Low
Yes 26.1 <10 years Grass
T011 Field Maple 410 15.5 Moderate N4.5, E5.0, S5.0, An attractive tree with good structural form and appearing healthy. B1 No work required. 4
W4.5 There are surface roots visible to 4m from the stem in all directions,
4.92 2.1-4m M Moderate where minor bark damage can be seen. This should however fully
occlude in time, provided that the tree remains healthy and further
Yes 76 40+ years Grass, Tarmac damage is avoided.
T012 Rowan 310 10.5 Low N2.5, E2.5, S2.5, A small tree of multi-stemmed form and tight main unions with C1 No work required. 4
W2.5 included bark. There is a wound on the lower stem, though this is
3.72 2.1-4m M Moderate occluding well.
Yes 43.5 <10 years Grass, Tarmac
T013 Grey Poplar 830 24 High N11.0, E10.0, S10.0, A large healthy tree which is twin stemmed from 3m but with good B1 No work required. 4
W9.5 structural form. There are visible surface roots with some suckering
9.96 2.1-4m M High within the soft area to the east of the tree within the drip line. There is
a small amount of deadwood throughout the crown, though no
Yes 311.7 20+ years Grass, Tarmac significant visible defects.
T014 Hornbeam 150 13 Low N1.0, E1.0, S1.0, The upright stem on the east side of the tree is dead. There is decay U Fell to ground level. 1
W1.0 feeding into the live stem which overhangs the road.
1.8 0-2m EM Moderate
T015 Goat Willow 230 6 Low N3.5, E3.5, S3.5, A regularly coppiced Willow which appears healthy, though has C1 No work required. 4
W3.5 grown through the wire fence.
2.76 0-2m M High
Yes 23.9 10 + years Grass, Tarmac
Crown Lowest Cat
Base Branch
T016 Ash 170 15 Low N3.0, E3.0, S3.0, A very poor quality tree located at the edge of the woodland area, U Fell to ground level. 1
W7.0 overhanging the road and the site access. This tree features crown
2.04 4.1-6m SM Moderate dieback.
Yes 13.1 <10 Years Woodland floor,
Tarmac
W001 Oak, Wild 500 22 High N7.0, E7.0, S7.0, A mixed species woodland of mixed ages and mostly of good B2 No work required. 4
Cherry, Ash, W7.0 condition. Feature forms a dense boundary screen between site and
Sweet 6 0-2m M High surrounding land and roads. Minimal understory in most areas.
Chestnut, Dense Ivy covers the stems of some trees, limiting inspection. There
Yes Hornbeam, 113.1 20+ years Woodland floor, Ivy is potential to improve this woodland through management to
Beech, Goat recommence coppicing and introduce coppice management to other
Willow, Aspen, areas to improve density and structure while allowing the introduction
Sycamore, of some understory planting. There is deadwood throughout this
Silver Birch, feature as would be expected in a woodland. There is a small area
Hawthorn, Field within the woodland belt towards the north-east corner of the caravan
Maple, Leyland park where several trees have been recently windblown, which
Cypress present options for interplanting with understory species and some
coppicing works to prevent further windthrow failures.
W001a Sweet Chestnut 900 22 High N5.0, E5.0, S5.0, Group of lapsed Chestnut coppice which requires recommencement B2 No work required. 4
W5.0 of a cyclical coppice regime to ensure their longevity and
10.8 0-2m M Moderate continuation of associated habitat.
Yes 366.4 20+ years Woodland floor
Appendix C
Schedule of Works
SCHEDULE OF WORK Surveyed By: Ben Figg
Innovation Park Northern and Southern Areas, Rochester Airport, Chatham, Surveyed: 29/08/2018
Kent Managed By: Ben Figg
Tree No. Species Work required Priority
T001 Silver Birch Fell to ground level. 1

T014 Hornbeam Fell to ground level. 1
T016 Ash Fell to ground level. 1
A004 Sweet Chestnut, Fell dead ash as indicated on drawing no. 6953-D-CP. 2
Birch, Ash, English
Oak
G004 Hybrid Poplar Remove ivy from lower stems and undertake a close inspection when able to access. 2
T002 Wild Cherry Fell to ground level. 2
T003 Silver Birch Fell to ground level. 2
Appendix D
Explanatory Notes
Explanatory Notes
Categories
Below is an explanation of the categories used in the attached Tree Survey.
No Identifies the tree on the drawing.
Species Common names are given to aid understanding for the wider audience.
BS 5837 Using this assessment (BS 5837:2012, Table 1), trees can be divided
Main into one of the following simplified categories, and are differentiated by
Category cross-hatching and by colour on the attached drawing:
Category A - Those of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of

at least 40 years;
Category B - Those of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life
expectancy of at least 20 years;
Category C - Those of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at
least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150 mm;
Category U - Those trees in such condition that they cannot realistically be retained
as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years.
BS 5837 Table 1 of BS 5837:2012 also requires a sub category to be applied to

Sub the A, B, C, and U assessments. This allows for a further understanding of
Category the determining classification as follows:
Sub Category 1 - Mainly arboricultural qualities;

Sub Category 2 - Mainly landscape qualities;
Sub Category 3 - Mainly cultural values, including conservation .
Please note that a specimen or landscape feature may fulfil the requirements of
more than one Sub Category.
DBH Diameter of main stem in millimetres at 1.5 metres from ground level.
(mm) Where the tree is a multi-stem, the diameter is calculated in accordance with item
4.6.1 of BS 5837:2012.
Age Recorded as one of seven categories:

Y Young. Recently planted or establishing tree that could be transplanted without
specialist equipment, i.e. less than 150 mm DBH.
S/M Semi-mature. An established tree, but one which has not reached its
prospective ultimate height.
E/M Early-mature. A tree that is reaching its ultimate potential height, whose growth
rate is slowing down but if healthy, will still increase in stem diameter and crown
spread.
M Mature. A mature specimen with limited potential for any significant increase in
size, even if healthy.
O/M Over-mature. A senescent or moribund specimen with a limited safe useful life
expectancy. Possibly also containing sufficient structural defects with attendant
safety and/or duty of care implications.
V Veteran. An over-mature specimen, usually of high value due to either its age,
size and/or ecological significance

D Dead.
Height Recorded in metres, measured from the base of the tree.
Crown Base Recorded in metres, the distance from ground and aspect of the lowest
branch material.
Lowest Branch Recorded in metres, the distance from ground and aspect of the emergence
point of the lowest significant branch.
Life Expectancy Relates to the prospective life expectancy of the tree and is given as 4
categories:
1 = 40 years+;
2 = 20 years+;
3 = 10 years+;
4 = less than 10 years.
Crown Spread Indicates the radius of the crown from the base of the tree in each of the
northern, eastern, southern and western aspects.
Minimum Distance This is a distance equal to 12 times the diameter of the tree measured at 1.5
metres above ground level for single stemmed trees and 12 times the
average diameter of the tree measured at 1.5 metres above ground level
tree for multi stemmed specimens. (BS 5837:2012, section 4.6).
RPA This is the Root Protection Area, measured in square metres and defined in
BS5837:2012 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”. The RPA is shown on the drawing.. Ideally this is an
area around the tree that must be kept clear of construction, level changes of
construction operations. Some methods of construction can be carried out
within the RPA of a retained tree but only if approved by the Local Planning
Authority’s tree officer.
Water Demand This gives the water demand of the species of tree when mature, as given in
the NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2 “Building Near Trees”.
Visual Amenity Concerns the planning and landscape contribution to the development site
made by the tree, hedge or tree group, in terms of its amenity value and
prominence on the skyline along with functional criteria such as the
screening value, shelter provision and wildlife significance. The usual
definitions are as follows:
Low An inconsequential landscape feature.
Moderate Of some note within the immediate vicinity, but not significant
in the wider context.
High Item of high visual importance.
Problems/ May include general comments about growth characteristic, how it is

Comments affected by other trees and any previous surgery work; also, specific
problems such as deadwood, pests, diseases, broken limbs, etc.
Work Required Identifies the necessary tree work to mitigate anticipated problems and deal
(TS) with existing problems identified in the “Problems/comments” category.

Work Required Identifies the tree work specifically necessary to allow a proposed
(AIA) development to proceed.
Priority This gives a priority rating to each tree allowing the client to prioritise
necessary tree works identified within the Tree Survey.
1 Urgent – works required immediately;

2 Works required within 6 months;
3 Works required within 1 year;
4 Re-inspect in 12 months,
0 Remedial works as part of implementation of planning consent.

BS 5837:2012 Terms and Definitions
Access Facilitation Pruning One-off tree pruning operation, the nature and effects of
which are without significant adverse impact on tree
physiology or amenity value, which is directly necessary to
provide access for operations on site.
Arboricultural Method Statement Methodology for the implementation of any aspect of

development that is within the root protection area, or has the
potential to result in loss of or damage to a tree to be
retained.
Arboriculturist Person who has, through relevant education, training and

experience, gained expertise in the field of trees in relation to
construction.
Competent Person Person who has training and experience relevant to the
matter being addressed and an understanding of the
requirements of the particular task being approached. NOTE -
a competent person is expected to be able to advise on the
best means by which the recommendations of this British
Standard may be implemented.
Construction Site-based operations with the potential to affect existing

trees.
Construction Exclusion Zone Area based on the root protection area from which access is
prohibited for the duration of a project.
Root Protection Area (RPA) 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.
Service Any above or below ground structure or apparatus required

for utility provision.
NOTE - examples include drainage, gas supplies, ground
source heat pumps, CCTV and satellite communications.
Stem Principal above ground structural component(s) of a tree that

supports its branches.
Structure Manufactured object, such as a building, carriageway, path,

wall, service run, and built or excavated earthwork.
Tree Protection Plan Scale drawing, informed by descriptive text where necessary,
based upon the finalized proposals, showing trees for
retention and illustrating the tree and landscape protection
measures.
Veteran Tree Tree that, by recognized 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.
NOTE - these characteristics might typically include a large
girth, signs of crown retrenchment and hollowing of the stem.

Appendix E
Advisory Information & Sample Specifications
1. BS 5837:2012 Figure 1 - Flow Chart – Design and Construction & Tree Care
2.
3. BS 5837:2012 Figure 2: Default specification for protective barrier
Default
specification
for protective
barrier
Key
1 Standard scaffold pole

2 Heavy gauge 2m tall galvanised
tube and welded mesh infill panels
3 Panels secured to uprights and
cross-members with wire ties
4 Ground level
5 Uprights driven into the ground until
secure (minimum depth 0.6m
6 Standard scaffold clamps
4. BS 5837:2012 Figure 3: Examples of above-ground stabilizing systems
a) Stabilizer strut with base plate secured with ground pins
b) Stabilizer strut mounted on block tray

Appendix F
Haydens Drawing
.
Arboricultural Impact Assessments
Arboricultural Method Statements
Tree Constraints Plans
Arboricultural Feasibility Studies
Shade Analysis
Picus Tomography
Arboricultural Consultancy for Local Planning Authority
Quantified Tree Risk Assessment
Health & Safety Audits for Tree Stocks
Tree Stock Survey and Management
Mortgage and Insurance Reports
Subsidence Reports
Woodland Management Plans
Project Management
Ecological Surveys
5 Moseley’s Farm
Business Centre
Telephone Fornham All Saints
01284 765391 Bury St Edmunds
Email Suffolk
[email protected] IP28 6JY
Website
www.treesurveys.co.uk

Tree Survey & Constraints Plan in Accordance With Bs 5837:2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tree Survey & Constraints Plan in Accordance With Bs 5837:2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tree Survey & Constraints Plan in Accordance With Bs 5837:2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TREE SURVEY & CONSTRAINTS PLAN

IN ACCORDANCE WITH BS 5837:2012

Proj. No Innovation Park Northern and Southern Areas, Rochester Airport,

Client: LDA Design

Date of Report: 06/09/2018

Address Contact Tel: 01733 310471

Local Planning Authority – Medway Council

Address Trees Officer Tel: 01634 331700

Arboricultural Consultant – Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants Limited

Address Report Author: Tel: 01284 765391

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

2.0 The Site

3.0 Tree Survey

4.0 Constraints upon Proposed Development

7.0 Limitations & Qualifications

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

1.1.1 Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants Limited has been commissioned by

1.2 Scope of Works

1.2.2 Whilst this is an arboricultural report, comments relating to non arboricultural

1.2.3 An intrinsic part of tree inspection in relation to development is the assessment

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

• Email of instruction from Mark Williams dated 1st August 2018

2.0 The Site

2.3 Statutory Tree Protection

2.3.1 Hayden’s Arboricultural Consultants Limited have been unable to ascertain

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

A Felling License is not required in the following instances:

• To fell trees in a garden, an orchard, a churchyard, or a designated

3.0 Tree Survey

3.3 In order to provide a systematic, consistent and transparent evaluation of the

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

T001 Fell to ground level.

Within six months:

A004 Fell dead ash as indicated on drawing no. 6953-D-CP.

4.0 Constraints upon Proposed Development

4.2 Design Considerations

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

4.2.5 Practicality. It is important to ensure that any garden attached to a dwelling

4.3 Construction Measures

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

5.5 Irrespective of any development proposals, a number of trees require attention

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

1. The need to avoid reasonable foreseeable damage.

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

Forestry Commission (2007) Tree Felling – Getting Permission. Country Services

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

Appendix A Species List & Tree Problems

Appendix B Schedule of Trees

Appendix C Schedule of Works - Irrespective of Development

Appendix D Explanatory Notes

Appendix E Advisory Information & Sample Specifications

Appendix F Drawing No. 6953-D-CP

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

Ash Fraxinus excelsior

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

Name: Ash Dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus):

Name: Basal Suckers

6953/BF/BJ Survey Date: 29/08/2018

Name: Ivy (Hedera helix)