(a) Notice of Review and supporting documents (Pages 191-254)
Perth and Kinross Council · 12 August 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 12 August 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
5(i)(a) LRB-2024-10 LRB-2024-10 23/01564/FLL - Erection of dwellinghouse, land 20 metres south west of 4 Lageonan Road, Grandtully, Aberfeldy PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
No embedded text on this page.
Page 4
No embedded text on this page.
Page 5
No embedded text on this page.
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.
Page 7
Statement Notice of Review Erection of a dwellinghouse at Land 20 Metres South West of 4 Lageonan Road, Grandtully, Aberfeldy PH15 2QY. 23/01564/FLL Introduction This Notice of Review is submitted following the refusal of planning permission under delegated powers on the 29th November 2023 for the erection of a dwellinghouse at Lageonan Road, Grandtully under application 23/01564/FLL.(Doc 1) The reasons for refusal are outlined below, relating to Policies 6 and 40 of the adopted local development plan and policies 6, 9(b) and 17 of NPF4: – 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 6 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the site adjoins the settlement boundary and that no justification has been provided in relation to the proposal to meet the exceptions in the policy. This policy seeks to prevent the unplanned and ad hoc expansion of those settlements which have a boundary identified in the Local Development Plan. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 9(b) Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) as the proposal is on a greenfield site, but the site is not an allocated site and the development proposed is not explicitly supported by policies in the Local Development Plan. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 Rural Homes of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) as the proposal fails to meet any of the specific circumstances listed. 4. The proposal is contrary to Policy 40 Forestry Woodland and Trees of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 2019 and Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees of NPF4 as the submission fails to consider the impact of the development in relation to trees. The Review site is outwith the current settlement boundary as defined in the local development plan and the adjacent 4 neighbouring dwellinghouses to the east are within it. The crux of this Review is that there has been precedent set for a single dwellinghouse,Torr Darroch which is partly adjacent and to the north of the Review site.
Page 8
Torr Darroch is also adjacent and outwith the current Grandtully local development plan settlement boundary and was outwith the settlement boundary when it was approved. The appeal was approved by the Scottish Government on the 6 December 2007 for a single dwellinghouse following refusal of application 07/01371/OUT, under appeal reference P/PPA/340/597(Doc 2). In this Review it will be demonstrated that the Review proposal is acceptable on this site given the previous neighbouring appeal decision for a single dwellinghouse within a similar context. This previous decision is a material consideration, supporting the Review site’s context. Furthermore, the scale, design and siting of the Review dwellinghouse will not have a detrimental impact on the appearance and character of the existing dwellinghouses on Lageonan Road, the wider countryside or on the defined settlement of Grandtully. The Environmental Health Contaminated Land consultation response suggests the Review site is a brownfield site and not a greenfield site as stated in reason for refusal 2. A Tree Survey Report completed following the refusal decision in support of the Review will demonstrate that there will be no detrimental impact on any trees on or adjacent to the Review site or that these trees will impact on residential amenity. Current Planning Policy Context The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2). National Planning Framework 4 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long-term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and productive spaces. NPF4 was adopted on 13 February 2023. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4 : Policy 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place Policy 17: Rural Homes
Page 9
Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 – Adopted November 2019 The Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) is the most recent statement of Council policy and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. The principal policies are: Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries Policy 32: Embedding Low & Zero Carbon Generating Technologies in New Development Policy 40A: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Forest and Woodland Strategy Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage Policy 60; Transport Statutory Supplementary Guidance - Supplementary Guidance - Developer Contributions & Affordable Housing (adopted in 2020) - Supplementary Guidance - Placemaking (adopted in 2020) OTHER POLICIES Non- Statutory Guidance - Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity NATIONAL GUIDANCE The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National Planning Framework, Planning Advice Notes, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. National Roads Development Guide 2014 This document supports Designing Streets and expands on its principles and is considered to be the technical advice that should be followed in designing and approving of all streets including parking provision.
Page 10
Reason for Refusal and Grounds of the Review 1.Planning Policy & Precedent It is accepted that the Review proposal is contrary to the adopted local plan policy 6, however it is considered that a departure from this policy is acceptable given the precedence set in the previous appeal decision, where following refusal of application 07/01371/OUT the appeal was upheld by the Scottish Government on 6 December 2007 under P/PPA/340/597 for a single dwellinghouse. (Doc 2). Document 3 – Site Context indicates the 2007 appeal site’s relationship with the Review site, where it clearly shows that both sites are contained to the wider countryside by woodland and the A827 and Lageonan Road. As highlighted in the appeal decision for Torr Darroch the settlement boundary for Grandtully loops around the vicinity of the site on 3 sides. It stated:- “The characteristics of the appeal site have changed significantly since the adoption of the local plan in 2000. The mature woodland planting has been cleared, creating a vacant site surrounded on three sides by the settlement boundary. The site is contained by a mature conifer plantation to the west and north, by the road with houses beyond to the east and by the recently planted woodland belt with houses beyond to the south. I consider the site to be well contained by woodland and built development. During my site inspection I formed a strong visual impression of the site forming part of the settlement. I do not consider that the development of the appeal site would lead to further encroachment of built development in the countryside, nor do I consider that the proposal would harm the amenity of the settlement or the surrounding countryside.” (P/PPA/340/597) In the Appeal it is stated that the Reporter had a strong visual impression of the site forming part of the settlement and it was not considered that the development of land in this area would harm the amenity of the settlement or surrounding countryside. This wider area of ground is contained to the wider countryside by existing built development and the public roads with the A827 to the north and west and Lageonan Road to the south. There is also a substantial tree belt between the A827 and the Review site which provides further containment. The local plan boundary loops around this area of land as indicated in Document 3 – Site Context. This containment provides a strong physical barrier for any built development within this area and protects the wider countryside from further encroachment. A modestly scaled dwellinghouse to the west of the existing houses on Lageonan Road will not have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area.
Page 11
An exception to Policy 6 is considered appropriate here, as was the case in the Torr Darroch appeal decision, due to the well contained nature of the site and the relationship with existing residential properties on Lageonan Road. In terms of Policy 17 of NPF4 the proposal is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development. It is considered that the previous appeal decision is a significant material consideration which would take precedence over Policy 6 of the LDP in supporting the proposal. The Review proposal will not have any detrimental impact on the character or appearance of neighbouring properties or the wider area, in accordance with NPF4 Policy 17. 2.Status of the Review Site – Brownfield/Greenfield Land It was stated in reason for refusal 2 that the Review site was a greenfield site, however in the Council’s Contaminated Land consultation response it stated: - Historical mapping indicates that the site was previously occupied by railway land. There is the potential for the site to be impacted by contamination as a result of this former land use. It will therefore be necessary for an assessment of the site to be made to determine its suitability for the proposed use. (Doc 4) This consultation response considers that the Review site is brownfield land and not greenfield land as indicated in the Delegated Report and Decision Notice. It is considered therefore that as a result of this evidence, reason for refusal 2 is not a valid reason as there is no conclusive proof that the Review site is a greenfield site. Following on from this then, the Review site as a brownfield site would satisfy NPF4 Policy 17 where residential development is considered acceptable where it reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. 3. Tree Impact Reason for refusal 4 cited that the submission fails to consider the impact of the development in relation to trees. It should be noted that the Council’s Tree Officer did not comment on the application. In support of the Notice of Review the applicant has had a Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection and Compensatory Planting Plan carried out – Doc 5. In summary the following recommendations were made in relation to trees:- It is proposed to fell two Category C trees, T83 and T88, a larch and a Scots pine to accommodate the development footprint. BS5837 states that there is no restriction
Page 12
on felling Category C trees. Compensatory planting will mitigate against the loss of the two trees. It is proposed to fell five Category U (dead) Scots pine trees, T74, 75, 76, 79, 87 for safety reasons where tree-work recommendations have been made. It is recommended that the deadwood is retained on the woodland floor. All other trees will be retained…... the trees are not under a Tree Preservation Order, they are not in a Conservation Area and the woodland is not Ancient Woodland. It is anticipated that the impact of the proposed development can be satisfactorily mitigated against to ensure that there is no detrimental long-term impact to retained trees at the site and that compensatory planting will mitigate against the loss of the felled trees. It is considered that there will be no significant impact on trees on or within the vicinity of the site, in accordance with Policy 40 Forestry Woodland and Trees of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 2019 and Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees of NPF4. Other Planning Considerations As indicated in the Delegated Report there were concerns raised about the access:- Visibility onto the public road network hasn’t been shown by the applicant and it is unclear if the 2-metre-high fence will impact onto the splay and if a length of fence is to be removed. The lower of the fence seems to be indicated on the plans but further clarification would have been sought if the recommendation had been to approve. It is confirmed here that the lowering of the fence towards the public road was indicated in the application submission. For clarification Doc 6 – proposed Site Plan indicates the fence detail and the visibility splays onto Lageonan Road. There were no objections raised from the main consultees. Conclusions It is considered that the previous appeal decision is a material consideration in this Review and that the site and policy context for the Review proposal is no different from the previous appeal approval. The Review site is considered to be a brownfield site and has both local plan and NPF4 policy support for residential development. The Tree Survey Report and recommendations made indicate that there will be no significant impact on existing trees and that suitable monitoring and management of the trees in the vicinity of the site will protect residential amenity. For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the Review proposal for a single dwellinghouse is acceptable in principle and it is respectfully requested that the Review is upheld.
Page 13
Page 1 of 3 Mr Stuart Hendry c/o Kellston Developers Ltd David Johnston Cuil Bheag Cuilc Brae Pitlochry PH16 5QS Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street PERTH PH1 5GD Date of Notice: 29th November 2023 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT Application Reference: 23/01564/FLL I am directed by the Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts currently in force, to refuse your application registered on 28th September 2023 for Planning Permission for Erection of dwellinghouse at Land 20 Metres South West Of 4 Lageonan Road Grandtully Aberfeldy Ph15 2qy Lageonan Road Grandtully David Littlejohn Strategic Lead (Economy, Development and Planning) Reasons for Refusal 1 The proposal is contrary to Policy 6 of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 2019 as the site adjoins the settlement boundary and that no justification has been provided in relation to the proposal to meet the exceptions in the policy. This policy seeks to prevent the unplanned and ad hoc expansion of those settlements which have a boundary identified in the Local Development Plan. 2 The proposal is contrary to Policy 9(b) Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) as the proposal is on a greenfield site, but the site is not an allocated site and the development proposed is not explicitly supported by policies in the Local Development Plan. 3 The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 Rural Homes of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) as the proposal fails to meet any of the specific circumstances listed. 4 The proposal is contrary to Policy 40 Forestry Woodland and Trees of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 2019 and Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees of NPF4 as the submission fails to consider the impact of the development in relation to trees.
Page 14
2 Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. The plans and documents relating to this decision are listed below and are displayed on Perth and Kinross Council’s website at www.pkc.gov.uk “Online Planning Applications” page. Plan Reference 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Page 15
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX 557005 www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals Appeal Decision Notice T: 01324 696 400 F: 01324 696 444 E: dpea@scotland.gsi.gov.uk abcdefghijklmnopqrstu Decision I allow the appeal and grant outline planning permission subject to the 8 conditions listed at the end of this notice. Reasoning 1. The determining issues in this appeal are whether the proposed development complies with policies 45 and 54 of the adopted Highland Area Local Plan; and (b) whether there are any other material considerations that lead me to determine the appeal not in accordance with those policies. 2. The appeal site is located on the outskirts of the village of Grandtully and consists of a hollow of land rising away from the road in the north-east with a relatively level plateau to the south-west. The site extends to 0.33 hectares and was formerly wooded but is now largely cleared of mature trees. Replacement woodland planting has been undertaken along the eastern boundaries of the site. 3. Policy 45 of the adopted local plan states that built development should not be located adjoining and outwith settlements. The appeal site adjoins but is outwith the settlement boundary defined in the local plan and I find therefore, that the proposal is contrary to policy 45. 4. Policy 54 of the local plan states that the council will normally support proposals for the erection of individual houses in the countryside on sites in or adjacent to established building groups, provided that they do not detract from the amenity of the group. Development will also be supported on sites which extend the group into definable sites Decision by Scott M Ferrie, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers • Planning Appeal reference: P/PPA/340/597 • Site Address: Land at Lageonan Road, Grandtully • Appeal by T and M Developments against the decision by Perth and Kinross Council • Application for outline planning permission dated 08 June 2007, refused by notice dated 04 August 2007 • The development proposed: erection of a dwellinghouse • Date of site visit by Reporter: 08 November 2007 Date of appeal decision: 6 December 2007
Page 16
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a 2 created by surrounding topography, landscape features or field boundaries which will constrain the continued spread of the group. The settlement boundary of Grandtully loops around the site on three sides. The council states that policy 54 allows for small scale residential development in and adjacent to undefined building groups and does not apply to land adjoining defined settlements. This is confirmed by the terms of policy 45, which seeks to prevent the extension of settlements outwith their boundaries. I conclude therefore, that the proposed development is also contrary to policy 54. 5. Turning to other material considerations, the council considers that the proposal is contrary to its supplementary planning guidance on housing in the countryside. This guidance aims to safeguard the character of the countryside; support the viability of communities; meet development needs in appropriate locations; and ensure that high standards of siting and design are achieved. The guidance allows for the development of sites in or adjacent to building groups subject to the same criteria contained within policy 54 of the local plan. I agree with the council that as the appeal site adjoins a settlement and not an undefined building group, the proposal cannot be justified with reference to this guidance. 6. The characteristics of the appeal site have changed significantly since the adoption of the local plan in 2000. The mature woodland planting has been cleared, creating a vacant site surrounded on three sides by the settlement boundary. The site is contained by a mature conifer plantation to the west and north, by the road with houses beyond to the east and by the recently planted woodland belt with houses beyond to the south. I consider the site to be well contained by woodland and built development. During my site inspection I formed a strong visual impression of the site forming part of the settlement. I do not consider that the development of the appeal site would lead to further encroachment of built development in the countryside, nor do I consider that the proposal would harm the amenity of the settlement or the surrounding countryside. 7. SPP1: The Planning System states that where planning permission has been refused, the reasons must be stated in the decision notice. It is not enough to indicate that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the development plan. Notwithstanding the policy position described above, the council has not referred to any damage to the amenity of the countryside or any other harm which it considers the appeal proposal would cause. Based on my findings above, I conclude that an exception to policy is justified by the well contained nature of the site and its visual relationship with the surrounding settlement. Although the site extends to 0.33 hectares, I do not consider that it is likely, due to level differences within the site, to be able to accommodate more than the one dwelling applied for. Development of the site would not, therefore, result in any significant impact on the infrastructure and services of the village. 8. I consider that careful positioning of the proposed dwelling on the site would avoid any detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the houses to the south. This could be achieved in such a way as to avoid the removal of the mature and newly planted trees containing the site. An objector has expressed concern that the proposal would adversely impact upon the local red squirrel population but I note that the proposal does not entail the felling of any mature trees. The council has provided me with a list of suggested conditions should the appeal be sustained. I consider these to be acceptable, subject to
Page 17
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a 3 minor amendment and consolidation. I have considered all other matters raised but find none to lead me to a different conclusion. This is the version issued to parties 6 December 2007 SCOTT M FERRIE Reporter Conditions: 1. Before development commences written approval from the planning authority must be obtained for the details of the siting, design and external appearance of any building(s), the means of access and the landscaping (collectively these are termed the reserved matters). 2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 above shall be submitted for consideration by the planning authority and no work shall begin until the written approval of the authority has been given. 3. Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the planning authority within three years from the date of this notice. 4. The development hereby permitted shall commence within five years from the date of this permission, or within two years from the date of approval by the planning authority of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason for Conditions 1-4: to accord with the requirements of Section 59 of the Act, and with Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992. 5. Before development commences written approval from the planning authority must be obtained for the details of all means of enclosure and car parking. Reason: these details have not been provided and in order to ensure the provision of satisfactory boundary treatments and parking facilities. 6. The detailed landscaping and planting scheme for the site shall be implemented simultaneously with the development hereby approved and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Any planting failing to become established within five years shall be replaced during the following planting season with others of similar size and species. Reason: to ensure that a satisfactory landscape scheme is implemented and maintained. 7. That no trees within the site shall be felled and all existing mature trees shall be protected in accordance with British Standard BS 5837 2005 – Trees in Relation to Construction. Reason: to ensure that all trees within the site are
Page 18
4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a 4 retained and that the mature trees are adequately protected in order to visually contain the site. 8. The submission of reserved matters and further details required by conditions 1 and 5 above shall include: (a) a vehicular access in accordance with specification Type B, Fig 5.6 access detail; (b) a widening of the public road to 5 metres over a distance of 6 metres immediately adjacent to the site access; (c) a site access with a maximum gradient of 3% for the first 3 metres measured back from the edge of the carriageway and constructed so that no surface water is discharged to the public road; (d) visibility splays of 2 metres by 40 metres to the right and left of the access measured between points 1 metre above the adjacent road channel level; (e) turning facilities within the site to enable all vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear; and (f) a minimum of 2 car parking spaces within the site. Reason: to ensure the provision of a satisfactory means of access, turning and parking facilities in the interests of pedestrian and traffic safety.
Page 19
No embedded text on this page.
Page 20
M e m o r To Development Management & Building Standards Service Manager Your ref 23/01564/FLL Date 08/11/2023 Communities a n d u m From Regulatory Services Manager Our ref CHF Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 5GD Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission 23/01564/FLL RE: Erection of dwellinghouse at Land 20 Metres South West Of 4 Lageonan Road Grandtully Aberfeldy Ph15 2qy Lageonan Road Grandtully for Mr Stuart Hendry I refer to your letter dated 18 October 2023 in connection with the above application and have the following comments to make. Contaminated Land Recommendation I refer to the above application and have the following comments to make in respect of the proposed development. Historical mapping indicates that the site was previously occupied by railway land. There is the potential for the site to be impacted by contamination as a result of this former land use. It will therefore be necessary for an assessment of the site to be made to determine its suitability for the proposed use. Therefore if planning permission is granted in respect of this development I would recommend that the following condition is applied within the consent. Condition EH41 Prior to the commencement of works on site, an evaluation for the potential of the site to be affected by contamination by a previous use should be undertaken and as a minimum, a Preliminary Risk Assessment (Phase 1 Desk Study) will be submitted for consideration by the Council as Planning Authority. If after the preliminary risk assessment identifies the need for further assessment, an intrusive investigation should be undertaken to identify; I. the nature, extent and type(s) of contamination on the site II. measures to treat/remove contamination to ensure the site is fit for the use proposed III. measures to deal with contamination during construction works IV. condition of the site on completion of decontamination measures. Prior to the completion or bringing into use of any part of the development the agreed measures to decontaminate the site shall be fully implemented as approved by the Council
Page 21
as Planning Authority. Validation that the scheme has been fully implemented must also be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority.
Page 22
Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection and Compensatory Planting Plan For Proposed New Dwelling, Land Adjacent to 4 Lageonan Road, Grandtully Thursday 25th January 2024 Author Emma O'Shea MCIEEM, BSc, PG Dip Env Mgmt. Arboricultural Consultant Professional Tree Inspector and Technician Member of Arboricultural Association Tay Ecology Ltd Fairway Golf Course Road Pitlochry PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464 Email: info@tayecology.co.uk Web: www.tayecology.co.uk
Page 23
CONTENTS PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 PART 2 – GENERAL INFORMATION 4 2.1 Brief from Client 4 2.2 Proposed Works 4 2.3 Documents referred to 4 2.4 Documents received 4 2.5 Limitations 4 2.6 Personnel 4 PART 3 – TREE SURVEY 5-10 3.1 Methodology 5 3.2 Analysis 6 3.3 Tree Survey Schedule 7-8 3.4 Tree Constraints Plan 9 3.5 Site photographs 10 PART 4 – ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11-14 4.1 Tree loss and retention 11 4.2 Incursion into RPAs 11-12 4.3 Above Ground Constraints 12 4.4 Tree-work Recommendations 12 4.5 Conclusions 12-13 4.6 Arboricultural Impact Assessment 13-14 PART 5 – TREE PROTECTION PLAN 15-19 5.1 General 15 5.2 Tree Protection Plan 16 5.3 Protective Barriers and Ground Protection 17 5.4 Arboricultural Method Statement for Work Within RPA 17-19 PART 6 – COMPENSATORY PLANTING 19-20 PART 7 – REFERENCES 19 PART 8 – APPENDICES 21-42 Appendix 1 – Terms and Definitions 21 Appendix 2 – Tree Category Codes 22 Appendix 3 – Protective Fencing Specification 23-24 Appendix 4 – Installing Services in RPAs 25-32 Appendix 5 – Example 3D Cellular Confinement System 33-38 Appendix 6 – Tree Protection Notice 39 Appendix 7 – Planting Schedule 40-42 Disclaimer While every reasonable effort is made to ensure that the information provided in this report is accurate, Tay Ecology Limited makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of material supplied. Tay Ecology Limited shall have no liability for any loss, damage, injury, claim, expense, cost, or other consequence arising as a result of use, or reliance upon any information contained in or omitted from this document. Copyright © 2024 The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the property owner. The report shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of the landowner, a representative of the landowner or Tay Ecology Ltd Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 2
Page 24
PART 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Proposal The proposal is to construct a new dwelling on land to the west of 4 Lageonan Road, Grandtully. A tree survey is required, written in accordance with British Standard Institute publication BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’. 1.2 Tree Survey A tree survey was carried out by the surveyor on 19th January 2024. The trees were recorded as T70-100, with 101 & 102 in neighbouring garden. All trees surveyed were assigned to the category A, B, C or U classification. 1.3 Arboricultural Impact Assessment It is proposed to fell two Category C trees, T83 and T88, a larch and a Scots pine to accommodate the development footprint. BS5837 states that there is no restriction on felling Category C trees. Compensatory planting will mitigate against the loss of the two trees. It is proposed to fell five Category U (dead) Scots pine trees, T74, 75, 76, 79, 87 for safety reasons where tree-work recommendations have been made. It is recommended that the deadwood is retained on the woodland floor. All other trees will be retained. The proposed development impacts the RPA of 1 tree T102. The directly impacted area is approximately 4% of the RPA. Arboricultural methodology must be followed in the RPA. However, as most of the rooting area is beyond the development footprint it is considered that the long-term health and longevity of the tree will not be detrimentally affected. Where excavation is required within RPAs non-mechanical excavation is proposed and cutting roots greater than 2.5cm diameter is to be avoided. A no dig surface methodology such as a 3D cellular confinement system is proposed to avoid negative impacts in other areas. Where this raises the level of the ground in any RPA a permeable surface material is recommended to allow air and water to percolate. It is not anticipated that the RPAs of other retained trees will be directly impacted by the work. However, in the event work is required which may encroach into any RPA, work must be non- mechanical excavation using hand tools or use a no dig surface method where excavation is not required. Arboricultural methodology must be adopted for any works in the RPAs of retained trees in case tree roots are discovered. It is anticipated that the impact of the proposed development can be satisfactorily mitigated against to ensure that there is no detrimental long-term impact to RPAs at the site. The RPAs of all trees on the site which are in the vicinity of, but out-with, the proposed development footprint can be safely protected from compaction or other disturbance by protective fencing and/or ground protection. It is not anticipated that the RPAs of other retained trees will be directly impacted by the work. However, in the event work is required which may encroach into any RPA, work must be non- mechanical excavation using hand tools or use a no dig surface method where excavation is not required. Arboricultural methodology must be adopted for any works in the RPAs of retained trees in case tree roots are discovered. It is anticipated that the impact of the proposed development can be satisfactorily mitigated against to ensure that there is no detrimental long-term impact to RPAs at the site. The RPAs of all trees on the site which are in the vicinity of, but out-with, the proposed development footprint can be safely protected from compaction or other disturbance by protective fencing and/or ground protection. 1.4 Tree Protection Tree protection specifications for tree protection barriers are provided, together with general advice on tree retention, working in RPAs, and an arboricultural method statement for tree works. 1.5 Conclusion It is anticipated that the impact of the proposed development can be satisfactorily mitigated against to ensure that there is no detrimental long-term impact to retained trees at the site and that compensatory planting will mitigate against the loss of the felled trees. 3
Page 25
PART 2 - GENERAL INFORMATION 2.1 Brief From Client A tree survey is required written in accordance with British Standard Institute publication BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’. 2.2 Proposed Works The proposal is to construct a new dwelling on land west of 4 Lageonan Road, Grandtully. 2.3 Documents Referred To The British Standard Institute publication BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’ is referred to throughout this report. This is a nationally recognised standard typically used by LPAs to assess planning applications. 2.4 Documents Received Location Plan, Existing and Proposed Site Plan 2.5 Limitations 2.5.1 This report was prepared for use by our client in accordance with the terms of the contract and for planning purposes only. Information provided by third parties used in the preparation of this report is assumed to be correct. 2.5.2 All trees have been inspected from ground level only using established visual assessment methodology. This is primarily a survey to assess the general health, condition, value, and life expectancy of existing trees as part of the planning and design process. This report is not a detailed document on tree safety. 2.5.3 Trees are dynamic living organisms, whose health and condition can be subject to rapid change, depending on a number, of external and internal factors. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report relate to the trees at the time of inspection. The findings and recommendations are valid for twelve months and it is strongly recommended that trees are inspected at regular intervals and after extreme weather events for reasons of safety. 2.5.4 Whilst every effort has been made to detect defects within the trees inspected, no guarantee is given as to the absolute safety or otherwise of any individual tree. Extreme climatic conditions can cause damage to apparently healthy trees. 2.5.5 The findings and recommendations contained within this report are based on the current site conditions. The construction of roads, buildings, service wayleaves, removal of shelter, and alterations to established soil moisture conditions can all have a detrimental impact on the health and stability of retained trees. Accordingly, a re‐inspection of retained trees is recommended on completion of any development operations. 2.5.6 This report has been prepared for the use of the client and their appointed agents. A 10 figure GPS was used to position features, this has limitations of 2-4m accuracy, therefore site photos and field measurements were utilised to reduce the error. Adjacent private property was not entered, all measurements were from within the site boundary or areas of open public access. Any third party referring to this report or relying on information contained within it does so at their own risk. 2.6 Personnel Emma has worked in the environmental sector for nineteen years, including thirteen years predominantly focused on woodland management, during which time she has gained a wealth of experience and expertise. Emma has been qualified in arboriculture for seventeen years, has carried out tree surveys for eleven years, and holds the Lanta Professional Tree Survey and Inspection Award. During the last nine years she has worked as an ecological and arboricultural consultant for Tay Ecology with lead responsibility for development projects. She graduated with a BSc from University of Edinburgh, has a Postgraduate Diploma in Environmental Management and is a member of the Arboricultural Association, Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management, and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. 4
Page 26
PART 3 – TREE SURVEY 3.1 METHODOLOGY 3.1.1 Trees on and adjacent to the proposed development site where these trees may be impacted by the proposed work have been recorded. Trees are numbered T70-100, with 101 & 102 in neighbouring garden. All trees surveyed were assigned to the category A, B, C or U classification. 3.1.2 Data was collected in accordance with the requirements of British Standard 5837:2012. All observations were from ground level, with the aid of binoculars, without detailed or invasive investigations. Measurements were taken using a tape measure, clinometer, and laser measure. Where this was not possible or reasonably practical, measurements have been estimated by eye. 3.1.3 The trees were surveyed and assessed impartially and irrespective of the proposed development. Management recommendations should be implemented regardless of any proposed development for reasons of sound arboricultural management or safety. 3.1.4 BS 5837:2012 requires retention of better quality (category A and B trees) where possible. Planning permission overrides a Tree Preservation Order and Conservation Area. Furthermore, trees are a material consideration in the UK planning system irrespective of their legal status. It is therefore not considered necessary to highlight or give additional merit to trees that have legal protection. 3.1.5 All category A, high & B moderate quality and value trees will, where possible, be retained on development sites, and should influence and inform the design, site layout, and in some cases the specific construction methods to be used. The root protection areas of these trees will generally form a construction exclusion zone, although under certain circumstances it may be possible to build within these areas providing that appropriate, specifications have been agreed between the local planning authority, the consulting arboriculturist and the developer/client. 3.1.6 As regards category C trees; under normal circumstances these would not normally be required to be retained in a development context, unless in a location that they do not represent a significant constraint on the proposal. See relevant note at foot of Cascade diagram BS 5837:2012. 3.1.7 All category U trees should be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural practice or health & safety, irrespective of any development proposals. 3.1.8 Trees may be recorded as group or woodland where: i) The canopies touch. ii) The trees have more group value than individual merit. iii) They are part of a formal landscape feature like an avenue. iv) It is impractical to record them individually. 3.1.9 Where trees within groups or woodlands etc. are recorded together, it may be necessary to record individual trees where it is necessary to distinguish them from others, this may be required initially, e.g., if a tree is in category U, or at a subsequent stage as the design process evolves. Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 5
Page 27
3.2 ANALYSIS 3.2.1 Site Description The proposed plot is located to the west of 4 Lageonan Road, Grandtully. The eastern part of the plot is grassland and the western part is planted coniferous woodland. The woodland is densely planted and there are a number of dead trees within it which have been shaded out by their close neighbours. The trees are not under a Tree Preservation Order, they are not in a Conservation Area and the woodland is not Ancient Woodland. 3.2.2 Species The woodland on the site is a coniferous plantation dominated by Scots pine with abundant larch, there are occasional self-seeded broadleaves dominated by elder with a single sycamore. The scientific names for the species recorded only in common names are as follows: Common Name Scientific Name Number Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus 1 Larch Larix decidua 8 Scots pine Pinus sylvestris 15 Elder Sambucus nigra 7 3.2.3 Categories The trees on the site ecorded are 84% Category C and 16% Category U trees. The distribution of categories of individual trees is as follows: BS 5837 Category Number of Trees % Trees A 0 0 B 0 0 C 26 84 U 5 16 Total 31 100 3.2.4 Life stage 84% mature, 16% dead trees are recorded on the site. The life stages recorded for individual trees are summarised as follows: Life Stage Number of trees % of Trees Young 0 0 Semi-mature 0 0 Mature 26 84 Over-mature 0 0 Dead 5 16 Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 6
Page 28
3.3 Tree Survey Schedule Recommendations / Ref. Species Hgt. DBH Branch spread (m) Clr Life General observations/vigour Condition ERC Cat. RPA Timescale (m) (mm) N E S W (m) stage (m) 70 Elder 5 180 2 2 2 2 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.16 No work required. 71 Larch 18 260 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 3.12 No work required. 72 Scots pine 18 230 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.76 No work required. 73 Scots pine 18 340 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 4.08 No work required. n/a 10- 2.64 Fell – retain dead 74 Scots pine 14 220 1 1 1 1 D Dead tree / low Poor U wood / 12 months n/a 10- 1.68 Fell – retain dead 75 Scots pine 10 140 1 1 1 1 D Dead tree / low Poor U wood / 12 months 76 Scots pine 18 300 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 3.6 No work required. 77 Elder 5 130;130 2 2 2 2 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.2 No work required. 78 Larch 16 170 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.04 No work required. n/a 10- 2.16 Fell – retain dead 79 Scots pine 16 180 1 1 1 1 D Dead tree / low Poor U wood / 12 months 80 Sycamore 12 240 2 2 2 2 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.88 No work required. 81 Larch 16 180 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.16 No work required. 82 Elder 5 120 2 2 2 2 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 1.44 No work required. 83 Larch 18 240 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.88 No work required. 84 Elder 5 100 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 1.2 No work required. 85 Scots pine 18 240 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.88 No work required. 86 Larch 17 160 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 1.92 No work required. n/a 10- 2.16 Fell – retain dead 87 Scots pine 12 180 1 1 1 1 D Dead tree / low Poor U wood / 12 months 88 Scots pine 18 280 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 3.36 No work required. 89 Larch 18 300 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 3.6 No work required. 90 Scots pine 18 260 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 3.12 No work required. 91 Larch 18 260 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 3.12 No work required. 92 Scots pine 17 190 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.28 No work required. n/a 10- 1.56 Fell – retain dead 93 Scots pine 10 130 1 1 1 1 D Dead tree / low Poor U wood / 12 months 94 Scots pine 18 280 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 3.36 No work required. 95 Scots pine 17 220 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.64 No work required. 96 Scots pine 16 160 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 1.92 No work required. 97 Larch 18 290 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 3.48 No work required. 98 Scots pine 17 180 1 1 1 1 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.16 No work required. 99 Elder 5 150 2 2 2 2 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 1.8 No work required. 100 Elder 5 80x5 2 2 2 2 n/a M Moderate Fair 10+ C2 2.2 No work required. 101 Elder group 5 100 1 1 1 1 n/a SM Neighbouring garden /Moderate Fair 10+ C2 1.2 No work required. 102 Prunus spp. 10 250 2 2 2 2 2S M Neighbouring garden / Moderate Fair 10+ C2 3.0 No work required. 7
Page 29
KEY Ref: Reference number assigned to that item with a code to help identification such as T = tree Hgt: Height of the tree in metres rounded up to the nearest half metre. DBH: ‘Diameter at Breast Height’ – the stem diameter measured in millimetres at 1.5m above ground level, to the nearest 10mm. Where the ground around the base of the tree is not level this is taken 1.5m above the upper side of the slope. Crown Spread: The crown spread is given to four cardinal points, rounded up to the nearest half metre. Clr: ‘Crown clearance’ is the height of the lowest branch above ground level, with the general direction it is growing to a cardinal point. Life Stage: Recorded with codes as follows, and relative to the species of the tree: Y – Young; SM – Semi-mature; M – Mature; OM - Over-mature; D – Dead. General observations: includes notes on structural defects, physiological problems, special features, decay, and management recommendations. Please note that management recommendations do not constitute a specification for any required works. Condition: Good = Healthy tree with no major defects, considerable life expectancy, with good shape or form; Fair = Healthy tree with easily remedied defects, shorter life expectancy, with reasonable shape or form; Poor = Tree with significant structural defects and/or decay, low vigour, under stress, limited life expectancy and with inferior shape and form; Dead = Dead, dying, and dangerous trees, very, low vigour, severely limited life expectancy, serious structural defects and/or decay. ERC: ‘Estimated remaining contribution’, recorded in a range of years is the amount of time the tree can realistically be retained for. <10 - Unsuitable for retention; 10- 20 - Can be retained in the short term; 20-40 - Will continue to offer benefits for the foreseeable future; 40+ - Good longevity potential Cat.: ‘Category grading’, a full explanation of the categories is given in an excerpt from BS 5837:2012 in the cascade chart, appendix 2. RPA: ‘Root protection area’, appears on the survey plan and is calculated by multiplying the stem diameter using one of three methods specified in BS 5837:2012 depending on the number of stems the tree has. This should be considered an indication only as various factors may influence the size and shape of the RPA, such as past and present site conditions, and ground constraints such as roads, underground services, soil type, drainage, and topography. The morphology of tree roots is influenced by past and present site conditions and tree management, e.g., soil type, drainage, and local topography. The RPAs of trees may be exaggerated. Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 8
Page 30
3.4 Tree Constraints Plan - see below and Tree Constraints Plan as separate pdf 1 9
Page 31
3.5 Site Photographs Site from Lageonan Road looking north-west North-east from woodland edge across plot South-east along woodland edge From woodland east along Lageonan Road Elder, Larch and Scots pine in woodland Scots pine plantation at western end Lageonan Road Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 10
Page 32
PART 4 – ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4.1 TREE LOSS AND RETENTION It is proposed to fell two Category C trees, T83 and T88, a larch and a Scots pine to accommodate the development footprint. BS5837 states that there is no restriction on felling Category C trees. Compensatory planting will mitigate against the loss of the two trees. It is proposed to fell five Category U (dead) Scots pine trees, T74, 75, 76, 79, 87 for safety reasons. It is recommended that the deadwood is retained on the woodland floor. All other trees will be retained. 4.2 INCURSION INTO ROOT PROTECTION AREAS The proposed development impacts the RPA of 1 tree T102. The directly impacted area is approximately 4% of the RPA. Arboricultural methodology must be followed in the area where the RPA is located. However, as most of the rooting area is beyond the development footprint it is considered that the long-term health and longevity of the tree will not be detrimentally affected. Where excavation is required within RPAs non-mechanical excavation is proposed and cutting roots greater than 2.5cm diameter is to be avoided. A no dig surface methodology such as a 3D cellular confinement system is proposed to avoid negative impacts in other areas. Where this raises the level of the ground in any RPA a permeable surface material is recommended to allow air and water to percolate. It is not anticipated that the RPAs of other retained trees will be directly impacted by the work. However, in the event work is required which may encroach into any RPA, work must be non- mechanical excavation using hand tools or use a no dig surface method where excavation is not required. Arboricultural methodology must be adopted for any works in the RPAs of retained trees in case tree roots are discovered. It is anticipated that the impact of the proposed development can be satisfactorily mitigated against to ensure that there is no detrimental long- term impact to RPAs at the site. The RPAs of all trees on the site which are in the vicinity of, but out-with, the proposed development footprint can be safely protected from compaction or other disturbance by protective fencing and/or ground protection. 4.2.2 Protective Fencing BS 5837 requires the installation of protective fencing to protect trees to be retained during construction operations. The fence creates a physical barrier between the construction area and the Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ). The line that a protective fence takes is based upon the calculation of Root Protection Areas but also requires the physical constraints of the site to be taken into consideration. The provisional Tree Protection Plan gives an indicative positioning for the placement of protective fencing and construction exclusion zones. A specification for protective fencing is given in Appendix 3. 4.2.3 Changes in Ground Level and Surfaces Changes in ground levels and surfaces within the RPAs of trees to be retained can be detrimental to tree health and stability. Excavations which result in root severance and soil compaction can have serious implications for the long-term future health and stability of the tree. Increasing levels and changing surfaces within root protection areas can be equally damaging as this may result in anaerobic conditions at rooting level resulting in tree root disease and death. Therefore, it is essential that trees to be retained must have their RPAs protected from any changes in in levels. Permeable surfacing materials are recommended to be used in the construction of any surfacing that encroaches on RPAs to allow for percolation of water and gas diffusion. 11
Page 33
Where excavation is required within RPAs non-mechanical excavation is proposed and cutting roots greater than 2.5cm diameter is to be avoided. A no dig surface methodology such as a 3D cellular confinement system is proposed to avoid negative impacts to RPAs in other areas. This would raise the level of the ground in the identified area. A no dig surface can cover approximately 20% of any RPA. Where the ground level is raised in any RPAs a permeable surface material is recommended to allow air and water to percolate. 4.2.4 Installation of Services Traditionally the installation of underground services is carried out by the digging of open trenches and installation of the service(s) prior to backfilling. It is widely recognised that this methodology is detrimental to the health of trees where the digging of trenches involves the severance of tree roots. Overhead services can also come into conflict with tree canopies resulting in unnecessary pruning or tree removal. To minimise any impact on trees all services should, wherever possible, be located out-with the root protection areas and crown spreads (for overhead cables) of retained trees. Where services must be installed in root protection areas excavation must be non-mechanical and roots greater than 2.5cm diameter retained. 4.2.5 During Construction Where construction vehicles are required to enter any RPA, a preference will be given to the use of small construction vehicles and ground protection will be used. Ground protection requirements will depend on the intensity of work around any individual tree in such areas. Where materials storage is required, this will be outside of any RPAs of trees to be retained. 4.3 ABOVE GROUND CONSTRAINTS 4.3.1 Canopies and Shading The canopies of retained trees can be protected with barriers where any work takes place or where any machinery to be used on site which may impact the canopies. 4.3.2 Future Tree Inspections Due to the time lapse between the initial survey and start of any development work a further inspection of the trees should form part of the formal risk assessment process carried out prior to commencement. This initial assessment of the trees was carried out on the basis that a follow-up inspection would be undertaken within one year and the advice given on tree condition reviewed on an annual basis or after extreme weather events. 4.4 TREE-WORK RECOMMENDATIONS There are tree-work management recommendations proposed for five Category U (dead) Scots pine trees and it is recommended that the trees are felled within 12 months and that the deadwood is retained on the site. 4.5 CONCLUSIONS It is proposed to fell two Category C trees, T83 and T88, a larch and a Scots pine to accommodate the development footprint. BS5837 states that there is no restriction on felling Category C trees. Compensatory planting will mitigate against the loss of the two trees. It is proposed to fell five Category U (dead) Scots pine trees, T74, 75, 76, 79, 87 for safety reasons where tree-work recommendations have been made. It is recommended that the deadwood is retained on the woodland floor. All other trees will be retained. The proposed development impacts the RPA of 1 tree T102. The directly impacted area is approximately 4% of the RPA. Arboricultural methodology must be followed in the RPA. 12
Page 34
However, as most of the rooting area is beyond the development footprint it is considered that the long-term health and longevity of the tree will not be detrimentally affected. Where excavation is required within RPAs non-mechanical excavation is proposed and cutting roots greater than 2.5cm diameter is to be avoided. A no dig surface methodology such as a 3D cellular confinement system is proposed to avoid negative impacts in other areas. Where this raises the level of the ground in any RPA a permeable surface material is recommended to allow air and water to percolate. It is not anticipated that the RPAs of other retained trees will be directly impacted by the work. However, in the event work is required which may encroach into any RPA, work must be non- mechanical excavation using hand tools or use a no dig surface method where excavation is not required. Arboricultural methodology must be adopted for any works in the RPAs of retained trees in case tree roots are discovered. It is anticipated that the impact of the proposed development can be satisfactorily mitigated against to ensure that there is no detrimental long- term impact to RPAs at the site. The RPAs of all trees on the site which are in the vicinity of, but out-with, the proposed development footprint can be safely protected from compaction or other disturbance by protective fencing and/or ground protection. Tree protection specifications for tree protection barriers are provided, together with general advice on tree retention, working in RPAs, and an arboricultural method statement for tree works. It is anticipated that the impact of the proposed development can be satisfactorily mitigated against to ensure that there is no detrimental long-term impact to retained trees at the site and that compensatory planting will mitigate against the loss of the felled trees. 4.6 ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - see below and Arboricultural Impact Plan as separate pdf 2 An arboricultural impact assessment plan has been produced for the site. The trees were recorded as T70-100, with 101 & 102 in neighbouring garden. Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 13
Page 35
14
Page 36
PART 5 – TREE PROTECTION PLAN 5.1 GENERAL 5.1.1 The client and agent shall ensure that: the site manager and all other personnel are provided with this document. all planning conditions relating to underground works, services, trees and landscaping are cleared before development commences. all requirements of this Tree Protection Plan are adhered to. the site manager is updated of any approved changes or variations to this document. 5.1.2 The client and site manager shall ensure that: a copy of this document with the tree protection plan is easily accessible for site personnel to refer to before and during the time construction activity is taking place. all personnel working on the site are made aware of the tree protection plan and arboricultural method statements covering any activities they will undertake. This duty includes delegating the task of briefing personnel in the absence of the site manager. The tree protection measures are left in place until the construction phase of development is completed, except with the written consent of the LPA. site personnel are updated of any approved changes to approved tree protection measures. 5.1.3 Procedures for incidents If any breach of the approved tree protection measures occurs: The LPA Tree officer or other Planning Officer and Tay Ecology are informed. The site manager must be informed immediately. Swift action must be taken to halt the breach and prevent any further breach. Damage mitigation measures appropriate to the scale of incident, deployed where required. 5.1.4 Prohibited Activities The following must not be carried out under any circumstances: Cutting down, uprooting, damaging or otherwise destroying any retained tree. Lighting a fire within 10 metres of the canopy of any retained tree. Equipment, signage, fencing, tree protection barriers, materials, components, vehicles, or structures shall not be attached to or supported by a retained tree. Mixing cement, chemical toilets and other use or storage of anything that would be harmful to trees shall not take place within, or close to a Root Protection Area (RPA). The distance away from the RPA must be sufficient, and site slope must be such that contamination of soil in the RPA would not occur if there were spillage, seepage, or displacement. No plant or vehicle with a hydraulic arm such as a mini digger shall be operated within striking distance of the stem and branches or the RPA of any retained tree unless otherwise specified. 5.1.5 No alterations or variations shall be made to the approved tree protection measures without written approval from the LPA. 5.1.6 Timing and order of operations The development must be carried out in the following order unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA. Each step must be completed before moving onto the next: i. Tree felling. ii. Mark out RPAs of retained trees. iii. Installation of tree protection barriers and temporary ground protection. iv. Construction. v. Removal of the remaining ground protection and barriers. 5.2 TREE PROTECTION PLAN - see below and Tree Protection Plan separate pdf 3 15
Page 37
16
Page 38
5.3 PROTECTIVE BARRIERS AND GROUND PROTECTION 5.3.1 Protective barriers, ideally at the limit of the RPA, or in positions to be agreed within the RPA once further detailed proposals are available, are required to enclose a sufficient RPA to ensure that trees to be retained survive the development process. The aim of any barrier is to exclude any construction activity which may damage tree health. Appropriate distances to be measured from the base of trees are as in the Tree Survey Schedule RPA. 5.3.2 Any barriers shall be installed and removed in accordance with the timing of operations above and laid out in accordance with the appended Tree Protection Plan. The appended notice, Appendix 6 Tree Protection Notice, should be used to create all weather notices that must be added to the tree protection barriers or suitable intervals. In the event of any panel or support becoming damaged, this must be immediately reinforced by adding panels with the designs below as appropriate. 5.3.3 Tree protection barriers The default specification is a vertical and horizontal scaffold framework, braced to resist impacts, Appendix 3. The vertical tubes are spaced at a maximum interval of 3m and these are driven securely into the ground. Welded mesh panels are securely attached to the frame. During installation it is important to consider the position of below ground services and structural roots, which must not be damaged. Where these constraints prevent the use of this specification, an alternative specification is given. 5.3.4 Alternative tree protection barrier design 2 metres high welded mesh panels standing in rubber or concrete feet joined using a minimum of two anti-tamper couplers installed so they can only be removed from inside the protected area. The fence couplers should be at spaced least 1m apart, but uniformly across the whole barrier. These panels must be supported within the protected area with struts attached to a base plate secured by ground pins, Appendix 3. 5.3.5 Protective barriers should be adapted to fit the site requirements and may include improvised structures around specific trees. 5.3.6 The supervising tree consultant should confirm that the tree protection barriers have been installed as agreed before any significant site work starts. 5.4 ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT FOR WORK WITHIN RPAS 5.4.1 Where it has been agreed during the design stage, and shown on the tree protection plan, that vehicular or pedestrian access for the construction operation may take place within the RPAs, the possible effects of construction should be addressed by a combination of barriers and ground protection. The position of the barrier may be shown within the RPAs at the edge of the agreed working zone but the soil structure beyond the barrier to the edge of the RPAs should be protected with ground protection. Where intermittent work within the RPA occurs on existing hard surfaces no additional root protection is required. 5.4.2 BS 5837:2012 allows for the use of ground protection in conjunction with protective fencing. Where temporary access for small scale machinery is needed within the RPAs ground protection should be used. Ground protection should be of sufficient strength and rigidity to prevent soil disturbance and compaction. A geotextile membrane should be used to prevent contamination of soil below by toxic substances. 5.4.3 For pedestrian movements within the RPAs the installation of ground protection in the form of a single thickness of scaffold boards on top of a compressible layer laid onto a geotextile or 17
Page 39
supported by scaffold is acceptable. For wheeled or tracked movements within the RPAs the ground protection should be designed by an engineer to accommodate the likely loading and may involve the use of proprietary systems or reinforced concrete slabs. 5.4.4 The supervising tree consultant should confirm that the ground protection has been installed as agreed before any significant site work starts. 5.4.5 Where excavation is required within RPAs non-mechanical excavation is proposed and cutting roots greater than 2.5cm diameter is to be avoided. 5.4.5.1 Any tree roots found up to 25mm diameter can be pruned back with sharp secateurs leaving a wound of the smallest diameter possible. If any roots over 25mm are found, these must be retained undamaged, and further advice sought from the supervising tree consultant. Cut exposed roots to be removed cleanly 10-20cm behind the final face of the excavation. Protect roots temporarily exposed, but to be retained, from drying out by covering with damp hessian sacks or boards. Use an inert granular material mixed with top-soil or sharp sand around retained roots greater than 25mm width before light compaction. 5.4.6 Where any surfacing encroaches into the RPAs and no excavation is required, a no-dig surface is preferentially recommended where 20% or less of the RPA will be impacted. The design of such a construction needs to be sensitive to the requirements of tree roots, substantial enough to withstand the proposed structure and practicable in terms of ease of fabrication. The no-dig method involves construction of a surface with no excavation or soil stripping. All construction takes place above ground level. Appendix 5 Example 3D Cellular Confinement System. 5.4.6.1 BS 5837 recommends that three-dimensional cellular confinement systems are an appropriate sub-base for installing surfacing in RPAs. Most products are made from heavy-duty plastic that is pulled apart to open into cells. These are then filled with washed stone, after the product is spread over the ground and pinned in place. This forms a base layer that acts as a floating raft, spreading the load across the whole construction width. The base layer can be topped with a variety of finishes. 5.4.6.2 Tay Ecology is not qualified to recommend any specific construction method in terms of durability or structural integrity and any proposed construction should be approved by a structural engineer prior to implementation, however, with regards to trees, the following comments are made: • Severance of roots and soil compaction should be avoided. • Air and water must be able to diffuse into the soil beneath the engineered surface. Toxic substances which could leach into the ground must be avoided, as should substances which affect the pH value of the soil, for example limestone. 5.4.6.3 Existing ground vegetation may be killed using a suitable herbicide. Care must be taken to select a herbicide which does not damage the tree roots within the treated area. Once the vegetation has died, the dead organic matter should be removed. This helps prevent the future build-up of anaerobic conditions or settlement due to decomposition. 5.4.7 For any landscaping in RPAs avoid soil compaction around existing trees. Any cultivation within RPAs should be undertaken by hand, but no heavy mechanical cultivation should occur. Decompaction measures if required include forking, spiking, soil augering and tilted radial trenching. 18
Page 40
5.4.8 To prevent pollution in RPAs make provision for emergency spillage clean-up; mix cement and wash vehicles as far away from RPAs as possible; use bunding and impermeable membranes to prevent liquid contaminants reaching RPAs; use impermeable membranes to prevent leachates from poured concrete contaminating RPAs; keep pollution control measures in place until there is no significant risk of RPA contamination. 5.4.9 Summary of arboricultural supervision Mark out the RPAs of retained trees. Ensure that the tree protection barriers are installed and fixed to the ground in the correct position and as specified. Oversee any excavation required within RPAs. Ensure that any cellular containment system is installed as per the manufacturers Recommendations. Undertake regular site visits to ensure that the works are in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement. PART 6 - COMPENSATORY PLANTING 6.1 PLANTING SCHEDULE a. Plant in first planting season (Oct-Mar) following completion of dwelling and infrastructure. b. Excavate planting pits 50cm x 50cm x 30cm. c. Plant trees of 1.5m-3m height. d. Use stakes and ties to support trees. e. Plant trees 1-4m apart. f. Plant small groups of same species with small clearings between. g. Any plants which become damaged or die within 5 years will be replaced. h. Plant hedgerow saplings 40-60cm height i. Plant staggered double hedgerow 30cm apart j. Plant 4-6 hedgerow plants per metre k. Wildflower seeds sown at 3g/m3 or 12kg/acre or 30kg/hectare to include woodland meadow mix; and hedgerow meadow mix. 6.2 NATIVE TREE PLANTING Native trees planted - 6 trees - Hazel - Corylus avellana x 2; Wild cherry – Prunus avium x 2; Rowan – Sorbus acuparia x 2 6.3 NATIVE SHRUB PLANTING Mixed native shrub planting Honeysuckle - Lonicera periclymenum; Bird cherry - Prunus padus; Dog rose - Rosa canina; Guelder rose - Viburnum opulus – 7m 6.4 NATIVE HEDGEROW Mixed native hedgerow of Hawthorn - Crataegus monogyna and Bird cherry - Prunus padus - 14m PART 7 – REFERENCES BSI Standards Publication, 2012 “British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations” BSI Standards Publication, 2010 “British Standard 3998:2010 Tree work – Recommendations” Rose, B., 2020 “The Use of Cellular Confinement Systems near Trees: A Guide to Good Practice” Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 12 19
Page 41
20
Page 42
PART 8 – APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Terms and Definitions p.21 Appendix 2 – Tree Category Codes p.22 Appendix 3 – Protective Fencing Specifications p.23-24 Appendix 4 – Installing Services in RPAs p.25-32 Appendix 5 – Example of No Dig Surface Method p.33-38 Appendix 6 – Tree Protection Notice p.39 Appendix 7 – Planting Schedule p.40-42 APPENDIX 1 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 1.0 Arboricultural Method Statement Guidelines for specified working operations near trees to avoid any harmful impact as defined within BS 5837:2012, may cover works from tree work to operating cranes, installing foundations or services and guidelines for engineering performance to function as a tree protection measure. 1.1 Ground Protection In this context the term refers to a method for preventing the ground from being disturbed, usually within the Root Protection Areas of retained trees. Other uses include protection areas to be planted. The way ground protection should be designed to perform is typically described within an Arboricultural Method Statement. 1.2 Root Protection Area (RPA) A minimum recommended area for tree protection in ‘BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Construction’. In these areas works should be avoided where possible. Where work in these areas cannot be avoided, it should be carried out in accordance with a Tree Protection Plan and / or Arboricultural Method Statement. 1.3 Tree Constraints Plan As defined within BS 5837:2012. This plan shows above and below ground constraints that may impact on a planning proposal such as the tree branch spread and Root Protection Area. 1.4 Tree Preservation Order (TPO) A type of land charge which specifies certain trees for protection under the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) that makes it necessary to make an application to the LPA to work on them (with notable exceptions) and a criminal offence to otherwise damage or destroy them. 1.5 Conservation Area Normal TPO procedures apply, if a tree is not covered by a TPO, written notice to the LPA detailing any proposed work must be given at least 6 weeks before work starts. Notice of work is not required where the tree has a diameter of less than 75mm, measured 1.5m above the ground, or 100mm diameter if thinning to enable the growth of other trees. Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 21
Page 43
APPENDIX 2 TREE CATEGORY CODES Cascade chart for tree quality assessment from BS 5837:2012 Category and Criteria (including subcategories where appropriate) Identification definition on plan Trees unsuitable for retention Category U Trees that have a serious, irremediable, structural defect, such that their early loss Dark red Those in such a is expected due to collapse, including those that will become unviable after condition that they removal of other category U trees (eg. Where, for whatever reason, including the cannot realistically loss of companion shelter cannot be mitigated by pruning) be retained as living trees in the Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate and context of the irreversible overall decline. current land use for longer than 10 Trees infected with pathogens of significance to tree health and/or safety of other years. trees nearby, or very 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 1 Mainly arboricultural qualities 2 Mainly landscape 3 Mainly cultural qualities values, including conservation Category A Trees that are particularly good Trees groups or Trees, groups or Light green Trees of high examples of their species, woodlands of woodlands of quality with an especially if rare or unusual; or particular visual significant estimated those that are essential importance as conservation, remaining life components of groups or formal arboricultural and/or historical, expectancy of at or semi-formal arboricultural landscape features. commemorative or least 40 years. features (eg. The dominant and/or other value (eg. principal trees within in an Veteran trees or avenue). wood-pasture). Category B Trees that might be included in Trees present in Trees with material Mid blue Trees of moderate category A but are downgraded numbers, usually conservation or other quality with an because of impaired condition growing as groups or cultural value. estimated (eg. Presence of significant woodlands, such that remaining life though remediable deflects, they attract a higher expectancy of at including unsympathetic past collective rating than least 20 years. management and storm damage), they might as such that they are unlikely to be individuals; or trees suitable for retention for beyond occurring as 40 years; or trees lacking the collectives but situated special quality necessary to merit so as to make little the category A designation. visual contribution to the wider locality. Category C Unremarkable trees of very Trees present in Trees with no Grey Trees of low limited merit or such impaired groups or woodlands, material conservation quality with an condition that they do not qualify but without this or other cultural estimated in higher categories. conferring on them value. remaining life significantly greater expectancy of at collective landscape least 10 years, or value; and/or trees young trees with a offering low or only stem diameter of temporary/transient below 150mm. landscape benefits. NOTE: Whilst 'C' category trees will usually not be retained where they would impose a significant constraint on development, young trees with a stem diameter of less than 150 mm should be considered for relocation. Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 22
Page 44
APPENDIX 3 PROTECTIVE FENCING SPECIFICATION 5.2.3 The default specification is a vertical and horizontal scaffold framework, braced to resist impacts, as per figure 1 below. The vertical tubes are spaced at a maximum interval of 3m and these are driven securely into the ground. Welded mesh panels are securely attached to the frame. During installation it is important to consider the position of below ground services and structural roots, which must not be damaged. Where these constraints prevent the use of this specification, an alternative specification is given below. Figure 1 is taken from BS5837:2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition & Construction – Recommendations’ and illustrates the systems to be employed for ensuring an adequate Construction Exclusion Zone about retained trees. Refer to BS5837:2012 for further details. Figure 1 – default tree protection barrier specification 5.2.4 Alternative tree protection barrier design 2 metres high welded mesh panels standing in rubber or concrete feet joined using a minimum of two anti-tamper couplers installed so they can only be removed from inside the protected area. The fence couplers should be at spaced least 1m apart, but uniformly across the whole barrier. These panels must be supported within the protected area with struts attached to a base plate secured by ground pins as per figure 2a. Where the fencing is installed above retained hard surfacing and/or it is otherwise not feasible to use ground pins (e.g., due to underlying services or structural roots), the struts can be mounted on a block tray as per figure 2b. 23
Page 45
Figure 2 is taken from BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition & Construction – Recommendations and illustrates the systems to be employed for ensuring an adequate Construction Exclusion Zone about retained trees. Refer to BS5837:2012 for further details. Figure 2 – above ground stabilising systems Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 24
Page 46
APPENDIX 4A INSTALLING SERVICES IN RPAs Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 25
Page 47
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 26
Page 48
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 27
Page 49
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 28
Page 50
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 29
Page 51
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 30
Page 52
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 31
Page 53
APPENDIX 4B AIR SPADE The use of a compressed air-powered tool, or AirSpade, facilitates excavation, soil management, and tree healthcare within RPAs. Air-spading is a form of non-mechanical excavation which efficiently removes or loosens soil without damaging a tree’s root system. AirSpade is a purpose-built excavation tool which penetrates soil with compressed air that expands rapidly to fracture the soil. Air-spading can cause some temporary loss of beneficial mycorrhizal fungi; in order to help repopulate these important organisms, adding a broad-spectrum mix of mycorrhizal fungi spores to exposed tree roots after any Air Spade work is recommended. Example AirSpade from AVArboriculture Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 32
Page 54
APPENDIX 5 EXAMPLES OF 3D CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 33
Page 55
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 34
Page 56
35
Page 57
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 36
Page 58
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 37
Page 59
Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 38
Page 60
APPENDIX 6 TREE PROTECTION NOTICE Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 39
Page 61
APPENDIX 7 PLANTING SCHEDULE Tree planting will commence in the first planting season (October to March) following completion of the extension. In the event any planted tree is observed to be dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within 5 years of being planted, it will be replaced by a tree of similar species and size to the original planted. TREE MANAGEMENT SCHEME a) When to plant trees Plant bare root trees during the dormant season which usually runs from October to March, planting before the spring growth commences (Woodland Trust, 2024). Root ball trees can be planted all year round (Woodland Trust, 2024). b) What to do when the trees arrive Store trees upright in an unheated garage or shed protected from frost and wind. Trees should be planted as soon as practical after delivery, however, delay planting if the ground is frozen or waterlogged. If trees are to be stored for a longer period heel-in the trees. Dig a trench, ideally in well- drained soil in a shaded location, place tree roots into the trench keeping trees tied up as a bundle as packed. Cover the roots with soil, cut any ties holding the trees together, loosen and shake the roosts to ensure the soil covers them. Use straw or garden compost mulching over the trees to prevent frost damage. If frozen ground delays planting, unpack the trees and check that the roots are moist. If the roots appear dry, dip them in a bucket of cold water for a few minutes and then return to the polythene bag and tie the top of the bag. Store trees in a cold but frost-free place. Do not stand the trees in water for any extended length of time (Woodland Trust, 2024). c) Prepare the site prior to planting Mark out where each tree will be placed using stones or canes. Create wavy lines with varied spacing to balance more densely planted areas with open spaces for a natural look and feel. Plant small groups of the same species together to reduce competition between species. Recommended average planting distance is 2 metres with spacing of between 1-4m to create a natural habitat (Woodland Trust, 2024). d) Planting trees To prevent the holes becoming filled with rainwater and becoming waterlogged dig shortly before planting. The hole must accommodate the roots comfortably with additional space. The soil at the base of the hole should be loosened with a spade or fork. Excessively long roost can be pruned. If the roots are very dry cut the tips off and place the roots in water for up to two hours before planting. Use the loose soil to fill the hole, compost can be added to very heavy or sandy soils. Plant trees at the same depth as they had been before being lifted, this depth is indicated by a soil mark and is typically not more than 5 cm above the highest roots. When filling in the hole make sure that the soil gets around the roots and tread in well after planting. e) Pit Planting Method Pit planting ensures trees have better contact with the soil. It is suitable for all ground types, though can be difficult if the soil is stony. 1. Use a spade to dig a turf out of the ground, turn it over and chop into smaller pieces. 40
Page 62
2. Hold a small piece of turf above a hole in the ground. Hold a sapling in the hole to check the hole is large enough for the roots. 3. Dig a hole slightly wider and deeper than the roots of the tree. Loosen the soil around the edges. Place the cut turf at the base of the pit to provide the tree with extra nutrients. 4. Put the tree in the hole and check the depth. Look for the collar – the mark on the tree where it originally started to grow above the ground. This should be level with the top of the soil. If your tree is planted too deep, the stem may rot; too shallow and the roots above the ground will die. 5. Hold the tree upright and gently push back the soil, pressing it down onto the roots. Do not compact the soil as this will stop water and air circulation, but make sure your tree is secure. 6. Push the cane into the ground next to the tree, making sure it's stable. 7. If using tree guards or spirals to protect your saplings, this is the stage to add these. Press the protection firmly into the soil. f) Staking trees All newly planted trees should be tied to canes or stakes. Ensure that the stake is far enough from the tree to avoid damaging the roots and use good quality tree ties to prevent the tree from rubbing against the stake. g) Tree guards Protect trees from browsing mammals such as rabbits, voles, and deer by using tree guards or spirals. Wire mesh rabbit fencing can be tied in a loose cylinder around the tree. CARING FOR NEWLY PLANTED TREES HOW TO CARE FOR NEWLY PLANTED TREES YEARS 0 - 3 Ensure everyone involved in maintenance of the space knows where the trees have been planted to avoid accidental damage. a) Weeding Maintaining an approximate 1 metre diameter around the tree clear of weeds and grass for the first 2-3 years will reduce competition for moisture and nutrients. Weeds can be suppressed with mulch, such as leaf mould, straw, or bark chips. Apply to a depth of approximately 10cm to prevent it being dispersed and top up annually (Woodland Trust, 2024). b) Watering Trees will adapt to local conditions and regular watering is not necessary as this encourages roots to grow up towards the soil surface rather than down towards groundwater. However, in the event of a particularly long dry spell where watering would be beneficial, saturate the ground to ensure water soaks deep into the soil (Woodland Trust, 2024). c) Grass cutting Regular grass cutting is not recommended as it enhances grass growth increasing competition for moisture. If undertaking occasional mowing or strimming care must be taken to avoid damaging the trees and guards (Woodland Trust, 2024). d) Check tree stakes Strong winds can blow trees over so make sure guards, canes or stakes are upright and pushed firmly into the soil. Pull up any grass growing inside the guard and carefully replace it (Woodland Trust, 2024). 41
Page 63
e) Pests Pests can cause damage inside the tube so check tree stems and guards. Keeping tree guards firmly pressed into the soil and a weed-free area around trees will help (Woodland Trust, 2024). HOW TO CARE FOR NEWLY PLANTED TREES YEARS 3 - 10 f) Remove tree guards Remove and/or upgrade guards (subject to browsing pressures). (Woodland Trust, 2024). g) Pruning Pruning is not essential, but it encourages trees to grow upwards rather than outwards once established creating a diverse canopy structure. Use a pruning saw to cut close to the tree trunk. The cut should be square to the branch and preserve the bulge at its base, which is the branch collar. Avoid damaging any tree bark and do not cut the branch in line with the main stem. Most native trees are best pruned when dormant in winter (Woodland Trust, 2024). h) Disease Trees may be affected by common diseases or experience frost damage however, most young trees will survive (Woodland Trust, 2024). REFERENCES Royal Horticultural Society, 2024, “Trees and shrubs: planting” [Online]. Available at https://www.rhs.org.uk/Advice/profile?pid=237 (accessed 25th January 2024) Woodland Trust, 2024, “Tree planting advice” [Online]. Available at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/plant-trees/advice/ (accessed 25th January 2024) Tay Ecology Ltd, Fairway, Golf Course Road, Pitlochry, PH16 5QU Tel: 07747 883464; Email: info@tayecology.co.uk; Web: www.tayecology.co.uk 42
Page 64
Doc 6