TPO 02_25 - Appendix 2 - Tree report final - visual assessment_WestAiley
Argyll and Bute Council · 20 August 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 20 August 2025 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
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey June 2025
Page 2
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 2 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information: Location: West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove, G84 0NN Grid Reference: NS 22267 82104 Survey Details: Surveyor: Graeme Millar Date of Survey: 24 June 2025 Report Details: Project Reference: 101158 Project Title: West Ailey Report Reference: 101158_01 Report Title: Visual Tree Assessment Date of Issue: 26 June 2025 Status: FINAL Client Details: Name: Argyll and Bute Council Address: Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Company Details: Company Name: Terraplan Limited Company No: SC786795 Registered Office: 303 Embroidery Mill, Abbeymill Business Centre, Paisley, PA1 1TJ Tel: 0141 345 2849 Email: info@terraplan.co.uk Web: www.terraplan.co.uk This report has been produced by Terraplan Limited with all due skill and care, in accordance with the terms agreed upon with the Client. The contents of this report are confidential and intended solely for the Client. Terraplan Limited disclaims any liability to third parties who may become aware of this report. Reproduction or modification of any portion of this document is prohibited without the prior written consent of Terraplan Limited. Table of Contents OVERVIEW 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 3 PRELIMINARIES 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................... 4 3 METHODS ............................................................................................................ 4 4 DESK STUDY FINDINGS ................................................................................... 5 VISUAL TREE ASSESSMENT 5 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 6 6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 6 7 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................... 7 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD ....................................................... 9 APPENDIX 2. TREE SURVEY PLAN ................................................................ 10 APPENDIX 3. CASCADE CHART FOR TREE QUALITY ASSESSMENT ... 11 APPENDIX 4. KEY TO TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE ...................................... 12 APPENDIX 5. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................... 13
Page 3
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 3 OVERVIEW 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report sets out the findings of a Visual Tree Assessment undertaken by Terraplan Limited, acting on instruction from Argyll and Bute Council, in relation to a mature horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) located within the grounds of West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove, G84 0NN. The inspection was carried out in accordance with the principles of Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) and was limited to observations made from ground level, without the use of invasive diagnostic equipment. The subject tree is a lapsed pollard of considerable stature and visual prominence within the local setting. It exhibits signs of physiological stress, including reduced crown density and atypically small leaf dimensions. Structurally, the tree displays multiple high-risk characteristics typical of lapsed pollards including several large limbs arising from previously pollarded heads. A recent major limb failure from a principal union has resulted in a substantial stem wound, reducing overall structural integrity and altering the mechanical load distribution across the crown. Of particular concern is a scaffold limb situated just above the recent failure point, which now extends over a gas storage tank. While this limb currently remains intact, its compromised structural context and the presence of a high- consequence target beneath it significantly elevate the level of risk. Given these factors, prompt removal of the limb is recommended as a necessary safety measure. In addition, a targeted crown reduction of up to 20% is recommended, in accordance with BS3998:2010 guidance for the management of lapsed pollards. The primary aim of the reduction is to lessen wind loading on the weakened lapsed pollard heads, thereby reducing the risk of further structural failure. Longer-term management should involve structured reinspection at 15-month intervals to monitor crown development, union stability, and wound progression. Supplementary inspections following significant storm events are also recommended to ensure ongoing risk management.
Page 4
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 4 PRELIMINARIES 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE 2.1 Instruction 2.1.1 Terraplan Limited was instructed by Argyll and Bute Council to produce a Visual Tree Assessment report relating to an individual horse chestnut tree attributable to the grounds of West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove, G84 0NN. 2.2 Aims and objectives 2.2.1 This report aims to assess the nature, condition, and characteristics of an individual horse chestnut tree found in the grounds of West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove, G84 0NN. 2.2.2 This study seeks to identify any hazards and assess the risks arising from tree defects, while offering management recommendations where necessary to mitigate risks to site users and any adjacent property. 2.3 Author qualifications 2.3.1 Graeme Millar is a qualified arboricultural consultant with extensive experience advising clients in relation to trees and safety. He holds a Higher National Diploma in Arboriculture & Urban Forestry and is a Professional Member of the Arboricultural Association. 2.4 Field study 2.4.1 The field study was conducted on 24 June 2025. The survey quality was not affected by inclement weather. 2.5 Disclaimers 2.5.1 This report has been prepared exclusively for the commissioning client, in accordance with the agreed terms of engagement. No responsibility is accepted for any use or reliance on its content by third parties. 2.5.2 The assessment is based solely on a visual inspection conducted from ground level. No internal, aerial, or below-ground investigations were undertaken unless explicitly stated. Observations and conclusions are confined to the tree's condition as it appeared at the time of inspection and may not remain valid if site conditions or tree health change thereafter. 2.5.3 Terraplan Limited accepts no liability for the implementation, omission, or interpretation of any management recommendations provided herein. Legal responsibility for tree safety and management rests with the landowner and/or those with a duty of care under relevant legislation. 2.5.4 This report identifies visible structural or physiological features that may present risk based on reasonable professional judgement. However, trees are dynamic, living organisms and can suffer from hidden defects or unpredictable failures. As such, no guarantee can be given as to the long-term stability or safety of any tree. 2.5.5 The findings and recommendations are intended to support proportionate and reasonable tree risk management. This report does not constitute a warranty of tree safety, nor does it negate the need for ongoing inspection, monitoring, and maintenance in accordance with best practice. 2.5.6 The Tree Survey Schedule is provided for advisory purposes and does not serve as a specification of works. All tree work should be undertaken by competent, insured arboricultural contractors in accordance with BS3998:2010 and all relevant legislation. 2.5.7 The accompanying Tree Survey Plan identifies the subject tree(s) recorded during the field assessment. Where no topographical survey was supplied, tree positions were plotted using handheld GPS equipment, typically accurate to within ±2.0m, and should be regarded as indicative only. 3 METHODS 3.1 Tree survey 3.1.1 Trees and tree groups were assessed in accordance with the principles of the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) method (Mattheck et al). 3.1.2 Observations were made from ground level only. The survey did not include detailed or invasive investigations. As such, internal decay or defects may not be fully detectable through visual inspection alone. 3.1.3 Trees were measured using diameter tape and a clinometer. Where this was not possible or practical, measurements were estimated.
Page 5
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 5 3.1.4 The following information was recorded: • Tree / Group No. • Species • Height & Stem Diameter • Crown Spread • Condition • General Observations • Management Recommendations • Estimated Contribution • BS5837 Quality Category 3.2 Tree Survey Plan 3.2.1 Trees and tree groups were plotted on a Tree Survey Plan using a GPS receiver typically accurate to within 2.0m. 3.2.2 Information presented on the Tree Survey Plan includes: • Tree Number • Tree Locations • Crown Extents • BS5837 Quality Category Colour 3.3 Desk study 3.3.1 A desk study was undertaken in conjunction with the field survey to gather information on tree stock. The desk study includes a review of: • Tree Preservation Orders and Conservation Areas 4 DESK STUDY FINDINGS 4.1 Tree Preservation Orders and Conservation Areas 4.1.1 The subject tree is protected by a Tree Preservation Order Ref: 25/00355/TPO1. The subject tree is also found within the Cove and Kilcreggan Conservation Area2. 4.1.2 The felling, lopping, topping or removal of a protected tree requires prior permission from Argyll and Bute Council. 1 Available at: https://portal360.argyll-bute.gov.uk/w2webparts/Resource/Civica/Handler.ashx/Doc/pagestream?cd=inline&pdf=true&docno=23378228 (Accessed 25 June 2025) 2 Available at: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building/conservation-area-maps (Accessed 25 June 2025)
Page 6
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 6 VISUAL TREE ASSESSMENT 5 FINDINGS 5.1 General description 5.1.1 The subject tree is a mature horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) situated within a residential garden setting, in proximity to a gas storage tank. It stands as a prominent feature within the landscape but exhibits signs of physiological and structural decline. 5.1.2 An initial inspection revealed that the tree presents with somewhat reduced vigour, including slightly sparse crown density and reduced leaf size throughout the upper canopy. These symptoms suggest a degree of physiological stress, potentially associated with age, past pruning practices, and site-related constraints. 5.2 Structural observations 5.2.1 The tree has an upright, broadly spreading crown indicative of a lapsed pollard, with multiple large limbs arising from common pollard heads at approximately 6.0 to 7.0 metres above ground level. As is typical of lapsed pollards, the regrowth limbs have developed with broad attachment angles and limited taper, often forming structurally weak unions due to included bark or insufficient wound-wood formation around the old pollard heads. 5.2.2 A significant scaffold limb recently failed from an older union in the central crown. The failure has resulted in a substantial tear-out wound on the main stem. Given the tree’s age and physiological condition, it is unlikely that this wound will fully occlude, increasing the potential for localised dysfunction and decay over time. However, the main stem remains intact and does not currently warrant internal decay investigation. 5.2.3 A second scaffold limb extends directly above the gas storage tank and emerges just above the union that recently failed. Although it currently appears structurally intact, its point of attachment lies within the same structurally compromised zone. With the removal of the adjacent limb, this section of the crown is now more exposed to wind loading than before. The redistribution of mechanical forces onto neighbouring limbs increases the risk of further failure, particularly where unions are weak or asymmetrical. The proximity of this limb to the gas tank presents a clear risk that requires prompt mitigation. 5.3 Physiological condition 5.3.1 Crown density is somewhat reduced, with lighter-than-average foliage and smaller leaf size, suggesting a decline in vigour. 5.3.2 No active signs of pests or disease were identified at the time of inspection but the physiological indicators point to general stress, likely compounded by the age of the tree and its structural condition. 5.4 Risk evaluation 5.4.1 The recent failure of a large limb from a principal union confirms that the structural integrity of the tree is impaired. The remaining scaffold limb that arises just above the failed union and extends over the gas storage tank is of particular concern due to: • Its origin at a structurally compromised area • The increased likelihood of failure under mechanical stress • The presence of a high-consequence target beneath (the gas storage tank) 5.4.2 The failure has also altered the crown structure and exposed neighbouring limbs to new wind loads. In lapsed pollards, these limbs often arise from weak unions that were not originally formed to bear full canopy load individually. The redistribution of mechanical stress following the loss of a major limb increases the likelihood of further failures, particularly where co-dominant attachments are poorly formed or degraded. 5.4.3 Taking into account the combined factors of physiological stress, altered crown dynamics, known structural failure, and proximity to high-risk infrastructure, immediate intervention, ongoing canopy management and continued monitoring are warranted. 6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Immediate risk mitigation 6.1.1 The scaffold limb overhanging the gas storage tank should be removed as a priority. This action will eliminate a direct hazard to the infrastructure below and relieve loading on a structurally compromised union.
Page 7
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 7 6.2 General canopy management 6.2.1 Although the tree is a lapsed pollard, it retains sufficient vitality to tolerate a phased return to a managed form. In accordance with BS 3998:2010, Section 7.10, where a pollard cycle has lapsed, “the crown should instead be reduced to the minimum necessary to fulfil current objectives.” 6.2.2 A full return to the original pollard heads is not recommended at this stage, due to the extent of regrowth and the associated risk of physiological dysfunction and decay. BS 3998 further advises that “even if the stress on an old pollard branch is severe, it should not be cut back to the knuckle, it should instead be shortened by cutting just above a suitable lateral branch.” 6.2.3 On this basis, it is recommended that the crown be reduced by up to 20 percent in the first instance, with particular focus on structurally weak or overloaded limbs to relieve mechanical stress and reduce the risk of further limb failure. All canopy works should be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced arborist. 6.3 Long-term management 6.3.1 A structured management regime should be implemented to monitor the tree’s condition and minimise future risk. Formal inspections should be carried out at 15-month intervals to capture seasonal variation. 6.3.2 Each inspection should focus on scaffold unions, crown vigour, and the progression of any significant wounds. In addition, post-storm assessments should be conducted following periods of high wind. 6.3.3 All observations and findings should be recorded to support future decision-making and inform ongoing risk management. 7 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Nesting birds 7.1.1 Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), nesting birds, along with their nests and eggs, are afforded legal protection. It is a violation of this law to intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy nests. Therefore, tree work should be scheduled outside the typical nesting season (March to September), and a pre-works nesting bird check must always be conducted, regardless of timing. 7.1.2 Should an active nest be discovered, all work that could potentially impact the nest must be suspended until the nesting period has concluded. 7.2 Bats 7.2.1 Bats are protected under Schedule 1 and 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), as well as Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. If the presence of bats is suspected during any tree work on-site, operations must be immediately halted. A licensed bat handler or ecologist should be consulted for guidance.
Page 8
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 8 7.3 Tree survey schedule KEY TO TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Prevention of Harm to People: Actions are required to address potential hazards that could cause injury or harm to individuals Prevention of Damage to Property: Actions are required to prevent possible damage to buildings or infrastructure General Canopy Management: Actions are required to address routine management of the tree canopy to promote overall health and longevity TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE Tree / Group No. Species (Scientific name) Height (m) Stem Diameter (mm) Crown Spread N Crown Spread S Crown Spread E Crown Spread W Age Class Condition General Observations Management Recommendations: Prevention of Harm to People Management Recommendations: Prevention of Damage to Property Management Recommendations: General Canopy Management Estimated Remaining Contribution BS5837 Category Individually Recorded Trees T1 Horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) 17 1190 x1 6 8 8 7 MA F Substantial mature landscape specimen Indicating somewhat depleted vigour with slightly sparse crown density and reduced leaf dimensions Historically pollarded at 6.0m-7.0m now lapsed Significant tear-out wound from 2.0m-4.0m on N sector of upper bole as a result of relatively recent limb failure Scaffold limb arising from just above failure point oversailing gas storage tank __ Prune to remove scaffold limb oversailing gas storage tank (Image 01) Crown reduction up to 20% 20+ B1
Page 9
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 9 APPENDICES Appendix 1. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD Image 01 Tree No. T1 with limb oversailing adjacent gas storage tank and recommended for removal highlighted (red). Also highlighted are the lapsed pollard heads (blue). Image 02 Tree No. T1 from W Image 03 Tree No. T1 from E
Page 10
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 10 Appendix 2. TREE SURVEY PLAN
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 11 Appendix 3. CASCADE CHART FOR TREE QUALITY ASSESSMENT Category and definition Criteria (including subcategories where appropriate) TREES UNSUITABLE FOR RETENTION Category U Those in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years. • Trees that have a serious, irremediable structural defect such that early loss is expected through collapse or become unviable after removal of other category U trees. • Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, or irreversible overall decline. • Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other nearby trees or trees of very low quality, suppressing adjacent trees of better quality. Note: Category U trees can have existing or potential conservation value which it might be desirable to preserve. 1 Arboricultural Value 2 Landscape Value 3 Cultural Value TREES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION Category A Trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years Trees that are particularly good examples of their species, especially if rare or unusual. Essential components of groups or formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (i.e., dominant/principal trees in an avenue) Trees, groups, or woodlands of particular visual importance as arboricultural and/or landscape features Trees, groups, or woodlands of significant conservation, historical, commemorative or other value (e.g., Veteran trees or wood-pasture) Category B Trees of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years Trees that might be included in the high category, but are downgraded because of impaired condition (e.g., remediable defects or poor past management/storm damage) such that they are unlikely to be suitable for retention beyond 40 years Trees present in numbers usually as groups or woodlands, such that they form distinct landscape features thereby attracting a higher collective rating than they might as individuals, or trees occurring as collectives but situated to make little visual contribution to the wider locality. Trees with measurable conservation or cultural value Category C Trees of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm Unremarkable trees of very limited merit or such impaired condition that they do not qualify in higher categories Trees present in groups or woodlands, but without this conferring on them significantly greater collective landscape value and/or trees offering low or only temporary/transient landscape benefits. Trees with very limited conservation or cultural value
Page 13
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 12 Appendix 4. KEY TO TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE Tree Number Tag number attached to the tree and presented on tree survey plans. Previous Tag No. Tag attached to the tree recorded as part of a previous survey Species (Scientific name) Common name and botanical name of tree species. Height (m) Approximate height of the tree given in meters. Stem Diameter (mm) Diameter of the main stem(s) given in millimetres and taken 1.5m above ground level. Crown Spread (m) Directional branch spreads estimated in meters to provide a representative crown shape. Crown Height (m) Crown clearance above ground (recorded in metres). Height (m) and Direction of Lowest Branch Height above ground and direction of lowest viable branch (recorded in metres). RPA Radius (m) The calculated radius of the Root Protection Area of the tree. Age Class YO - Young, EM - Early Mature, MA - Mature, V - Veteran. Condition An overall assessment of the trees physiological and structural condition. G- Good, F- Fair, P- Poor General observations A brief description of the tree. Preliminary Management Recommendations Recommendations for arboricultural works. Estimated Remaining Contribution An estimation on the safe / useful life expectancy of the tree. BS5837 Category The quality category given to a tree in line with BS5837:2012 tree quality assessment.
Page 14
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 13 Appendix 5. GLOSSARY OF TERMS • A • Age Class: A general indicator of a tree’s stage in life (e.g. young, semi-mature, early-mature, mature, over-mature, veteran). • Amenity Value: The visual, cultural, or ecological value a tree contributes to its surroundings. • Arboricultural Consultant: A tree specialist who advises on tree health, condition, and the implications of development. • Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA): A planning document assessing the effects of proposed development on trees, with guidance on mitigation. • Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS): A report detailing methods to protect trees during construction. • B • Base of Crown (Crown Height): The height above ground at which the tree’s main canopy begins. • Branch Spread: The extent of the canopy measured in four cardinal directions: North, East, South, and West. • C • Canopy: The upper part of the tree comprising the branches and foliage. • Cavities: Hollowed areas in a trunk or branch, often caused by decay, injury, or pruning wounds. • Category (BS5837): A classification of trees according to quality and value (A – high, B – moderate, C – low, U – unsuitable for retention). • CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees): A method to assign monetary value to urban trees based on public benefits. • Clear Stem: The portion of the trunk with no branches, often measured to assess clearance for access or visibility. • Codominant Stems: Two or more stems of roughly equal size and prominence originating from the same point, often with included bark, potentially weakening structural integrity. • Compaction: The compression of soil, typically due to machinery or foot traffic, which reduces air and water permeability and restricts root function. • Conservation Area: A designated area of special architectural or historic interest, where trees above a certain size are legally protected. Notice must be given to the Local Planning Authority before carrying out works to any tree with a stem diameter over 75 mm measured at 1.5 m height. • D • DBH (Diameter at Breast Height): The stem diameter of a tree measured at 1.5 metres above ground level. • Deadwood: Non-living branches or stems, either retained as habitat or removed for safety. • Development Envelope: The proposed area for new structures or works within a site boundary. • Dieback: The progressive death of twigs and branches from the tips inward, often a symptom of decline or stress. • Dominant: A tree or stem that overtops others in the vicinity, receiving the greatest amount of light and exhibiting the most vigorous growth. • E • Estimated Remaining Contribution: An approximate assessment of how long a tree is likely to continue offering benefits in the landscape. • Exclusion Zone: A protected area around a tree (usually defined by the Root Protection Area) within which no construction activity is permitted. • F • Feeder Roots: Fine roots near the soil surface responsible for water and nutrient absorption. • G • Group (of Trees): Trees growing in close proximity and forming a cohesive unit in terms of structure or function, assessed collectively. • H • Height (of Tree): The total vertical distance from ground level to the uppermost point of the tree. • K
Page 15
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 14 • Knuckle: A swollen, often woody area at the end of a pollarded stem where repeated pruning cuts have been made. It is the traditional point to which regrowth is cut during a pollarding cycle. • L • Lapsed Pollard: A tree that was historically pollarded but has not been maintained on a regular cycle, resulting in large, often poorly attached regrowth that may present structural weaknesses. • Life Expectancy: See Estimated Remaining Contribution. • Lopping: A non-specific term for the removal of branches; not a recommended pruning practice due to potential harm. • M • Monitoring: Ongoing observation of tree condition or protective measures to ensure compliance during development. • Mitigation: Actions taken to reduce the negative impacts of development on trees. • P • Pollarding: A traditional form of pruning where a tree’s upper branches are removed to promote a dense head of regrowth; not suitable for all species. • Preliminary Management Recommendations: Initial guidance given for tree works or monitoring based on current condition and development proposals. • Protection Measures: Controls such as fencing or ground guards to prevent tree damage during works. • Pruning: The selective removal of tree parts to improve structure, safety, or clearance. • R • Root Protection Area (RPA): A layout design tool in BS5837 representing the minimum area around a tree that must be protected to avoid root damage. • Root Plate: The central area of primary roots that provides anchorage; damage here can destabilise the tree. • S • Scaffold Branches: The main structural limbs that support the canopy. • Species (Scientific Name): The Latin botanical name used to accurately identify a tree species (e.g. Fagus sylvatica – Common beech). • Storm Damage: Breakages, uprooting, or structural instability caused by high winds or extreme weather. • Subdominant: A tree or stem that is partially overtopped by others and receives moderate light, showing less vigorous growth than dominant individuals. • Suppressed: A tree growing beneath a dominant canopy, often with limited vigour and distorted form due to shade. • T • Topping: An inappropriate pruning technique involving the indiscriminate removal of branches, often leading to decay or poor regrowth. • Tree Constraints Plan (TCP): A drawing showing tree location, crown spreads, and RPAs in proximity to a proposed site layout. • Tree Preservation Order (TPO): A statutory protection placed on trees that prevents pruning, felling, or other work without written permission from the Local Planning Authority. • Tree Protection Plan (TPP): A drawing showing the layout of fencing and other protective measures to be implemented during development. • Tree Schedule: A table listing key data about each tree surveyed, such as species, height, diameter, condition, and recommended actions. • U • Understorey: Vegetation growing beneath the main canopy layer, including smaller trees, shrubs, and ground flora. • Union (Branch Union): The point at which a branch joins the trunk or another branch. A union may be strong or weak depending on factors such as angle of attachment, presence of included bark, and degree of taper. • Utilities (Underground/Overhead): Infrastructure such as water pipes, electricity cables, or drainage systems that may conflict with tree root systems or canopy spread. • V • Veteran Tree: A tree that, by virtue of age, size, or condition, exhibits features of significant ecological, historical, or cultural interest. • W
Page 16
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 15 • Wind Loading: The force exerted on a tree or its parts by wind. Wind loading increases on remaining limbs following the loss of adjacent branches, particularly in asymmetrical crowns or open-grown trees. • Wound-wood: Tissue that develops around the margin of a pruning cut or injury, forming part of the tree’s natural healing process. Also known as callus or reactive wood.