Broad Oak Tree Consultants - Dacorum Borough Council

Broad Oak Tree Consultants Limited
Laurel House, Burwash Road, Broad Oak, Heathfield, East Sussex TN21 8SS
Tel: 01435 862444 Fax: 01435 863222 Email: t.laddiman@fsmail.net
REVISED ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT
FOR PROPOSED PHASED DEVELOPMENT
AT
ARTS EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL
MANSION DRIVE
TRING
HP23 5LX
Prepared by
Tim Laddiman
BSc.(Hons), M.I.C.For., M.Arbor.A.
Chartered Arboriculturist
Our ref: J 37.19
8 th June 2009
Directors: Tim Laddiman BSc. Chartered Arboriculturist - Naomi Laddiman BEd.
Registered Office: 30-32 Station Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex RH15 9DS Registered in England No. 5036430 VAT No. 833 9257 09

CONTENTS
Page no.
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SCOPE OF TREE SURVEY 1
3. DATA COLLECTION 1
4. RISK ASSESSMENT – INFORMATIVES 2
5. RESULTS OF TREE INSPECTIONS 2
ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT
6. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 4
7. TREES REQUIRING REMOVAL ON SAFETY GROUNDS 4
8. IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON TREE RETENTION 5
9. TREES FOR REMOVAL 8
10. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES – FENCING 9
11. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES – GROUND PROTECTION 9
12. SERVICES 10
13. SITE OPERATIONS AND MATERIALS STORAGE 10
14. LANDSCAPING 10
15. ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT 10
16. SUMMARY 11
APPENDICES:
1. EXPLANATORY SHEETS, TREE SURVEY SHEETS
2. TREE CONSTRAINTS PLAN, DRAWING NO. J 37.19/03
3. TREE PROTECTION PLAN, DRAWING NO. J 37.19/07

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Broad Oak Tree Consultants Ltd. have received instructions from A.E.S. Tring to provide
arboricultural advice in relation to the proposed phased development at the Arts
Educational School, Mansion Drive, Tring, HP23 5LX.
1.2 Initially a tree survey was undertaken to the requirements of BS 5837:2005 “Trees in
relation to construction – Recommendations” to produce a Tree Constraints Plan to
advise design layouts for the proposed development. Upon finalisation of the design
layout, BOTC had been instructed to produce an Arboricultural Implications Assessment
of the proposed development.
1.3 Subsequent to the proposals being submitted in 2008 the application was refused by
Dacorum Borough Council. Revisions to the scheme have been made to address
issues raised by the Council and this Arboricultural Implications Assessment report is
based on the latest preferred option.
1.4 Although the development is to be phased, it is considered that all tree removal and tree
protection issues should be considered as a whole. This provides continuity and a view
of the overall impact of the project and how retained trees will be protected. The
implementation of tree works and protection will relate to the specific phase of works to
be undertaken.
1.5 Details of the proposals have been submitted by bff architects. Within this report the
principle concern is the footprint of the proposed buildings, hard landscaping and the
potential impacts of these on trees.
1.6 It should be noted that the setting and grounds of the school are very important to the
client and therefore they have a desire to retain existing trees in a healthy condition
where at all possible. This differs from a standard development proposal and the school
will be keen to ensure that all tree protection measures are strictly adhered to to
preserve their surroundings.
2. SCOPE OF TREE SURVEY
2.1 The tree survey concentrated on those trees in closest proximity to the proposed
development. Trees in and around existing drives and parking areas were not included
as these areas are not to be disturbed. The school will be ensuring that vehicle
movements and materials storage/waste disposal are strictly controlled.
3. DATA COLLECTION
3.1 All trees and shrubs were inspected from the ground and no climbing or boring was
undertaken. Each tree or group of trees/mature shrubs was inspected to the
requirements of Section 4.2.6 of BS 5837:2005 “Trees in Relation to Construction –
Recommendations”.
3.2 The survey followed the numbered sequence from 1-106 inclusive. Tree numbers,
together with BS recommended colour coding of condition, have been added to the Tree
Constraints Plan, our drawing no. J 37.19/03 in Appendix 2. This drawing also includes
actual crown spreads based on four compass points.
1

3.3 The following categories of information were obtained for each tree or group. Separate
detailed survey sheets are attached in Appendix 1, together with comprehensive
explanatory sheets which cover the details of the categories listed below.
(1) Reference number
(2) Species
(3) Height in metres
(4) Stem diameter in centimetres
(5) Branch spread in metres
(6) Age class
(7) Height of crown clearance in metres
(8) Physiological condition
(9) Estimated remaining contribution in years
(10) Category grading
(11) Structural condition
(12) Preliminary management recommendations
4. RISK ASSESSMENT - INFORMATIVES
4.1 Although the potential risk to someone passing beneath a tree when the tree or part of it
fails is relatively remote, the risk is present. This increases significantly in areas of
consistent and regular usage on a year round basis, such as footpaths, gardens and
roadways. Where static structures exist, the risks become constant and an assessment
is made as to whether complete or partial failure of a tree could potentially cause
physical damage to such structures.
4.2 Within the scope of any tree survey it is a fact that not all risks of stem or crown failure
can be covered, particularly in relation to freak occurrences of weather when even
healthy trees can suffer stem snap or windblow. There is also a well known propensity
for mature trees to occasionally shed limbs for no discernible reason, even on calm
days. Although relatively rare, limbs may occasionally be shed and this should be
acknowledged as a risk that cannot entirely be mitigated.
5. RESULTS OF TREE INSPECTIONS
5.1 A total of 106 individual trees and groups were inspected, the majority relating to various
phases of landscaping over the last 150 years. The majority of the groups of Yews
recorded would originally have been planted to form shrubberies or low screening. Over
approximately 50 years without maintenance, the shrubs have developed into drawn up
and generally poorly formed trees.
5.2 Many of the other trees planted to form shrub beds or features have also been left to
develop unchecked, particularly in the less intensively used areas of the grounds. This
has resulted in asymmetric crown development where larger specimens are excessively
crowded and shrub features are beyond any reasonable management.
2

5.3 Of the trees inspected, the following is a breakdown of the various numbers of trees in
each BS category.
BS category Tree number Total
A 23, 32, 68, 85, 104
G2, 7, 12, 18, 20, 26, 27, G28, G34, G39, G41,
42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, G57, G58, 64,
G65, 67, G74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 89, 91, 92,
5
B
93, 94, 95, 101, 105 39
B/R 25
5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24,
29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, G44, 45, 47,
G53, G54, G55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, G66, 69, 70,
71, 72, 73, 76, 78, G80, 82, G86, 87, 88, G90,
1
C
97, 98, 99, 100, G102, 103, 106 55
5.4 Interpretation of table
R 1, 3, 4, 6, 60, 96 6
TOTAL 106
Category A Retention most desirable. Of high quality and value and in such a
condition as to be able to make a substantial contribution (a
minimum of 40 years is suggested).
Category B Retention desirable. Of moderate quality and value and in such a
condition as to make a significant contribution (a minimum of 20
years is suggested).
Category B/R Further investigations are required to confirm the condition and
structural integrity of the tree.
Category C Could be retained – of low quality and value. Poor crown form,
heavily asymmetric, large numbers of similar species/size.
Currently in adequate condition to remain until new planting could
be established (a minimum of 10 years is suggested) or young
trees with a stem diameter below 150mm.
Category R Trees for removal. Dead/dying/dangerous trees due to structural
defects, fungal decay or root plate uplift. Those in such a condition
that any existing value would be lost within 10 years and which
should, in the current context, be removed for reasons of sound
arboricultural management.
3

6. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT
6.1 The proposed site layout has been provided in dwg format by Whitelaw Turkington. This
drawing forms the base of the BOTC Tree Protection Plan, drawing no. J 37.19/07 in
Appendix 3, which indicates the trees for removal and proposals for the protection of
retained trees. As indicated, this covers the whole phased project and certain elements
may not be constructed for 5-10 years. In the interim period all trees proposed for
removal but not directly related to the implemented stage of construction will be retained.
7. TREES REQUIRING REMOVAL ON SAFETY GROUNDS
7.1 The tree inspections have identified the following trees as being in a potentially
dangerous condition or having a very limited safe lifespan. Their removal is
recommended even in the absence of redevelopment proposals.
Tree
no. Species Comments
1 Yew Thinning crown – dying.
3 Yew Thinning crown – dying.
Extensive squirrel damage – branches/stem prone
4 Sycamore to collapse.
6 Sycamore
Extensive squirrel damage – branches/stem prone
to collapse.
60 Monterey cypress Extensive crown dieback – dying.
96 Horse chestnut Part dead upper crown. Poor tree.
7.2 These trees have been indicated with red dashed outlines on the Tree Protection Plan.
4

8. IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON TREE RETENTION
8.1 In considering the feasibility of tree retention within any site, account has to be taken of
the areas of undisturbed roots that will be retained around each tree. Based on the stem
diameter of the tree and the formula contained in Table 2 of BS 5837:2005, an area of
undisturbed rooting necessary for the survival and longevity of each tree can be
calculated. The following table indicates the minimum required root protection areas for
trees included in the tree survey. The table does not include trees classified as
condition R, which require removal within the next 10 years on safety grounds.
8.2 The table also includes an assessment of the proximity of any proposed ground
disturbance to trees and whether this separation would be acceptable based on the
calculated root protection areas.
Tree
ref.
no. Species
Category
grading
BS calculated
radial protective
distance (m.)
Distance to
disturbance
(m.)
1 Yew R - -
Type of
disturbance Comments
G2 4 no. Yew B 7.8 11.5+ Foundation No impact
3 Yew R - -
4 Sycamore R - -
5 Yew C 3 10 Foundation No impact
6 Sycamore R - -
7 Holly
Cotoneaster
B 4.3 9.3 Foundation No impact
8 spp.
Cotoneaster
C 4.5 6.3 Foundation Removal rec.
9 spp. C 2 6 Foundation Removal rec.
10 Yew C 4.5 4.5 Foundation Removal rec.
11 Yew C 4.5 4.5 Foundation Removal rec.
12 Yew B c.6 8.5 Foundation No impact
13 Yew C 3.1 11 Foundation No impact
14 Yew C 5.5 7.3 Foundation No impact
15 Yew C c.6 11.5 Foundation No impact
16 Yew C c.4.2 4 Foundation Removal rec.
17 Yew C 4.9 7 Foundation No impact
18 Yew B c.6 13 Foundation No impact
19 Yew C 4.3 7.8 Foundation No impact
20 Yew B 4.6 16.2 Foundation No impact
21 Yew C 5 13.4 Foundation No impact
22 Yew C 3.4 14.6 Foundation No impact
23 Lime A 10 15.4 Foundation No impact
24 Yew C c.4.5 17.3 Foundation No impact
25 Sycamore B/R 9.5 20.9 Foundation No impact
26 Yew B c.6 14.8 Foundation No impact
27 Yew B 6.6 7.8 Foundation
New access
Removal rec.
G28 2 no. Yew B c.9 9
ramp Req. removal
Construction
29 Goat willow C 2.4 2.8
route
Construction
No impact
30 Laburnum C 1.7 6
route No impact
5

Tree
ref.
no. Species
Variegated
31
Blue Atlas
32
Cotoneaster
33
Category
grading
BS calculated
radial protective
distance (m.)
Distance to
disturbance
(m.)
holly C 2.9 4.2
cedar A 12.1 9.2
Type of
disturbance
Acceptable?
Y/N
Construction
Access No impact
Construction
Access
Minimal
impact
tree C c.5 15+ Foundation No impact
G34 Yew B

Tree
ref.
no. Species
71
Category
grading
BS calculated
radial protective
distance (m.)
Distance to
disturbance
(m.)
Type of
disturbance
Acceptable?
Y/N
Ornamental
cherry C 2.2 2.6 Foundation Req. removal
72 Gingko C 7 0 Building Req. removal
73 Pissard plum C 3.4 0 Building Req. removal
G74 Yew B

8.3 Interpretation of table
No impact Sufficient space exists for the safe retention of the required root
area.
Minimal impact The overall overlap with the tree RPA is less than 5% and
therefore the level of disturbance will be minimal.
Removal rec. Removal not entirely necessary for development to proceed, but
recommended for poor quality trees or those proposed to be
replaced in a post construction landscaping scheme.
Req. removal Removal necessary for development to proceed.
Hand dig req. To minimise root damage and possible tearing by machine
buckets, the edge of the excavation nearest the trees will be
excavated by hand under the supervision of an Arboriculturist.
All roots encountered will be neatly cut back to the excavation
face to minimise wound area and drying out. This will be in
accordance with Section 11.3.5 of BS 5837:2005.
No dig design The path/walkway will be constructed to a no dig design to be
Confirmed with the Council and to comply with Section 11.3
“Principles for avoiding tree root damage during Construction” of
BS 5837:2005.
9. TREES FOR REMOVAL
9.1 The following is a summary of the trees that will require removal or are recommended
for removal to facilitate the construction and provide space for higher quality new
landscaping.
BS category Tree no.
Total
A - 0
B
C
27, G28, G39, G41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,
G74(part), 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 105 18
8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 36, 37, 38, 40, G44(part), G53,
G54, G55, 56, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 78, G80, 82,
106 24
TOTAL 42
9.2 A total of 42 individual trees and groups of trees will be removed, although two of the
groups are only partially being removed with elements retained where practical. The
majority of the trees are BS Category C and should not represent a significant constraint
to development. The trees are all internal to the site and are not visible to the general
public nor contribute to the wider landscape. Within the proposals the BS Category B
trees no’s. 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 are shown removed. Whilst BS Category B their visual
amenity is internal to the site and their removal will not have a major visual impact due to
the remaining, much more imposing, backdrop of mature trees along the southern
boundary.
8

10. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES – FENCING
10.1 Location of fencing
10.1.1 The Tree Protection Plan indicates the proposed location of protective fencing based on
the calculated tree protection areas and space available.
10.2 Design of fencing
10.2.1 The protective fencing is to be constructed of a braced scaffold framework with uprights
driven into the ground to a minimum depth of 0.6m. and at no greater than 3m. spacing.
On to the framework weldmesh panels such as ‘Heras’ or a similar product will be
securely mounted with all weather notices attached reading “Keep Out – Protected Area”
or similar. The fencing will form enclosed areas to which no access will be allowed.
10.3 Timing of fencing
10.3.1 Protective fencing is to be erected prior to commencement of site clearance and remain
in place until completion of construction. The installation of the fencing will be phased
according to the sections to be developed. The location and suitability of the fencing
can be confirmed to the local authority by an arboricultural consultant prior to
commencement of construction. Any tree felling would need to be undertaken prior to
fence installation to minimise risks to operatives. All tree surgeons’ vehicles would be
kept outside the indicated protection zones.
10.4 Additional precautions
10.4.1 The storage of potentially injurious materials such as fuels, oils, chemicals and cement
will be kept at least 10m. from any stem, or in a bunded storage vessel. No fires will be
lit within 5m. of the drip line of any retained tree.
11. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES – GROUND PROTECTION
11.1 Within root protection areas where access around the new building footprints will be
necessary during construction, specific ground protection measures will be required.
To ensure minimal ground compaction, these will comply with Section 9.3 “Ground
Protection” of BS 5837:2005. For foot access only, ground protection measures should
comprise a base layer of geotextile, over which 50mm. of woodchip will be laid, topped
by side butting scaffold boards or non-slip surfaced minimum 20mm. thick plywood.
11.2 Installation of the ground protection measures should take place at the same time as the
protective fencing, prior to site clearance, and remain in place until completion of
construction. The areas where ground protection measures are considered necessary
are indicated on the Tree Protection Plan.
9

12. SERVICES
12.1 Where possible, existing services from the main buildings should be utilised. If this is
not practical, then new service runs will need to enter the site outside indicated tree
RPAs for traditional trenching installation.
12.2 If it is necessary for services to be brought within a tree RPA, the trench will need to be
hand excavated or the services thrust bored to avoid damaging tree roots. Any
excavations within indicated tree RPA’s will be undertaken to the requirements of NJUG
Volume 4 “Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus
in Proximity to Trees”.
13. SITE OPERATIONS AND MATERIALS STORAGE
13.1 Details of site zoning cannot be specified by an arboriculturalist as these are commonly
determined by contractors on the basis of Health & Safety Assessments. However, the
robust protective fencing and ground protection measures will define the remaining site
space available for storage and operations.
13.2 It is presumed that the lawned area between the Markova Theatre and the proposed
dance studios will be utilised for materials storage. Existing car parks and open lawned
areas outside indicated tree RPAs will also provide appropriate areas for site huts,
vehicles and materials storage.
14. LANDSCAPING
14.1 Details of landscaping proposals are being covered by Whitelaw Turkington, landscape
architects, and are not covered in this report.
15. ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT
15.1 The detailing provided in the above sections and on the Tree Protection Plan is
considered sufficient to negate the need for a separate Method Statement at this stage.
This report, together with the Tree Protection Plan, can be referred to in conditions to
ensure works are carried out to the required specification. Should further detailing of a
specific operation be needed in the form of a Method Statement, this can be required by
a condition to be satisfied before development commences. Likewise, should the
Council’s Tree Officer require on site supervision of certain operations by an
arboriculturally competent person, this can also be included in an appropriately worded
condition.
10

16. SUMMARY
16.1 The proposed phased development will result in the removal of 42 individual trees and
groups (two only partially removed) out of the 106 inspected. The design has taken into
account comments made by the Council Arboricultural Adviser and the impact on the
important peripheral trees has been minimised or designed out where possible. Where
limited overlaps with theoretical RPAs does occur measures complying with the
recommendations of BS 5837:2005 to minimise disturbance have been put forward.
16.3 The proposals for tree protection contained within this report and on the Tree Protection
Plan provide for robust fencing and ground protection measures in accordance with the
recommendations of BS 5837:2005. These measures will ensure that retained trees are
not adversely affected by the proposed development.
16.4 The protection measures proposed, combined with on site supervision by an
arboriculturally competent person for certain operations can be included in specifically
worded Conditions attached to a grant of consent. This report addresses the principles
for retaining key trees on the site which can be detailed further in response to precommencement
Conditions should further information be required.
Tim Laddiman
Broad Oak Tree Consultants Ltd.
11

APPENDIX 1

TREE SURVEY EXPLANATORY SHEET
Height in metres (estimated where ground uneven or access
restricted).
Stem count number of stems
Stem diameter in mm. at 1.5m. above ground level.
(ARF) Above Root Flare – diameter of multi-stemmed trees
measured at this level.
Branch spread radial spread in metres at four main compass points
(estimated where no access).
Age class Young - Y
Middle aged - MA
Mature - M
Over mature - OM
Veteran - V
Height of crown in metres. Normally range of heights of outer branches
clearance above ground level, e.g. 2-4m.
Physiological condition Good, Fair, Poor, Dead
Estimated remaining in years
contribution e.g. less than 10, 10-20, 20-40, 40+
Category grading see attached sheet
Structural condition comment on presence of defects, decay, crown form, past
management, deadwood, other features worthy of note.
N.B. If trees are ivy clad, no full structural assessment will
have been possible.
Preliminary requirements of further investigations, works necessary to
management alleviate potential hazards based on current setting and
recommendations levels of access.
NB: Works that may be necessary in relation to development
are not included here

CASCADE CHART FOR TREE QUALITY ASSESSMENT
TREES FOR REMOVAL
Category and definition Criteria Identification on plan
Category R
Those in such a condition that any
existing value would be lost within 10
years and which should, in the current
context, be removed for reasons of sound
arboricultural management
Category and definition
Category A
Those of high quality and value: in such
a condition as to be able to make a
substantial contribution (a minimum of 40
years is suggested)
Category B
Those of moderate quality and value:
those in such a condition as to make a
significant contribution (a minimum of 20
years is suggested)
Category C
Those of low quality and value: currently
in adequate condition to remain until new
planting could be established ( a
minimum of 10 years is suggested), or
young trees with a stem diameter below
150mm.
• Trees that have a serious, irremediable, structural defect, such that their early loss is expected due to collapse, including those
that will become unviable after removal of other R category trees (i.e. where, for whatever reason, the loss of companion shelter
cannot be mitigated by pruning)
• Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate and irreversible overall decline.
• Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other trees nearby (e.g. Dutch elm disease), or very
low quality trees suppressing adjacent trees of better quality
NOTE Habitat reinstatement may be appropriate (e.g. R category tree used as a bat roost: installation of bat box in nearby tree.)
TREES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION
Criteria - Subcategories
1. Mainly arboricultural values 2. Mainly landscape values 3. Mainly cultural values,
including conservation
Trees that are particularly good
examples of their species, especially
if rare or unusual, or essential
components of groups, or of formal
or semi-formal arboricultural features
(e.g. the dominant and/or principal
trees within an avenue)
Trees that might be included in the
high category, but are downgraded
because of impaired condition (e.g.
presence of remediable defects
including unsympathetic past
management and minor storm
damage)
Trees not qualifying in higher
categories
Trees, groups or woodlands which provide a
definite screening or softening effect to the locality
in relation to views into or out of the site, or those
of particular visual importance (e.g. avenues or
other arboricultural features assessed as groups)
Trees present in numbers, usually as groups or
woodland, such that they form distinct landscape
features, thereby attracting a higher collective
rating than they might as individuals but which are
not, individually, essential components of formal or
semi-formal arboricultural features (e.g. trees of
moderate quality within an avenue that includes
better, A category specimens), or trees situated
mainly internally to the site, therefore individually
having little visual impact on the wider locality
Trees present in groups or woodland, but without
this conferring on them significantly greater
landscape value, and/or trees offering low or only
temporary screening benefit.
Trees, groups or woodlands of
significant conservation, historical,
commemorative or other value (e.g.
veteran trees or wood-pasture)
Trees with clearly identifiable
conservation or other cultural
benefits
Trees with very limited conservation
or other cultural 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 150mm should be considered for relocation
DARK RED
Identification on plan
LIGHT GREEN
MID BLUE
GREY

Our ref: J 37.19 TREE INSPECTIONS AT
ARTS EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL, TRING
Tree
ref.
no.
N E S W
1 Yew 8 32 2 2 4 3 MA 1+ Poor

Our ref: J 37.19 TREE INSPECTIONS AT
ARTS EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL, TRING
Tree
ref.
no. Species
Height
(m.)
Stem
diameter
(cm.)
Branch spread (m.)
N E S W
Age
class
Height of
crown
clearance
(m.)
Physiological
condition
16 Yew 7 c.35 3 4 4 4 MA 0+ Poor 20-40 C 1
Ivy clad. Crowded. Twin-stemmed at 2m.
Overtopped.
Broad Oak Tree Consultants Ltd.
Revised May 2008
17 Yew 12 41 3 5 1 1 MA 5+ Fair 20-40 C 1 Curved stem to NE. Thin crown. Deadwood.
18 Yew 11 ARF c.60 3 2 3 2 MA 2+ Fair 20-40 B 2 Three stems from ground level. Ivy clad. Deadwood.
19 Yew 9 36 2 1 4 3 MA 0+ Poor 10-20 C 1 Thinning crown. Deadwood. Ivy clad.
20 Yew 10 38 5 3 1 2 MA 1+ Fair 20-40 B 2
21 Yew 9 ARF 50 2 5 2 3 MA 0+ Fair 20-40 C 1
Crowded. Slight lean to NE. Part ivy clad. Fine
deadwood.
Twin-stemmed from near ground level. Ivy clad.
Crowded.
22 Yew 6-7 28 1 5 2 1 MA 0+ Fair 20-40 C 2 Overtopped low crown to E. Ivy clad.
23 Lime 25 83 5 5 4 5 M 7+ Good 40+ A 2 Slight stem lean to E. Part ivy clad. Deadwood.
24 Yew 7 ARF c.45 4 4 3 2 MA 0+ Fair 20-40 C 2 Ivy clad. Overtopped. Twin-stemmed from

Our ref: J 37.19 TREE INSPECTIONS AT
ARTS EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL, TRING
Tree
ref.
no. Species
31
32
33
N E S W
Variegated
holly 3.5 24 1 2.5 1.5 3 MA 1+ Fair 10-20 C 1 Heavily topped in past 1-2 years.
Blue Atlas
cedar 16 101 8 9 12 9 M 3+ Good 40+ A 1+2
Broad Oak Tree Consultants Ltd.
Revised May 2008
Cotoneaster
tree 6 ARF c.50 1 1 5 5 M 2+ Fair 20-40 C 2 Multi-stemmed from near ground level. Crowded.
G34 Yew

Our ref: J 37.19 TREE INSPECTIONS AT
ARTS EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL, TRING
Tree
ref.
no. Species
N E S W
45 Ash 22 60 9 4 9 7 M 8+ Fair 10-20 C 1
46 Horse chestnut 16 44 4 2 4 3 MA 2+ Fair 20-40 B 2 Extensive leaf miner.
47 Laburnum 14 ARF 50 3 3 2 5 M 4+ Fair 20-40 C 2
48 Horse chestnut 16 46 5 5 2 2 MA 1+ Fair 20-40 B 2 Leaf miner.
Broad Oak Tree Consultants Ltd.
Revised May 2008
Large surface root to W. Slight lean to E. Twinstemmed
at 6m. Deadwood. 2m. wound to SE and
E from near ground level with decay of surface
tissues.
Twin-stemmed from ground level and four stems
from

Our ref: J 37.19 TREE INSPECTIONS AT
ARTS EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL, TRING
Tree
ref.
no. Species
N E S W
59 Golden yew 5 ARF c.60 4 3 3 2 MA 0 Fair 20-40 C 2 Multi-stemmed from near ground level.
60
Broad Oak Tree Consultants Ltd.
Revised May 2008
Monterey
cypress c.9 c.75 4 3 3 3 M 3+ Poor

Our ref: J 37.19 TREE INSPECTIONS AT
ARTS EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL, TRING
Tree
ref.
no. Species
N E S W
75 Yew 9 ARF 70 1 5 3 4 MA 3+ Fair 40+ B 2 Set in paving. Three stems from

Our ref: J 37.19 TREE INSPECTIONS AT
ARTS EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL, TRING
Tree
ref.
no. Species
Height
(m.)
Stem
diameter
(cm.)
Branch spread (m.)
N E S W
Age
class
Height of
crown
clearance
(m.)
Physiological
condition
Estimated
remaining
contribution
(years)
88 Sycamore 14 60 6 8 4 8 M 2+ Poor 10-20 C 1
89 Ash 21 55 10 8 7 8 M 3+ Good 20-40 B 2
G90 Yew

Our ref: J 37.19 TREE INSPECTIONS AT
ARTS EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL, TRING
Tree
ref.
no. Species
N E S W
99 Yew 7 27 9 1 0 1 MA 0+ Poor 10-20 C 1
100 Yew 10 ARF 50 10 2 0 1 MA 5+ Poor 20-40 C 1
Broad Oak Tree Consultants Ltd.
Revised May 2008
Leaning heavily N. Overtopped. Decay at base to
NE. Fell.
Crowded. Leaning heavily to N with stems curving
upwards at 3-4m.
101 Horse chestnut 18 97 8 5 8 9 M 3+ Good 20-40 B 2 Five stems at 2.5m. Deadwood.
G
102 Yew

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3