Tree survey at

St. Lawrence’s Church, Ayot St. Lawrence, Herts. AL6 9BT.

Prepared for xxx.

11th January, 2014

Dr. R. J. M. Wilson, BSc. (Hons), PhD., Dip. Arb. (RFS), M. Arbor. A.

Professional member of the Arboricultural Association

Associate member of The Institute of Chartered Foresters

Director. 07789 696072 / 01438 232334

C Trees Ltd., rjwilson@ctreesuk.com

10 Angotts Mead,

Stevenage,

Herts., SG1 2NJ.

Contents:

1.0 Summary

2.0 Background

2.1 Instruction

2.2 Techniques

2.3 Limitations

2.4 Weather conditions

2.5 Access conditions

2.6 Validity

2.7 Background information

3.0 Results

3.1 Situation

3.2 Site plan

3.3 Tree assessment

4.0 Recommendations

5.0 References

2

1.0 Summary

• Following an instruction from xxx I have conducted an arboricultural survey of the trees at St. Lawrence’s Church, Ayot St. Lawrence, Herts.

• I recommend a series of prioritised actions to safeguard against tree failure, prevent or reduce damage to persons or property and improve the balance of tree conservation against safety.

• Of the trees within the churchyard boundary, none require immediate attention. However, a number of trees have significant defects that should be remedied within 6 months.

• While a handful of trees do not require any work, the remaining trees have defects that should be corrected but over longer timescales.

• A number of trees outside the property boundary extend over the churchyard and have defects that should be corrected. Of these, ash tree T21 is of particular concern and should be brought to the ground as a matter of urgency. In the meantime, the access below the tree should be closed and the fence made continuous such that pedestrians do not pass under the tree.

• Tree work should be carried out by competent, trained and equipped tree specialists in accordance with the requirements of BS3998:2010.

3

2.0 Background

2.1 Instruction:

• I have been instructed by xxx to conduct an arboricultural survey on the trees at St. Lawrence’s Church, Ayot St. Lawrence, Herts. The client requires an assessment of tree health & safety, and recommendations for risk mitigation. • The initial enquiry was received by e-mail on October 14th, 2013, with a preliminary site visit on October 19th. Confirmation of the instruction to proceed was received by phone on November 12th. • Inspection took place on December 6th between 09:00 and 14:30 hrs. 2.2 Techniques used:

• Visual Tree Assessment (VTA; Lonsdale, 1999). • Desk-based enquiries: TPO / CA status, geological survey, mapping. 2.3 Limitations:

• The contents are intended for the sole use of the client. No liability is accepted for their use by any other parties to advance an argument or claim (including legal or financial) without prior consent.

• No liability is accepted for defects hidden from view by vegetation or other obstacles to access. • The scope of the survey was specifically limited to trees within the churchyard boundary by the client.

Consequently, trees outside the boundary have not been systematically surveyed. Where relevant, comments relating to the condition of trees in adjacent properties have been recorded.

• Generally, trees less than 5m tall have been excluded unless of particular relevance. • Formal assessment of topography, drainage, service conduits, & soil conditions, and other specialist

arboricultural surveys (e.g. root collar examination or sonic tomography) have not been made and are beyond the scope of this report.

• Specific laboratory investigations of soil properties (plasticity index, moisture content, suction pressure) have not been made and are beyond the scope of this report

• This report considers only the potential for personal injury or direct damage to property by the surveyed trees. No liability for damage arising from any other source or mechanism is accepted.

• It is understood that any risks associated with these limitations are accepted by the clients.

2.4 Weather conditions:

Bright at first becoming cloudy with rain towards the end of the survey. Wind force 2.

2.5 Access conditions:

Access was generally unhindered but ivy obscured the stems and primary bough unions of many trees.

4

2.6 Validity:

• Plants are biological organisms and change with time. Assessment remains valid for six months from the date of inspection, or until a major storm is experienced, after which time a new inspection is required.

2.7 Background information:

• The church may lie within a Conservation Area. Clarification is being sought from the Borough Council.

5

3.0 Results:

3.1 Situation:

• The churchyard occupies a level site at an elevation of 120-125m in a rural village setting (Ordnance Survey Explorer Sheet 182). The open parkland of Ayot Park lies to the north, agricultural land to the east and south. Prior’s Wood lies 0.5km to the northeast along with other woodlands at a similar distance to the southwest. • Locally, ground slopes away to the north and east into the valley of the River Mimram, reaching 77m elevation 1.5km away. Ground also slopes away to the south into the valley of the River Lea, reaching 75m elevation 2.7km away. • The setting suggests that low to moderate wind exposure is likely to be encountered. • Surface deposits are of variable Clay-with-Flints (clay, silt, sand and gravel) over Lewes nodular chalk formations (BGS, 2013). A borehole scan at Ayot Cottage 375 yards to the east-southeast reveals approx. 0.5m of soil over 30m of chalk with flints. Consequently, surface soil deposits are considered to be shallow with an increased risk of tree uprooting. • Soil type is described as slightly acid loamy and clayey soils with impeded drainage and moderate to high fertility (LandIS).

6

3.2 Site plan:

Plan showing location of trees at St. Lawrence’s church, Ayot St. Lawrence.

7

T1T2T3

T4T5

T6T7

T9T8

T11 T10

T12

T13

T14

T15

T16

T17 T18

T19

T20

T21

T22

T23T25

T26

T24

T27

T28T29T30

T31

T32T33T34T35

T36T37

T38

T39

T40

T41

T42

T43T44

7

3.3 Tree Assessment:

Note: Estimated remaining contribution refers to the tree in its current state and is expressed in years; Condition: G – good; F – fair; P - poor.

Age class: Y – young; EM – early mature; M – mature; OM – over mature; V – veteran

T H D Clr Age P Cond S Cond Rec ERC CatN 3E 4S 4W 3N 4E 3S 4W 1N 3E 3S 4W 3N 1E 3S 4W 3N 4E 3S 3W 3N 4E 5S 4W 3N 6E 5S 3

W 5NESWNESWN 6E 7S 5W 2 None 40+

-

10 Golden yew 7 530

Fell 10+9 Rhododendron 5

Remove deadwood & broken limb; Crown lift to 5m; Shorten overlong limb 9m above ground.

Good

Ct back; Reduce height to benefit T5; Remove saplings.M Good

Dead Poor

Tall stump overhanging boundary.Cut back to boundary

20+

20+

7 Sycamore 13 340 3 Fair Fair

0

M

M Good Good0

0 O/M Poor Poor

Fair Good

Remove deadwood; Cut back T6 to facilitate light. 40+0.5

6 Holly 11 216, 227

5

1.5

Good Good4 Holly 5 0

M

10+

Good Unknown (ivy)Sever ivy; remove ivy once dead. 20+

EM

Cut back from bondary; Remove saplings; Cut back from T5. 20+

FairShorten overlong limb on east side. 20+

2 Hawthorn 9 2 M

1.5

Fair

Good1 Hawthorn 9 275 M

8 Sycamore 6

3 Hawthorn 8

Yew 12 360

190

310

100, 114, 170, 250

M

Fair Remove deadwood B2/3

B2/3

B2/3

B2/3

B2/3

B2/3

B2/3

A2/3

U

SpreadSpecies

N 2E 1.5S 2W 1.5N 5E 8S 3W 4NESWNESWNESWN 0E 2S 4W 2N 2E 3S 6W 4N 0E 2S 6W 5N 3E 6S 3W 3N 0E 1S 3W 2NESWN 3E 3S 7W 4N 1E 3S 2W 2N 7E 5S 5W 224 Fair8Sycamore 40+ B2/3402

40+ B2/3

Fair23 Holly 5 EM Good

22 Yew 6 M

U

Dangerous21 Ash 20+ Remove - UM

C2/3

20 Sycamore 6 M Poor

Fair

M

Poor Remove -

19 Cherry laurel 8

Coppice at 1m to remove decayed boughs and broken limbs. 40+

Poor

None 40+ B2/3

18 Sycamore 16 M Good

M17 Yew 8

16 Sycamore 9

15 Sycamore 22

Remove dead & damaged branches to S side.M

Fair

Remove deadwood; Shorten long bough over bondary.14 Beech 40+ B2/320 M Unknown

Unknown B2/3

147, 215, 330, 262, 257

5

Remove deadwood; Remove broken limbs; Shorten overlong limb on E side. 20+13 Sycamore 13 M Poor Poor

deadwood and broken limbs; Shorten long limb on E side by 50%. 40+ B2/3

40+ A2/3

- U

40+

C2

12 Sycamore 14.5 M Fair (dense ivy)Fair (Overstood coppice)2

11 Beech 7 148 GoodClear srrounding holly saplings 40+J Good

Unknown

165

390

Unknown Fair

B2/3

Fair

M Poor Remove

Good

130, 272

190, 130, 265, 220

114

Unknown

Remove two long branches to S side.

Fair Poor

Fair

None 20+ B2/3

0.5

292

190

Unknown 7

7

5

0

4

0

2

-

0

0

4

Fair None

FairEM

9

N 5E 1S 3W 1N 4E 3S 4W 1N 3E 4S 5W 5N 3E 2S 2W 3N 0E 2S 3W 3N 2E 3S 3W 2N 1E 3S 2W 5N 1E 4S 5W 2N 0E 0S 6W 0NESWNESWN 3E 4S 4W 4N 0E 2S 6W 3NES

W 40+ A2/338 Sycamore 26 1.5 M Fair Poor

Remove deadwood; Remove hanging broken limb; Remove low bough @ 5m on Wside

Remove - U37 Sycamore 10 296 1 M Fair Poor

B2/320+36 Yew 12 497 2 M Fair Poor

Cut back near ground 20+ B2/3Good FairCrown lift to 5m; Remove deadwood; Remove damaged limbs; Monitor decay.

35 Holly 9 220 0.5 M

40+ B2/334 Sycamore 10 156, 99 2 EM Fair FairRemove deadwood; Remove dead upright.

Poor Remove - U33 Sycamore 11 225 2 M Fair

Remove deadwood 40+ B2/332 Sycamore 13217, 265, 110 5 M Good Fair

20+ B2/331 Holly 10112, 116, 140, 178 0 M Good Fair Cut back near ground

Remove surrounding saplings. 20+ B2/30 M Good Good30 Holly 12 236

40+ B2/329 Sycamore 12 207 3 M Good GoodRemove squirrel-damaged branches.

Remove surrounding saplings. 20+ B2/3Good Good28 Holly 6 233

20+ B2/3

Remove dead & damaged limbs; monitor decay at base.2 M Fair Fair27 Sycamore 10 214, 202

20+ B2/326 Holly 6 136, 124 0 M Good Fair

Remove hung up deadwood; cut back for benefit of T25

None 40+ B2/3Good Good25 Sycamore 12 316 3 M

0 EM

10

NESWNES

WNESWN 3E 3S 2W 2N 2E 2S 3W 4N 3E 3S 4W 4 20+ A2/344 Hinoki cypress 16 525, 368 0 M

Main stem Good ; Secondary stem Poor

Main stem Good ; Secondary stem Poor

Remove secondary stem; Remove deadwood.

Remove deadwood; Remove broken limb; Install bracing; Sever ivy 20+ A2/30 M Fair Fair43 Hinoki cypress 18 590

20+ B2/342 Holly 12 293 0 M Good Good Crown lift to 4m

40+ A2/3

Remove deadwood; Sever ivy; Reduce crown on W side.2 M Good

Poor (Lean & unbalanced; aerodynamic partner felled)41 Sycamore 26

40+ B2/340 Horse Chestnut 22 1.5 M FairPoor (Crack on N side @ 12m above ground)

Remove crown to 1m above fork @ 15m above ground; Crown lift to 4m; Prune secondary bough; Remove deadwood.

Remove deadwood. 40+ B2/339 Sycamore 24 5 M Fair Fair

11

4.0 Recommendations:

• Of the trees within the churchyard boundary, none require immediate attention. However, a number of trees have significant defects that should be remedied within 6 months. These are summarised in the following table:

• While a handful of trees do not require any work, the remaining trees have defects that should be corrected but over longer timescales. These are:

Within 1 year

T Species Recommendation7 Sycamore Remove deadwood & broken limb; Crown lift to 5m; Shorten overlong limb 9m above ground.8 Sycamore Tall stump overhanging boundary.Cut back to boundary12 Sycamore Pollard to 8m; remove deadwood and broken limbs; Shorten long limb on E side by 50%.13 Sycamore Remove deadwood; Remove broken limbs; Shorten overlong limb on E side.19 Cherry laurel Coppice at 1m to remove decayed boughs and broken limbs.26 Holly Remove hung up deadwood; cut back for benefit of T2527 Sycamore Remove low bough; Remove dead & damaged limbs; monitor decay at base.33 Sycamore Remove36 Yew Crown lift to 5m; Remove deadwood; Remove damaged limbs; Monitor decay.43 Hinoki cypress Remove deadwood; Remove broken limb; Install bracing; Sever ivy44 Hinoki cypress Remove secondary stem; Remove deadwood.

T Species Recommendation14 Beech Remove deadwood; Shorten long bough over bondary.15 Sycamore Remove dead & damaged branches to S side.18 Sycamore Remove two long branches to S side.29 Sycamore Remove squirrel-damaged branches.32 Sycamore Remove deadwood34 Sycamore Remove deadwood; Remove dead upright.37 Sycamore Remove

Within 2 years

Within 3 years

• A number of trees outside the property boundary extend over the churchyard and have defects that should be corrected. Of these, ash tree T21 is of particular concern. The tree is very large, has been uprooted and is currently hung up in a nearby yew tree such that it lies roughly parallel to and overhangs the boundary fence. A gap in the fence at this point and ground features suggest that a thoroughfare passes under this tree. Hung-up trees are notoriously unpredictable and can fall to the ground at any time. T21 should therefore be brought to the ground as a matter of urgency. In the meantime, the access should be closed and the fence made continuous such that pedestrians do not pass under the tree.

T Species Recommendation1 Hawthorn Shorten overlong limb on east side.2 Hawthorn Remove deadwood5 Yew Remove deadwood; Cut back T6 to facilitate light.9 Rhododendron Fell16 Sycamore Remove20 Sycamore Remove42 Holly Crown lift to 4m

T Species Recommendation3 Hawthorn Sever ivy; remove ivy once dead.4 Holly Cut back from bondary; Remove saplings; Cut back from T5.6 Holly Cut back; Reduce height to benefit T5; Remove saplings.11 Beech Clear srrounding holly saplings28 Holly Remove surrounding saplings.30 Holly Remove surrounding saplings.31 Holly Cut back near ground35 Holly Cut back near ground

13

• Other trees that encroach over the churchyard are:

• Tree work should be carried out by competent, trained and equipped tree specialists in accordance with the requirements of BS3998:2010.

T Species Recommendation21 Ash Remove38 Sycamore Remove deadwood; Remove hanging broken limb; Remove low bough @ 5m on Wside39 Sycamore Remove deadwood.40 Horse Chestnut Remove crown to 1m above fork @ 15m above ground; Crown lift to 4m; Prune secondary bough; Remove deadw41 Sycamore Remove deadwood; Sever ivy; Reduce crown on W side.

14

5.0 References

British Geological Survey (2013). Geology of Britain Viewer 1:50,000. BGS, Keyworth, Nottingham.

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html

British Standards Institute (2010). BS3998:2010 – Standards for Tree Work. BSI Publications, London.

LandIS (Land information system; Soilscape viewer). Cranfield University. http://www.landis.org.uk/index.cfm

Lonsdale, D. (1999). Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management. The Stationery Office, London.

Ordnance Survey (2010). St. Albans & Hatfield. Explorer Sheet 182. 1:25,000. Ordnance Survey, Southampton.