The tree survey revealed a total of 10 items of vegetation (4 individual trees and 6 groups of trees) Of these, 3 trees and 2 groups were identified as retention category A. One tree and three groups as retention category ‘C’ and 1 tree as category ‘U’.

As a general rule, the trees listed a retention category ‘A’ or retention category ‘B’ are the most valuable items of vegetation and as such the removal of these is likely to be met with resistance by the Local Planning Authority.

The trees listed within a retention category ‘C’ are of lesser value and the removal of these is generally less likely to be met with resistance by the Local Planning authority.

Items which are listed as category ‘U’ comprise of dead trees or trees of limited safe life expectancy and are often recommended removal, irrespective of any proposals.

The group of trees given a category ‘U’ were 2 x multiple stemmed goat willow trees growing at the base of a retaining wall in the centre of the former tennis court which had a limited long-term future.

The post Development Survey, Sheffield S7 appeared first on JCAAC.

The tree in question was described in the development survey as an overmature Purple Beech. It sits prominently within the site and would have been categorised as an ‘A’ within the Development Survey had there not been such a large wound that warranted further investigation and significant moderate deadwood.

Further inspections reveal that the wound may have more likely happened due to a lightning strike rather than the branch tearing out as initially theorised in the survey.

The wound was on the eastern side of the stem and canopy. This aspect of the canopy overhung the existing unit; due to the height of the damaged branch, it was likely that this would have been touching the building rather than being above it. The car park was also within the target zone of the tree if limb or stem failure were to occur.

The results of the sonic tomograph indicated that the wood was generally structurally sound and only had two very small areas of decay. Neither of the two areas of decay were immediately adjacent to where the wound was located. The resistograph results indicate that the wood has good structural integrity, and the decay had not extended radially.

Although minor decay was identified in both decay detection tests, the tree was identified to be structurally sound at the current time. Therefore, no further action was required at the present time. However, due to the presence of the decay, it was recommended that the tree be re-surveyed on an annual basis to reassess whether the condition was still acceptable in terms of health and safety.

The post Decay Detection Survey, Sheffield, S20 appeared first on JCAAC.

It was also noted that an early-mature sycamore was overhanging in the adjacent property and contributed to light loss to the rear garden property. A Tree Preservation Order consent had been granted by the council to crown reduce the canopy of the tree by 3m. However, this work would have had the potential to damage the long-term health of the tree due to the extent of the photosynthetic material removed. Therefore, it was recommended, as an alternative that the canopy was crown lifted by removal of the first 5 branches in order that peripheral light was allowed to enter the neighbouring garden. This work would have minimal impact on the long-term health of the tree whilst allowing additional light to enter the neighbouring garden.

The post Safety Condition Survey, Sheffield S36 appeared first on JCAAC.

We were informed by our client that the damage observed at the property was due to clay shrinkage caused by vegetation.

Following our consultants survey at the property, our consultant concluded that 2 out of the 3 trees on the property were responsible for contributing to the subsidence damage. Our consultant advised that the 2 x ash trees should be removed to ground level and the stump treated to prevent any regrowth in the future. As the trees are owned by the Local Authority, we recommended that the council were advised that there is a need to remove the trees.

The post Subsidence Survey, Sheffield S20 appeared first on JCAAC.