Demolition & construction in Conservation Area BS5837:2005

[Amelanchier]

There are trees and then there are Trees. Conservation areas are designated for their character, a component of which is the tree population. So whilst it doesn't make the condition any stronger per se it does add weight to the arguement at the planning stage to retain them. I.e., they're a bit special.

 

The other benefit (problem?) is that, should your vehicles / developers cause any damage, or your scaffolders get bow-saw happy, you would not only be in breach of the planning conditions (assuming they are worded appropriately) but under section 211(4) of the TCPA you would be committing an offence with the same penalties as a TPO breach.

 

Eve Trakway do a heavy duty panel what you need, and I'd suggest some hi-vis timber box frames around exposed stems.

[Giles Hill]

If possible, I'd normally recommend constructing the construction access in the same place as the finished site access - i.e. to save removing it at the end of the project.

 

Just construct the site access using a no dig spec with a cellular confinement system to provide your ground protection. The cellular system also forms the base for the finished paving, which can be constructed at a later date.

 

I just googled this which might help:

 

http://194.201.98.213/WAM/doc/Other-466068.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=466068&location=VOLUME4&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=2

 

I've got a basic construction detail for the above if it helps.

[Arborist Sites]

if you go down giles route and not the temp one i pm'd you look into terram's option as cellweb's system tends to clog up and end up waterlogging the area you are trying to protect, we have done tests on both and IMO terram geocell is a far superior product, if you pm me i can send you huge amounts of info and specs inc tech drawings in dwg.

[Amelanchier]

What tests did you do?

[Arborist Sites]

a section of each system was installed as instruction with recommended infill, compression was added on a reg basis to simulate usage, after a period of time we inspected both systems, the c-web had areas of standing water and the holes to disipate the water in the walls where clogged. Terram's system displayed no standing water and the infill was relitivly dry.

[Amelanchier]

Interesting... Infill was a washed 20-40mm type 2 roadstone or similar aggregate w/ no fines? Was there a soil layer on top?

 

Not being awkward - just having trouble visualising the waterlogging.

[Giles Hill]

I do specify the terram version rather than the cellweb one, but what you've just said is news to me.

 

I thought they were quite similar, what difference in the material / design do you think was causing the difference in drainage?

 

I'm in a job where I draw pictures of how to do things rather than actually doing them, so I'm always to glad to learn.

[Giles Hill]

I guess your test sections were laid next to each other, rather than on different sites?

[Arborist Sites]

sorry forgot to mention we threw in a few curve balls to try and make more realistic, as generally happens in these situations we introduced dust, sand and soil as this is what would happen on a typical construction site.

 

we also did a test with unwashed aggregate as this is the common way for developers to claw back some money, guess i dont need to outline the results.

 

Of interest though we just designed a new access path to a school using the terram system, with washed aggregate and a permeable bonded surface, stopped into see it the other day and it is fantastic, even with all this rain.

 

 

We have quite alot of experience with these systems tony as we do alot of designs for wind farm access tracks, inc temporary tracks for oversized vehicles gaining access to deliver the turbines.

 

[Paul Barton]

Nice work AS! Good to hear some working feedback. Sounds like you get some interesting jobs.