https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/w/index.php?feed=atom&target=Nicolas_Seal&title=Special%3AContributions%2FNicolas_Seal 2026-05-13T20:39:27Z From Designing Buildings MediaWiki 1.17.4 https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Japanese_knotweed_identification_and_eradication 2012-09-26T16:41:47Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>= WHAT IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED? =<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and has now spread to every county of the UK. It is causing significant problems for owners and occupiers of affected land, and for developers and contractors on development land. The plant has an extensive root system that spreads horizontally to great depth. If the root system is not killed or removed in its entirety, it will continue to grow, infesting more land and exacerbating the problems it causes.<br /> <br /> = HOW IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED IDENTIFIED? =<br /> <br /> Early identification of the plant is essential to prevent disturbance of ground within infested areas. Ground disturbance results in rapid spread of knotweed to other areas on or off site, which has significant legal ramifications.<br /> <br /> Accurate identification is essential. Some contractor companies offer a free identification service if you email them an image.<br /> <br /> The images here show:<br /> <br /> #The stems and new leaves - these appear in spring<br /> #Japanese knotweed in flower in the summer.<br /> #The leaves turning brown in the autumn.<br /> #Dead canes in winter.<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed 800px-Knotweed.jpg|333px|Japanese knotweed 800px-Knotweed.jpg]]<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica MdE 2.jpg|333px|Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica MdE 2.jpg]]<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed 2.jpg|334px|Japanese knotweed 2.jpg]]<br /> <br /> [[File:800PX-~1.JPG|338px|800PX-~1.JPG]]<br /> <br /> = DEVELOPING A SITE WITH JAPANESE KNOTWEED =<br /> <br /> If a developer has a site infested with knotweed, then complete eradication of the knotweed should be the goal. This is not easy, but tried and tested methods do exist, and when undertaken correctly can provide the desired result. However developers should be wary, there are many pitfalls. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ applies to the knotweed eradication market.<br /> <br /> == The legislation ==<br /> <br /> If a developer causes knotweed to be spread off site, they could find themselves at the wrong end of criminal proceedings under either the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981], or the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990] ‘duty of care’. Offences under these Acts, whether intentional or not, can result in significant fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences.<br /> <br /> == Eradication methods ==<br /> <br /> A number of eradication methods exist which suit different circumstances and which involve differing costs and levels of effectiveness.<br /> <br /> === Herbicide treatment ===<br /> <br /> If the ground is not going to be disturbed (which is rarely the case on a development site) and some limited regrowth is tolerable, then herbicide treatment will be the most cost effective method.<br /> <br /> Herbicide treatment is typically applied either as a foliar spray or by stem injection. There is concern within the Japanese knotweed eradication industry regarding the effectiveness of stem injection as an eradication technique. Discussion has centred on whether stem injection simply kills the above ground part of the plant, leaving the rhizome system alive but in a state of temporary dormancy.<br /> <br /> However application by foliar spray is tried and tested, and if done correctly can kill knotweed.<br /> <br /> === Physical removal ===<br /> <br /> If the ground within an area of knotweed-infested land is likely to be disturbed, then herbicide treatment alone is unlikely to be sufficient and a physical removal method will be preferable.<br /> <br /> === Dormancy and the risk of accidental contamination ===<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed has a particular characteristic known in the industry as ‘dormancy’ - the plant can be shocked into a state of temporary dormancy by herbicide application. It may look as if the problem has been resolved at the surface, when in fact viable root rhizome remains in the ground, ready to resurface when the conditions are favourable to the plant.<br /> <br /> As Japanese knotweed roots can easily be at least 2m deep, and as the rhizomes spread laterally into areas which may appear unaffected, the risk is clear. In these circumstances a contractor may then accidentally disturb hidden rhizomes and fragment and spread them to other areas of the site, and possibly off site. This would significantly increase the scale of the problem, the cost of remediation and would be a breach environmental legislation.<br /> <br /> = Current solutions =<br /> <br /> Historically, ‘dig and dump’ was seen as the solution, where all infested soil was excavated, loaded into large lorries and taken to landfill. This is extremely costly, both to the client’s budget and the environment. Better and less expensive solutions are now used.<br /> <br /> A new method has been developed whereby the excavated soils are processed on site using purpose-designed and patented technology to separate and remove the knotweed rhizome from the soil. The offending rhizome is removed from site, and the processed soil re-used on site, to give zero waste to landfill.<br /> <br /> On larger development sites, there may be adequate space to excavate the infested soils from construction-critical areas, and stockpile the material on site for subsequent herbicide treatment over one or more growing seasons. This method can be cost effective but does require considerable space for the stockpile, so is often not feasible.<br /> <br /> On-site burial is a method referred to in the Environment Agency [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf Knotweed Code of Practice], whereby the infested soils are buried at depth within a membrane-lined cell. This method does contain the knotweed but should not be considered as an eradication technique, due to the fact that knotweed rhizome remains untreated on site; a rhizome which can lie dormant for up to twenty years.<br /> <br /> The best solution will be dependent upon site conditions, programme, cost and the developer's appetite for risk.<br /> <br /> It's important to ensure the knotweed company selected has the skills, experience and resources to completely eradicate the knotweed, as well as the financial stability to be able to honour any guarantees they may offer. It is advisable to check their credentials, their financial security and their trading record.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> This article was created by --[[User:Nicolas Seal|Nicolas Seal]] 14:21, 25 September 2012 (BST)<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> = See also =<br /> <br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981].<br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/wildlife/130079.aspx Japanese knotweed].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf The knotweed code of practice].<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Products_/_components]]<br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Property_law]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]<br /> [[Category:Property_development]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Japanese_knotweed_identification_and_eradication 2012-09-26T15:19:17Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>= WHAT IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED? =<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and has now spread to every county of the UK. It is causing significant problems for owners and occupiers of affected land, and for developers and contractors on development land. The plant has an extensive root system that spreads horizontally to great depth. If the root system is not killed or removed in its entirety, it will continue to grow, infesting more land and exacerbating the problems it causes.<br /> <br /> = HOW IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED IDENTIFIED? =<br /> <br /> Early identification of the plant is essential to prevent disturbance of ground within infested areas. Ground disturbance results in rapid spread of knotweed to other areas on or off site, which has significant legal ramifications.<br /> <br /> Accurate identification is essential. Some contractor companies offer a free identification service if you email them an image.<br /> <br /> The images here show:<br /> <br /> #The stems and new leaves - these appear in spring<br /> #Japanese knotweed in flower in the summer.<br /> #The leaves turning brown in the autumn.<br /> #The dormant state of the plant.<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed 800px-Knotweed.jpg|333px|Japanese knotweed 800px-Knotweed.jpg]]<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica MdE 2.jpg|333px|Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica MdE 2.jpg]]<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed 2.jpg|334px|Japanese knotweed 2.jpg]]<br /> <br /> [[File:800PX-~1.JPG|338px]]<br /> <br /> = DEVELOPING A SITE WITH JAPANESE KNOTWEED =<br /> <br /> If a developer has a site infested with knotweed, then complete eradication of the knotweed should be the goal. This is not easy, but tried and tested methods do exist, and when undertaken correctly can provide the desired result. However developers should be wary, there are many pitfalls. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ applies to the knotweed eradication market.<br /> <br /> == The legislation ==<br /> <br /> If a developer causes knotweed to be spread off site, they could find themselves at the wrong end of criminal proceedings under either the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981], or the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990] ‘duty of care’. Offences under these Acts, whether intentional or not, can result in significant fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences.<br /> <br /> == Eradication methods ==<br /> <br /> A number of eradication methods exist which suit different circumstances and which involve differing costs and levels of effectiveness.<br /> <br /> === Herbicide treatment ===<br /> <br /> If the ground is not going to be disturbed (which is rarely the case on a development site) and some limited regrowth is tolerable, then herbicide treatment will be the most cost effective method.<br /> <br /> Herbicide treatment is typically applied either as a foliar spray or by stem injection. There is concern within the Japanese knotweed eradication industry regarding the effectiveness of stem injection as an eradication technique. Discussion has centred on whether stem injection simply kills the above ground part of the plant, leaving the rhizome system alive but in a state of temporary dormancy.<br /> <br /> However application by foliar spray is tried and tested, and if done correctly can kill knotweed.<br /> <br /> === Physical removal ===<br /> <br /> If the ground within an area of knotweed-infested land is likely to be disturbed, then herbicide treatment alone is unlikely to be sufficient and a physical removal method will be preferable.<br /> <br /> === Dormancy and the risk of accidental contamination ===<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed has a particular characteristic known in the industry as ‘dormancy’ - the plant can be shocked into a state of temporary dormancy by herbicide application. It may look as if the problem has been resolved at the surface, when in fact viable root rhizome remains in the ground, ready to resurface when the conditions are favourable to the plant.<br /> <br /> As Japanese knotweed roots can easily be at least 2m deep, and as the rhizomes spread laterally into areas which may appear unaffected, the risk is clear. In these circumstances a contractor may then accidentally disturb hidden rhizomes and fragment and spread them to other areas of the site, and possibly off site. This would significantly increase the scale of the problem, the cost of remediation and would be a breach environmental legislation.<br /> <br /> = Current solutions =<br /> <br /> Historically, ‘dig and dump’ was seen as the solution, where all infested soil was excavated, loaded into large lorries and taken to landfill. This is extremely costly, both to the client’s budget and the environment. Better and less expensive solutions are now used.<br /> <br /> A new method has been developed whereby the excavated soils are processed on site using purpose-designed and patented technology to separate and remove the knotweed rhizome from the soil. The offending rhizome is removed from site, and the processed soil re-used on site, to give zero waste to landfill.<br /> <br /> On larger development sites, there may be adequate space to excavate the infested soils from construction-critical areas, and stockpile the material on site for subsequent herbicide treatment over one or more growing seasons. This method can be cost effective but does require considerable space for the stockpile, so is often not feasible.<br /> <br /> On-site burial is a method referred to in the Environment Agency [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf Knotweed Code of Practice], whereby the infested soils are buried at depth within a membrane-lined cell. This method does contain the knotweed but should not be considered as an eradication technique, due to the fact that knotweed rhizome remains untreated on site; a rhizome which can lie dormant for up to twenty years.<br /> <br /> The best solution will be dependent upon site conditions, programme, cost and the developer's appetite for risk.<br /> <br /> It's important to ensure the knotweed company selected has the skills, experience and resources to completely eradicate the knotweed, as well as the financial stability to be able to honour any guarantees they may offer. It is advisable to check their credentials, their financial security and their trading record.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> This article was created by --[[User:Nicolas Seal|Nicolas Seal]] 14:21, 25 September 2012 (BST)<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> = See also =<br /> <br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981].<br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/wildlife/130079.aspx Japanese knotweed].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf The knotweed code of practice].<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Products_/_components]]<br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Property_law]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]<br /> [[Category:Property_development]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/File:800PX-%7E1.JPG 2012-09-26T15:17:39Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Japanese_knotweed_identification_and_eradication 2012-09-26T15:16:33Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>= WHAT IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED? =<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and has now spread to every county of the UK. It is causing significant problems for owners and occupiers of affected land, and for developers and contractors on development land. The plant has an extensive root system that spreads horizontally to great depth. If the root system is not killed or removed in its entirety, it will continue to grow, infesting more land and exacerbating the problems it causes.<br /> <br /> = HOW IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED IDENTIFIED? =<br /> <br /> Early identification of the plant is essential to prevent disturbance of ground within infested areas. Ground disturbance results in rapid spread of knotweed to other areas on or off site, which has significant legal ramifications.<br /> <br /> Accurate identification is essential. Some contractor companies offer a free identification service if you email them an image.<br /> <br /> The images here show:<br /> <br /> #The stems and new leaves - these appear in spring<br /> #Japanese knotweed in flower in the summer.<br /> #The leaves turning brown in the autumn.<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed 800px-Knotweed.jpg|333px|Japanese knotweed 800px-Knotweed.jpg]]<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica MdE 2.jpg|333px|Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica MdE 2.jpg]]<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed 2.jpg|334px]]<br /> <br /> = DEVELOPING A SITE WITH JAPANESE KNOTWEED =<br /> <br /> If a developer has a site infested with knotweed, then complete eradication of the knotweed should be the goal. This is not easy, but tried and tested methods do exist, and when undertaken correctly can provide the desired result. However developers should be wary, there are many pitfalls. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ applies to the knotweed eradication market.<br /> <br /> == The legislation ==<br /> <br /> If a developer causes knotweed to be spread off site, they could find themselves at the wrong end of criminal proceedings under either the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981], or the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990] ‘duty of care’. Offences under these Acts, whether intentional or not, can result in significant fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences.<br /> <br /> == Eradication methods ==<br /> <br /> A number of eradication methods exist which suit different circumstances and which involve differing costs and levels of effectiveness.<br /> <br /> === Herbicide treatment ===<br /> <br /> If the ground is not going to be disturbed (which is rarely the case on a development site) and some limited regrowth is tolerable, then herbicide treatment will be the most cost effective method.<br /> <br /> Herbicide treatment is typically applied either as a foliar spray or by stem injection. There is concern within the Japanese knotweed eradication industry regarding the effectiveness of stem injection as an eradication technique. Discussion has centred on whether stem injection simply kills the above ground part of the plant, leaving the rhizome system alive but in a state of temporary dormancy.<br /> <br /> However application by foliar spray is tried and tested, and if done correctly can kill knotweed.<br /> <br /> === Physical removal ===<br /> <br /> If the ground within an area of knotweed-infested land is likely to be disturbed, then herbicide treatment alone is unlikely to be sufficient and a physical removal method will be preferable.<br /> <br /> === Dormancy and the risk of accidental contamination ===<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed has a particular characteristic known in the industry as ‘dormancy’ - the plant can be shocked into a state of temporary dormancy by herbicide application. It may look as if the problem has been resolved at the surface, when in fact viable root rhizome remains in the ground, ready to resurface when the conditions are favourable to the plant.<br /> <br /> As Japanese knotweed roots can easily be at least 2m deep, and as the rhizomes spread laterally into areas which may appear unaffected, the risk is clear. In these circumstances a contractor may then accidentally disturb hidden rhizomes and fragment and spread them to other areas of the site, and possibly off site. This would significantly increase the scale of the problem, the cost of remediation and would be a breach environmental legislation.<br /> <br /> = Current solutions =<br /> <br /> Historically, ‘dig and dump’ was seen as the solution, where all infested soil was excavated, loaded into large lorries and taken to landfill. This is extremely costly, both to the client’s budget and the environment. Better and less expensive solutions are now used.<br /> <br /> A new method has been developed whereby the excavated soils are processed on site using purpose-designed and patented technology to separate and remove the knotweed rhizome from the soil. The offending rhizome is removed from site, and the processed soil re-used on site, to give zero waste to landfill.<br /> <br /> On larger development sites, there may be adequate space to excavate the infested soils from construction-critical areas, and stockpile the material on site for subsequent herbicide treatment over one or more growing seasons. This method can be cost effective but does require considerable space for the stockpile, so is often not feasible.<br /> <br /> On-site burial is a method referred to in the Environment Agency [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf Knotweed Code of Practice], whereby the infested soils are buried at depth within a membrane-lined cell. This method does contain the knotweed but should not be considered as an eradication technique, due to the fact that knotweed rhizome remains untreated on site; a rhizome which can lie dormant for up to twenty years.<br /> <br /> The best solution will be dependent upon site conditions, programme, cost and the developer's appetite for risk.<br /> <br /> It's important to ensure the knotweed company selected has the skills, experience and resources to completely eradicate the knotweed, as well as the financial stability to be able to honour any guarantees they may offer. It is advisable to check their credentials, their financial security and their trading record.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> This article was created by --[[User:Nicolas Seal|Nicolas Seal]] 14:21, 25 September 2012 (BST)<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> = See also =<br /> <br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981].<br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/wildlife/130079.aspx Japanese knotweed].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf The knotweed code of practice].<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Products_/_components]]<br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Property_law]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]<br /> [[Category:Property_development]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/File:Japanese_knotweed_2.jpg 2012-09-26T15:11:16Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Japanese_knotweed_identification_and_eradication 2012-09-26T15:03:03Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>= WHAT IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED? =<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and has now spread to every county of the UK. It is causing significant problems for owners and occupiers of affected land, and for developers and contractors on development land. The plant has an extensive root system that spreads horizontally to great depth. If the root system is not killed or removed in its entirety, it will continue to grow, infesting more land and exacerbating the problems it causes.<br /> <br /> = HOW IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED IDENTIFIED? =<br /> <br /> Early identification of the plant is essential to prevent disturbance of ground within infested areas. Ground disturbance results in rapid spread of knotweed to other areas on or off site, which has significant legal ramifications. <br /> <br /> Accurate identification is essential. Some contractor companies offer a free identification service if you email them an image.<br /> <br /> The images here show:<br /> <br /> # A detail of the stems and new leaves.<br /> #The plant in flower. <br /> #The dormant state of the plant. <br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed 800px-Knotweed.jpg|333px]]<br /> <br /> [[File:Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica MdE 2.jpg|333px]]<br /> <br /> = DEVELOPING A SITE WITH JAPANESE KNOTWEED =<br /> <br /> If a developer has a site infested with knotweed, then complete eradication of the knotweed should be the goal. This is not easy, but tried and tested methods do exist, and when undertaken correctly can provide the desired result. However developers should be wary, there are many pitfalls. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ applies to the knotweed eradication market.<br /> <br /> == The legislation ==<br /> <br /> If a developer causes knotweed to be spread off site, they could find themselves at the wrong end of criminal proceedings under either the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981], or the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990] ‘duty of care’. Offences under these Acts, whether intentional or not, can result in significant fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences.<br /> <br /> == Eradication methods ==<br /> <br /> A number of eradication methods exist which suit different circumstances and which involve differing costs and levels of effectiveness.<br /> <br /> === Herbicide treatment ===<br /> <br /> If the ground is not going to be disturbed (which is rarely the case on a development site) and some limited regrowth is tolerable, then herbicide treatment will be the most cost effective method.<br /> <br /> Herbicide treatment is typically applied either as a foliar spray or by stem injection. There is concern within the Japanese knotweed eradication industry regarding the effectiveness of stem injection as an eradication technique. Discussion has centred on whether stem injection simply kills the above ground part of the plant, leaving the rhizome system alive but in a state of temporary dormancy.<br /> <br /> However application by foliar spray is tried and tested, and if done correctly can kill knotweed.<br /> <br /> === Physical removal ===<br /> <br /> If the ground within an area of knotweed-infested land is likely to be disturbed, then herbicide treatment alone is unlikely to be sufficient and a physical removal method will be preferable.<br /> <br /> === Dormancy and the risk of accidental contamination ===<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed has a particular characteristic known in the industry as ‘dormancy’ - the plant can be shocked into a state of temporary dormancy by herbicide application. It may look as if the problem has been resolved at the surface, when in fact viable root rhizome remains in the ground, ready to resurface when the conditions are favourable to the plant.<br /> <br /> As Japanese knotweed roots can easily be at least 2m deep, and as the rhizomes spread laterally into areas which may appear unaffected, the risk is clear. In these circumstances a contractor may then accidentally disturb hidden rhizomes and fragment and spread them to other areas of the site, and possibly off site. This would significantly increase the scale of the problem, the cost of remediation and would be a breach environmental legislation.<br /> <br /> = Current solutions =<br /> <br /> Historically, ‘dig and dump’ was seen as the solution, where all infested soil was excavated, loaded into large lorries and taken to landfill. This is extremely costly, both to the client’s budget and the environment. Better and less expensive solutions are now used.<br /> <br /> A new method has been developed whereby the excavated soils are processed on site using purpose-designed and patented technology to separate and remove the knotweed rhizome from the soil. The offending rhizome is removed from site, and the processed soil re-used on site, to give zero waste to landfill.<br /> <br /> On larger development sites, there may be adequate space to excavate the infested soils from construction-critical areas, and stockpile the material on site for subsequent herbicide treatment over one or more growing seasons. This method can be cost effective but does require considerable space for the stockpile, so is often not feasible.<br /> <br /> On-site burial is a method referred to in the Environment Agency [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf Knotweed Code of Practice], whereby the infested soils are buried at depth within a membrane-lined cell. This method does contain the knotweed but should not be considered as an eradication technique, due to the fact that knotweed rhizome remains untreated on site; a rhizome which can lie dormant for up to twenty years.<br /> <br /> The best solution will be dependent upon site conditions, programme, cost and the developer's appetite for risk.<br /> <br /> It's important to ensure the knotweed company selected has the skills, experience and resources to completely eradicate the knotweed, as well as the financial stability to be able to honour any guarantees they may offer. It is advisable to check their credentials, their financial security and their trading record.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> This article was created by --[[User:Nicolas Seal|Nicolas Seal]] 14:21, 25 September 2012 (BST)<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> = See also =<br /> <br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981].<br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/wildlife/130079.aspx Japanese knotweed].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf The knotweed code of practice].<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Products_/_components]]<br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Property_law]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]<br /> [[Category:Property_development]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/File:Japanese_knotweed_Fallopia_japonica_MdE_2.jpg 2012-09-26T14:55:32Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/File:Japanese_knotweed_800px-Knotweed.jpg 2012-09-26T14:54:15Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Japanese_knotweed_identification_and_eradication 2012-09-26T14:11:48Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>= 1WHAT IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED? =<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and has now spread to every county of the UK. It is causing significant problems for owners and occupiers of affected land, and for developers and contractors on development land. The plant has an extensive root system that spreads horizontally to great depth. If the root system is not killed or removed in its entirety, it will continue to grow, infesting more land and exacerbating the problems it causes.<br /> <br /> = HOW IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED IDENTIFIED? =<br /> <br /> Early identification of the plant is essential to prevent disturbance of ground within infested areas. Ground disturbance results in rapid spread of knotweed to other areas on or off site, which has significant legal ramifications. Accurate identification is important. Some contractor companies offer a free identification service if you email them an image.<br /> <br /> [[File:1. Japanese knotweed Copy of IMG 7562.JPG|299px]]<br /> <br /> All images here copyright Environet UK Ltd 2008 -2012.<br /> <br /> = DEVELOPING A SITE WITH JAPANESE KNOTWEED =<br /> <br /> If a developer has a site infested with knotweed, then complete eradication of the knotweed should be the goal. This is not easy, but tried and tested methods do exist, and when undertaken correctly can provide the desired result. However developers should be wary, there are many pitfalls. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ applies to the knotweed eradication market.<br /> <br /> == The legislation ==<br /> <br /> If a developer causes knotweed to be spread off site, they could find themselves at the wrong end of criminal proceedings under either the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981], or the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990] ‘duty of care’. Offences under these Acts, whether intentional or not, can result in significant fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences.<br /> <br /> == Eradication methods ==<br /> <br /> A number of eradication methods exist which suit different circumstances and which involve differing costs and levels of effectiveness.<br /> <br /> === Herbicide treatment ===<br /> <br /> If the ground is not going to be disturbed (which is rarely the case on a development site) and some limited regrowth is tolerable, then herbicide treatment will be the most cost effective method.<br /> <br /> Herbicide treatment is typically applied either as a foliar spray or by stem injection. There is concern within the Japanese knotweed eradication industry regarding the effectiveness of stem injection as an eradication technique. Discussion has centred on whether stem injection simply kills the above ground part of the plant, leaving the rhizome system alive but in a state of temporary dormancy.<br /> <br /> However application by foliar spray is tried and tested, and if done correctly can kill knotweed.<br /> <br /> === Physical removal ===<br /> <br /> If the ground within an area of knotweed-infested land is likely to be disturbed, then herbicide treatment alone is unlikely to be sufficient and a physical removal method will be preferable.<br /> <br /> === Dormancy and the risk of accidental contamination ===<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed has a particular characteristic known in the industry as ‘dormancy’ - the plant can be shocked into a state of temporary dormancy by herbicide application. It may look as if the problem has been resolved at the surface, when in fact viable root rhizome remains in the ground, ready to resurface when the conditions are favourable to the plant.<br /> <br /> As Japanese knotweed roots can easily be at least 2m deep, and as the rhizomes spread laterally into areas which may appear unaffected, the risk is clear. In these circumstances a contractor may then accidentally disturb hidden rhizomes and fragment and spread them to other areas of the site, and possibly off site. This would significantly increase the scale of the problem, the cost of remediation and would be a breach environmental legislation.<br /> <br /> = Current solutions =<br /> <br /> Historically, ‘dig and dump’ was seen as the solution, where all infested soil was excavated, loaded into large lorries and taken to landfill. This is extremely costly, both to the client’s budget and the environment. Better and less expensive solutions are now used.<br /> <br /> A new method has been developed whereby the excavated soils are processed on site using purpose-designed and patented technology to separate and remove the knotweed rhizome from the soil. The offending rhizome is removed from site, and the processed soil re-used on site, to give zero waste to landfill.<br /> <br /> On larger development sites, there may be adequate space to excavate the infested soils from construction-critical areas, and stockpile the material on site for subsequent herbicide treatment over one or more growing seasons. This method can be cost effective but does require considerable space for the stockpile, so is often not feasible.<br /> <br /> On-site burial is a method referred to in the Environment Agency [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf Knotweed Code of Practice], whereby the infested soils are buried at depth within a membrane-lined cell. This method does contain the knotweed but should not be considered as an eradication technique, due to the fact that knotweed rhizome remains untreated on site; a rhizome which can lie dormant for up to twenty years.<br /> <br /> The best solution will be dependent upon site conditions, programme, cost and the developer's appetite for risk.<br /> <br /> It's important to ensure the knotweed company selected has the skills, experience and resources to completely eradicate the knotweed, as well as the financial stability to be able to honour any guarantees they may offer. It is advisable to check their credentials, their financial security and their trading record.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> This article was created by --[[User:Nicolas Seal|Nicolas Seal]] 14:21, 25 September 2012 (BST)<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> = See also =<br /> <br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981].<br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/wildlife/130079.aspx Japanese knotweed].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf The knotweed code of practice].<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Products_/_components]]<br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Property_law]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]<br /> [[Category:Property_development]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/File:1._Japanese_knotweed_Copy_of_IMG_7562.JPG 2012-09-26T14:06:39Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: photo 1</p> <hr /> <div>photo 1</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Nicolas_Seal 2012-09-26T12:25:01Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Nic seal.jpg]] <br /> <br /> Nicolas Seal CEnv, MIEMA, BSc(Hons) is the Managing Director of Environet UK Ltd and a recognised UK expert in Japanese knotweed eradication.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd is a consulting and contracting company that specialises in the complete eradication of Japanese knotweed, particularly on development sites, providing a full service to landowners, developers and contractors throughout the UK.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd developed and owns the UK patent to Xtract, a method and technology that allows knotweed rhizome to be separated and removed from soils in a matter of days, without incurring the massive costs of off-site disposal 'dig and dump.'&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;For more information see the Environet website [http://www.environetuk.com http://www.environetuk.com]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Nicolas_Seal 2012-09-26T12:24:23Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div> [[File:Nic_seal.jpg]] Nicolas Seal CEnv, MIEMA, BSc(Hons) is the Managing Director of Environet UK Ltd and a recognised UK expert in Japanese knotweed eradication.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd is a consulting and contracting company that specialises in the complete eradication of Japanese knotweed, particularly on development sites, providing a full service to landowners, developers and contractors throughout the UK.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd developed and owns the UK patent to Xtract, a method and technology that allows knotweed rhizome to be separated and removed from soils in a matter of days, without incurring the massive costs of off-site disposal 'dig and dump.'&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;For more information see the Environet website [http://www.environetuk.com http://www.environetuk.com]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Nicolas_Seal 2012-09-26T12:23:34Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: Protected &quot;User:Nicolas Seal&quot;: Company and personal information ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))</p> <hr /> <div>Nicolas Seal CEnv, MIEMA, BSc(Hons) is the Managing Director of Environet UK Ltd and a recognised UK expert in Japanese knotweed eradication.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd is a consulting and contracting company that specialises in the complete eradication of Japanese knotweed, particularly on development sites, providing a full service to landowners, developers and contractors throughout the UK.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd developed and owns the UK patent to Xtract, a method and technology that allows knotweed rhizome to be separated and removed from soils in a matter of days, without incurring the massive costs of off-site disposal 'dig and dump.'&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;For more information see the Environet website [http://www.environetuk.com http://www.environetuk.com]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/File:Nic_seal.jpg 2012-09-26T12:22:08Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: Photograph of Nic Seal for Biography page</p> <hr /> <div>Photograph of Nic Seal for Biography page</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Japanese_knotweed_identification_and_eradication 2012-09-26T12:18:56Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>= WHAT IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED? =<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and has now spread to every county of the UK. It is causing significant problems for owners and occupiers of affected land, and for developers and contractors on development land. The plant has an extensive root system that spreads horizontally to great depth. If the root system is not killed or removed in its entirety, it will continue to grow, infesting more land and exacerbating the problems it causes.<br /> <br /> = HOW IS JAPANESE KNOTWEED IDENTIFIED? =<br /> <br /> Early identification of the plant is essential to prevent disturbance of ground within infested areas. Ground disturbance results in rapid spread of knotweed to other areas on or off site, which has significant legal ramifications. For accurate identification, search google pictures for ‘Japanese knotweed identification’.<br /> <br /> = DEVELOPING A SITE WITH JAPANESE KNOTWEED =<br /> <br /> If a developer has a site infested with knotweed, then complete eradication of the knotweed should be the goal. This is not easy, but tried and tested methods do exist, and when undertaken correctly can provide the desired result. However developers should be wary, there are many pitfalls. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ applies to the knotweed eradication market.<br /> <br /> == The legislation ==<br /> <br /> If a developer causes knotweed to be spread off site, they could find themselves at the wrong end of criminal proceedings under either the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981], or the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990] ‘duty of care’. Offences under these Acts, whether intentional or not, can result in significant fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences.<br /> <br /> == Eradication methods ==<br /> <br /> A number of eradication methods exist which suit different circumstances and which involve differing costs and levels of effectiveness.<br /> <br /> === Herbicide treatment ===<br /> <br /> If the ground is not going to be disturbed (which is rarely the case on a development site) and some limited regrowth is tolerable, then herbicide treatment will be the most cost effective method.<br /> <br /> Herbicide treatment is typically applied either as a foliar spray or by stem injection. There is concern within the Japanese knotweed eradication industry regarding the effectiveness of stem injection as an eradication technique. Discussion has centred on whether stem injection simply kills the above ground part of the plant, leaving the rhizome system alive but in a state of temporary dormancy.<br /> <br /> However application by foliar spray is tried and tested, and if done correctly can kill knotweed.<br /> <br /> === Physical removal ===<br /> <br /> If the ground within an area of knotweed-infested land is likely to be disturbed, then herbicide treatment alone is unlikely to be sufficient and a physical removal method will be preferable.<br /> <br /> === Dormancy and the risk of accidental contamination ===<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed has a particular characteristic known in the industry as ‘dormancy’ - the plant can be shocked into a state of temporary dormancy by herbicide application. It may look as if the problem has been resolved at the surface, when in fact viable root rhizome remains in the ground, ready to resurface when the conditions are favourable to the plant.<br /> <br /> As Japanese knotweed roots can easily be at least 2m deep, and as the rhizomes spread laterally into areas which may appear unaffected, the risk is clear. In these circumstances a contractor may then accidentally disturb hidden rhizomes and fragment and spread them to other areas of the site, and possibly off site. This would significantly increase the scale of the problem, the cost of remediation and would be a breach environmental legislation.<br /> <br /> = Current solutions =<br /> <br /> Historically, ‘dig and dump’ was seen as the solution, where all infested soil was excavated, loaded into large lorries and taken to landfill. This is extremely costly, both to the client’s budget and the environment. Better and less expensive solutions are now used.<br /> <br /> A new method has been developed whereby the excavated soils are processed on site using purpose-designed and patented technology to separate and remove the knotweed rhizome from the soil. The offending rhizome is removed from site, and the processed soil re-used on site, to give zero waste to landfill.<br /> <br /> On larger development sites, there may be adequate space to excavate the infested soils from construction-critical areas, and stockpile the material on site for subsequent herbicide treatment over one or more growing seasons. This method can be cost effective but does require considerable space for the stockpile, so is often not feasible.<br /> <br /> On-site burial is a method referred to in the Environment Agency [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf Knotweed Code of Practice], whereby the infested soils are buried at depth within a membrane-lined cell. This method does contain the knotweed but should not be considered as an eradication technique, due to the fact that knotweed rhizome remains untreated on site; a rhizome which can lie dormant for up to twenty years.<br /> <br /> The best solution will be dependent upon site conditions, programme, cost and the developer's appetite for risk.<br /> <br /> It's important to ensure the knotweed company selected has the skills, experience and resources to completely eradicate the knotweed, as well as the financial stability to be able to honour any guarantees they may offer. It is advisable to check their credentials, their financial security and their trading record.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> This article was created by --[[User:Nicolas Seal|Nicolas Seal]] 14:21, 25 September 2012 (BST)<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> = See also =<br /> <br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981].<br /> *The [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents Environmental Protection Act 1990].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/wildlife/130079.aspx Japanese knotweed].<br /> *Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf The knotweed code of practice].<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Products_/_components]]<br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Property_law]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]<br /> [[Category:Property_development]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Future_proofing_construction 2012-09-25T14:55:44Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is a working article, contributions are welcome – just click on EDIT above'''<br /> <br /> = '''WHAT IS FUTURE PROOFING?''' =<br /> <br /> Future proofing is a broad term that can encompass not only buildings and infrastructure but also communities, cities, countries or the whole planet. It has adopted different meanings within these different contexts, ranging from resilience to climate change to demographic change and resource security.<br /> <br /> It is sometimes confused with sustainability issues, life-cycle costing and even well being. Whilst these may be relevant areas of consideration, here they are part of a more specific assessment process.<br /> <br /> In relation to buildings, future proofing is an assessment process aimed at maximising whole-live value in the face of unpredictable, ongoing change.<br /> <br /> = '''Historic precedent''' =<br /> <br /> Future proofing is not a new phenomena. The anthropologist Gregory Bateson is credited with telling the following story about planning for the future.<br /> <br /> New College, Oxford, founded in 1379 has a large dining hall like other Oxford colleges. This is constructed using large oak beams. In 1859 it became clear that the beams needed to be replaced – a difficult and expensive undertaking given the size of the timbers required. It was discovered however that replacement oaks had been planted in the college estates, and these were cut for use in the hall. It has been suggested that these trees were expressly planted for the hall – in effect, the hall had been future proofed against the possibility that the resources necessary to repair it would become (or remain) difficult to obtain.<br /> <br /> = '''Design assessment''' =<br /> <br /> Future proofing a building requires careful consideration of likely future scenarios:<br /> <br /> *What changes are might happen in the life of the building?<br /> *How likely are those changes?<br /> *How serious would the impact of such a change be?<br /> *What is the cost of future proofing against that change?<br /> <br /> This assessment process should be a continuous exercise that involves the client, designers, suppliers contractors, end users, and is similar to the way that risk assessments are carried out.<br /> <br /> Assessment is a very complex process, and there is a danger that a building will adopt future-proofing solutions that might fail:<br /> <br /> *The scenario might not happen.<br /> *The solution adopted to cope with the scenario might fail or might not be implemented.<br /> *An unforeseen scenario might render the solution ineffective.<br /> <br /> This means that whilst literature often suggests that future-proofing a building is always beneficial, and is inherently ‘environmental’, in fact, future proofing against the wrong scenarios can be a significant waste of resources.<br /> <br /> = '''FUTURE PROOFING CONSIDERATIONS''' =<br /> <br /> Some issues that might be considered in assessing the most appropriate strategy for future proofing a building are presented below. It should be noted that many of these go well beyond simple consideration of the fabric of the building to include long-term market assessment and business planning:<br /> <br /> == '''Flexibility''' ==<br /> <br /> The adaptability of a building or elements of its design can allow it to continue to be used efficiently despite changes in operational requirements, whereas an inflexible building might become unusable.<br /> <br /> Flexibility might include active flexibility, such as moveable partitions, but can also include the provision of features that are inherently flexible, such as multi-use spaces, open plan as opposed to cellular offices, large floor to ceiling heights and high capacity service voids. It might also include broader characteristics such as the room to expand or the ability to use a range of different energy sources.<br /> <br /> However, there are many buildings throughout the world with very expensive designed-in flexibility that has never been used. The requirement for change may never emerge, building occupants can be intransigent and avoid change, or occupants may simply be unaware of the possibility to change their building.<br /> <br /> == '''Resource use''' ==<br /> <br /> The cost of energy is likely to continue to rise, and energy security is not certain. This might put a development at risk. Reducing future energy consumption or finding alternative sources of energy can therefore help to future proof a building.<br /> <br /> This also applies to other resources that might be required such as water or raw materials for manufacturing.<br /> <br /> == '''Technology''' ==<br /> <br /> Specialist consultants and suppliers often recommend the very latest, most flexible technology and the provision of building infrastructure to accommodate likely future advances in technology.<br /> <br /> In some circumstances, this may be sensible, but for example, flood wiring a building to allow for future flexibility may become unnecessary if wireless and mobile technology advances. Similarly, whilst long-life technological solutions might appear in the first assessment to give the most future proof solution, in practice, rapid technological advances might render a solution inefficient or even redundant within its useable life, and planning for regular replacement can be more efficient.<br /> <br /> == '''Resilience to climate change''' ==<br /> <br /> What would happen if weather patterns were to change? Will a building still function satisfactorily if temperatures rise, or rainfall increases, or the climate becomes more extreme? Is a proposed building in an area that might be at risk from flooding in the future?<br /> <br /> Can the building be adapted, or should resilience be built in?<br /> <br /> == '''Legislation''' ==<br /> <br /> There have been a great many legislative changes in recent years with much more stringent regulations being introduced and a continually changing policy landscape. Whilst on the whole, these tend to impact on new buildings, retrospective changes can affect existing buildings. For example, the requirement to make existing buildings accessible, or regulations requiring that when an existing building is changed, it must must be adapted to comply with newer standards (for example the application of Part L of the building regulations when an existing building is modified). This can make inflexible buildings unviable.<br /> <br /> == '''After use''' ==<br /> <br /> Businesses may need to consider what they would do with their building if it became inappropriate for their requirements. Will the building or any of its components have resale value? Can it be adapted to other uses? Is it designed for deconstruction? Does it have inherent disposal costs?<br /> <br /> Under certain circumstances, it may be more appropriate for a client to use a short-life, temporary or re-useable building than one that is long life.<br /> <br /> == '''Social attitudes''' ==<br /> <br /> A building that appears fashionable today, might become unfashionable in the future. This applies particularly to rented accommodation, where if a building does not have a ‘timeless’ style, or is unable to adapt, it may become unviable.<br /> <br /> In addition, building users tolerance can also change over time. Issues such as privacy, noise pollution, light pollution or air quality that are now considered acceptable, might in the future be perceived as a problem.<br /> <br /> == '''Wider considerations''' ==<br /> <br /> An analysis of the predicted development of a geographic area or an industry is likely to impact on the selection of a site for a particular use. For example, will the business be able to attract and retain appropriately qualified staff? Will the business have access to universities? What is the quality of local area, the standard of local schools, the cost of local housing, the quality of the local transport infrastructure?<br /> <br /> Will the building be able to respond to the needs of an ageing society, or a move to home working?<br /> <br /> More people are moving away from the country to cities. This increased urbanisation means infrastructure requirements are changing. Will the local infrastructure be able to cope?<br /> <br /> On a fundamental level, our numbers on the planet have more than doubled since 1950. There are now estimated to be seven billion people living on the planet. Although forecasters predict the increase in numbers will tail off by 2050, the likely impact of such high numbers on the planet may need to be considered.<br /> <br /> NB for more information see Changing Lifestyles.<br /> <br /> = See also =<br /> <br /> *Masterplanning.<br /> *Sustainability.<br /> *Whole life costs.<br /> *Risk management.<br /> *Changing lifestyles.<br /> *Risk assessment.<br /> *Bill Gething: [http://www.innovateuk.org/ourstrategy/innovationplatforms/lowimpactbuilding/design-for-future-climate-report-.ashx Design for Future Climate: opportunities for adaptation in the built environment].<br /> *[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/government/risk-assessment/ UK Climate Change Risk Assessment] (CCRA).<br /> *Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) [http://engage.defra.gov.uk/nap/ National Adaptation Programme] (NAP).<br /> *The Environment Agency: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/138641.aspx Climate Ready support service].<br /> *9&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Brunel International Lecture by Jo da Silva, 2012: [http://www.jodasilva.me/2012-brunel-international-lecture.html Shifting agendas: response to resilience - the role of the engineer in disaster risk reduction].<br /> *CIBSE: [http://www.cibse.org/content/cibsesymposium2012/Presentation010.pdf Future-proofed energy design.]<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Design]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Tree_preservation_order_TPO 2012-09-25T14:54:32Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) are the legal mechanism administered by local authorities to protect and preserve trees.<br /> <br /> = New regulations =<br /> <br /> Important new regulations, [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/605/contents/made The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012], came into effect on 6 April 2012. The new regulations are intended to streamline the system, making it simpler to administer as well as clearer and fairer for those affected by its rulings.<br /> <br /> It should be noted that the level of protection provided to trees has not changed.<br /> <br /> == Key changes ==<br /> <br /> All tree preservation orders (TPOs) are now on the same footing, governed by one new set of regulations which use the powers in section 192 of the Planning Act 2008 to replace (in so far as they relate to England):<br /> <br /> *The Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999, No.1892).<br /> *The Town and Country Planning (Trees)(Amendment)(England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008, No.2260).<br /> *The Town and Country Planning (Trees)(Amendment No. 2)(England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008, No.3202).<br /> *Subsections 198(3), (4), (6), (8) and (9), and sections 199, 201, 203-205 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.<br /> <br /> The new regulations cancel the provisions in existing TPOs (except for the information necessary to give the orders legal effect and identify the trees protected).<br /> <br /> The duty imposed on authorities by section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to create TPOs when granting planning permission remains unchanged. The power established by section 198 to create TPOs in the interests of amenity also remains unchanged.<br /> <br /> = Summary of TPOs =<br /> <br /> == What can be protected? ==<br /> <br /> All types of trees can be protected, including hedgerow trees (but not hedges), bushes or shrubs. TPOs can protect individual trees, groups of trees, areas or woodlands, where it is considered that trees make a significant visual contribution to the locality and are of benefit to the general public.<br /> <br /> == What is the effect of a TPO? ==<br /> <br /> The principal effect of a TPO is to prohibit the cutting down, uprooting, topping, lopping, uprooting, willful damage to or willful destruction of protected trees or woodlands. This applies to roots as well as stems and branches.<br /> <br /> == Why make a TPO? ==<br /> <br /> To prevent the loss of trees that are in imminent danger of being felled or damaged, or where they need to be protected in relation to a planning application provided that they make a significant contribution within the local surroundings. A TPO would not normally be made where the trees are well managed or a management agreement with the Forestry Commission is in place.<br /> <br /> == TPO criteria ==<br /> <br /> In deciding whether to serve a TPO, the local authority will make an objective assessment of a tree and the impact it has upon the local landscape.<br /> <br /> The criteria are:<br /> <br /> #Biological life expectancy.<br /> #Safe useful life expectancy.<br /> #Importance of position in the landscape.<br /> #Visual amenity value to people.<br /> #Presence of other trees.<br /> #Relation to setting.<br /> #Condition and form.<br /> <br /> == TPO process ==<br /> <br /> If the local authority decides an order is justified it will serve the order on the relevant parties stating the consultation period, which is a minimum of 28 days. This allows statements of support or objections to be submitted.<br /> <br /> The TPO includes a plan and schedule of all trees, areas, groups or woodlands that are protected.<br /> <br /> == Informing interested parties ==<br /> <br /> The new regulations require authorities to inform only those who have a right to prune or fell the trees covered by the TPO. Authorities will still be able to notify others, but this is now discretionary.<br /> <br /> == Protection phases ==<br /> <br /> Under the new regulations, TPOs provide two phases of protection:<br /> <br /> #Protection is immediate, from first notification and this provisional phase lasts for six months. After this date protection will lapse unless confirmed by the local authority.<br /> #If there are no objections, the TPO will be confirmed by the local authority and converted to long-term protection without further consultation. Where objections are made, these will be considered before a decision is taken whether to confirm the order or not.<br /> <br /> An order can be confirmed with or without modification. A modification can see the removal of a tree or trees from the TPO, but cannot add additional trees to the TPO, this would require a new TPO to be made.<br /> <br /> == Default period for consents ==<br /> <br /> The new regulations set a two-year default period for the duration of consents for work on protected trees, with a power for the local planning authority to vary this if appropriate.<br /> <br /> == Exemptions ==<br /> <br /> Under the old regulations, there were several circumstances where consent from the local planning authority was not required to carry out work to protected trees. This included trees that were dying, dead or had become dangerous. The broad scope of this exemption presented some uncertainty for those wanting to carry out what they believed to be exempt work.<br /> <br /> The new regulations omit ‘dying’ from the exceptions. They also introduce an exemption for removing dead branches from a living tree.<br /> <br /> == Prior notification ==<br /> <br /> The new regulations include a requirement for a tree owner to give at least five working days’ written notice of proposed work on dead trees, unless there is an urgent risk to safety.<br /> <br /> == Replacement trees ==<br /> <br /> Under the regulations that have been replaced, when a local planning authority granted consent to remove a protected tree, they considered whether a condition requiring a new tree to be planted was necessary. However, when replacement planting was required in woodland, the authority gave the landowner a direction (not a condition) to replant.<br /> <br /> The new regulations remove the need for directions, enabling conditions to be used in all cases where replanting is required.<br /> <br /> == Compensation ==<br /> <br /> Before 6 April 2012 there were two compensation systems in operation regarding claims to the local planning authority for loss or damage arising from refusal of consent or conditions:<br /> <br /> #For all tree preservation orders made before 2 August 1999, local planning authorities were able to issue an Article 5 certificate which removed their liability to pay compensation. These certificates were issued where the authority was satisfied that their decision was made in the interests of good forestry practice or that the trees or woodlands were of outstanding or special amenity value.<br /> #The 1999 Regulations introduced a revised and more clearly-defined compensation framework for orders made on or after 2 August 1999.<br /> <br /> The new regulations extend the approach in the 1999 Regulations by removing the power to issue Article 5 certificates. The same compensation framework therefore now applies to all TPOs, irrespective of when they were made.<br /> <br /> == Penalties ==<br /> <br /> Anyone who commits an act in contravention of a TPO is liable, on conviction in a Magistrates Court, to a fine of up to a £20,000. For a serious offence, a person can be committed for trial in the Crown Court and if convicted, can be liable to an unlimited fine.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> This article was created by --[http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/w/User%3AAlex%20Harvie Alex Harvie] 11:18, 21 September 2012 (BST)<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> = See also =<br /> <br /> *[http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningenvironment/treepreservationorders/ Overview on the Communities and Local Government website].<br /> *[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/605/contents/made The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012].<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Planning_permission]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Public_procedures]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Nicolas_Seal 2012-09-25T13:26:10Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>Nicolas Seal CEnv, MIEMA, BSc(Hons) is the Managing Director of Environet UK Ltd and a recognised UK expert in Japanese knotweed eradication.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd is a consulting and contracting company that specialises in the complete eradication of Japanese knotweed, particularly on development sites, providing a full service to landowners, developers and contractors throughout the UK.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd developed and owns the UK patent to Xtract, a method and technology that allows knotweed rhizome to be separated and removed from soils in a matter of days, without incurring the massive costs of off-site disposal 'dig and dump.'&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;For more information see the Environet website [http://www.environetuk.com http://www.environetuk.com]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Nicolas_Seal 2012-09-25T13:23:13Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: Created page with &quot;Nicolas Seal is the Managing Director of Environet UK Ltd and a recognised UK expert in Japanese knotweed eradication.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd is a consulting and contracting c...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Nicolas Seal is the Managing Director of Environet UK Ltd and a recognised UK expert in Japanese knotweed eradication.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd is a consulting and contracting company that specialises in the complete eradication of Japanese knotweed, particularly on development sites, providing a full service to landowners, developers and contractors throughout the UK.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Environet UK Ltd developed and owns the UK patent to Xtract, a method and technology that allows knotweed rhizome to be separated and removed from soils in a matter of days, without incurring the massive costs of off-site disposal 'dig and dump.'&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;For more information see the Environet website http://www.environetuk.com &lt;br/&gt;</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Japanese_knotweed_identification_and_eradication 2012-09-25T13:21:49Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: </p> <hr /> <div>= Japanese knotweed =<br /> <br /> == What is Japanese knotweed? ==<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and has now spread to every county of the UK. It is causing significant problems for owners and occupiers of affected land, and for developers and contractors on development land. The plant has an extensive root system that spreads horizontally to great depth. If the root system is not killed or removed in its entirety, it will continue to grow, infesting more land and exacerbating the problems it causes.<br /> <br /> == How is Japanese knotweed identified? ==<br /> <br /> Early identification of the plant is essential to prevent disturbance of ground within infested areas. Ground disturbance results in rapid spread of knotweed to other areas on or off site, which has significant legal ramifications. For accurate identification, search google pictures for ‘Japanese knotweed identification’.<br /> <br /> = Developing a site with Japanese knotweed =<br /> <br /> If a developer has a site infested with knotweed, then complete eradication of the knotweed should be the goal. This is not easy, but tried and tested methods do exist, and when undertaken correctly can provide the desired result. However developers should be wary, there are many pitfalls. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ applies to the knotweed eradication market.<br /> <br /> The legislation<br /> <br /> If a developer causes knotweed to be spread off site, they could find themselves at the wrong end of criminal proceedings under either [http://www.environetuk.com/japanese-knotweed-information/legislation.aspx the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ‘duty of care’.] Offences under these Acts, whether intentional or not, can result in significant fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences.<br /> <br /> == Eradication methods ==<br /> <br /> A number of eradication methods exist which suit different circumstances and which involve differing costs and levels of effectiveness.<br /> <br /> == Herbicide treatment ==<br /> <br /> If the ground is not going to be disturbed (which is rarely the case on a development site) and some limited regrowth is tolerable, then herbicide treatment will be the most cost effective method.<br /> <br /> Herbicide treatment is typically applied either as a foliar spray or by stem injection. There has much concern and discussion within the Japanese knotweed eradication industry. Discussion has centred on whether stem injection simply kills the above ground part of the plant, leaving the rhizome system in a state of temporary dormancy.<br /> <br /> However application by foliar spray is tried and tested, and if done correctly can kill knotweed.<br /> <br /> == Physical removal ==<br /> <br /> If the ground within an area of knotweed-infested land is likely to be disturbed, then herbicide treatment alone is unlikely to be sufficient and a physical removal method will be preferable.<br /> <br /> == Dormancy and the risk of accidental contamination ==<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed has a particular characteristic known in the industry as ‘dormancy’ - the plant can be shocked into a state of temporary dormancy by herbicide application. It look as if the problem has been resolved at the surface, when in fact viable root rhizome remains in the ground, ready to resurface when the conditions are favourable to the plant.<br /> <br /> As Japanese knotweed roots can easily be at least 2m deep, and as the rhizomes spread laterally into areas which may appear unaffected, the risk is clear. In these circumstances a contractor may then accidentally disturb hidden rhizomes and fragment and spread them to other areas of the site, and possibly off site. This would significantly increase the scale of the problem, the cost of remediation and would be a breach environmental legislation.<br /> <br /> = Current solutions =<br /> <br /> Historically, ‘dig and dump’ was seen as the solution, where all infested soil was excavated, loaded into large lorries and taken to landfill. This is extremely costly, both to the client’s budget and the environment. Better and less expensive solutions are now used.<br /> <br /> A new method has been developed whereby the excavated soils are processed on site using purpose-designed and patented technology to separate and remove the knotweed rhizome from the soil. The offending rhizome is removed from site, and the processed soil re-used on site, to give zero waste to landfill.<br /> <br /> On larger development sites, there may be adequate space to excavate the infested soils from construction-critical areas, and stockpile the material on site for subsequent herbicide treatment over one or more growing seasons. This method can be cost effective but does require considerable space for the stockpile, so is often not feasible.<br /> <br /> On-site burial is a method referred to in the Environment Agency Code of Practice, whereby the infested soils are buried at depth within a membrane-lined cell. This method does contain the knotweed but should not be considered as an eradication technique, due to the fact that knotweed rhizome remains untreated on site; a rhizome which can lie dormant for up to twenty years.<br /> <br /> The best solution will be dependent upon site conditions, programme, cost and the developer's appetite for risk.<br /> <br /> It's important to ensure the knotweed company selected has the skills, experience and resources to completely eradicate the knotweed, as well as the financial stability to be able to honour any guarantees they may offer. It is advisable to check their credentials, their financial security and their trading record.<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;--[[User:Nicolas Seal|Nicolas Seal]] 14:21, 25 September 2012 (BST)<br /> <br /> &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt; <br /> <br /> [[Category:Products_/_components]]<br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Property_law]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]<br /> [[Category:Property_development]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Japanese_knotweed_identification_and_eradication 2012-09-25T13:19:44Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: Protected &quot;Japanese knotweed&quot;: Industry expertise ([edit=author] (indefinite) [move=author] (indefinite))</p> <hr /> <div>= Japanese knotweed =<br /> <br /> == What is Japanese knotweed? ==<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and has now spread to every county of the UK. It is causing significant problems for owners and occupiers of affected land, and for developers and contractors on development land. The plant has an extensive root system that spreads horizontally to great depth. If the root system is not killed or removed in its entirety, it will continue to grow, infesting more land and exacerbating the problems it causes. <br /> <br /> == How is Japanese knotweed identified? ==<br /> <br /> Early identification of the plant is essential to prevent disturbance of ground within infested areas. Ground disturbance results in rapid spread of knotweed to other areas on or off site, which has significant legal ramifications. For accurate identification, search google pictures for ‘Japanese knotweed identification’. <br /> <br /> = Developing a site with Japanese knotweed =<br /> <br /> If a developer has a site infested with knotweed, then complete eradication of the knotweed should be the goal. This is not easy, but tried and tested methods do exist, and when undertaken correctly can provide the desired result. However developers should be wary, there are many pitfalls. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ applies to the knotweed eradication market. <br /> <br /> The legislation<br /> <br /> If a developer causes knotweed to be spread off site, they could find themselves at the wrong end of criminal proceedings under either [http://www.environetuk.com/japanese-knotweed-information/legislation.aspx the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ‘duty of care’.] Offences under these Acts, whether intentional or not, can result in significant fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences. <br /> <br /> == Eradication methods ==<br /> <br /> A number of eradication methods exist which suit different circumstances and which involve differing costs and levels of effectiveness.<br /> <br /> == Herbicide treatment ==<br /> <br /> If the ground is not going to be disturbed (which is rarely the case on a development site) and some limited regrowth is tolerable, then herbicide treatment will be the most cost effective method.<br /> <br /> Herbicide treatment is typically applied either as a foliar spray or by stem injection. There has much concern and discussion within the Japanese knotweed eradication industry. Discussion has centred on whether stem injection simply kills the above ground part of the plant, leaving the rhizome system in a state of temporary dormancy.<br /> <br /> However application by foliar spray is tried and tested, and if done correctly can kill knotweed. <br /> <br /> == Physical removal ==<br /> <br /> If the ground within an area of knotweed-infested land is likely to be disturbed, then herbicide treatment alone is unlikely to be sufficient and a physical removal method will be preferable.<br /> <br /> == Dormancy and the risk of accidental contamination ==<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed has a particular characteristic known in the industry as ‘dormancy’ - the plant can be shocked into a state of temporary dormancy by herbicide application. It look as if the problem has been resolved at the surface, when in fact viable root rhizome remains in the ground, ready to resurface when the conditions are favourable to the plant.<br /> <br /> As Japanese knotweed roots can easily be at least 2m deep, and as the rhizomes spread laterally into areas which may appear unaffected, the risk is clear. In these circumstances a contractor may then accidentally disturb hidden rhizomes and fragment and spread them to other areas of the site, and possibly off site. This would significantly increase the scale of the problem, the cost of remediation and would be a breach environmental legislation.<br /> <br /> = Current solutions =<br /> <br /> Historically, ‘dig and dump’ was seen as the solution, where all infested soil was excavated, loaded into large lorries and taken to landfill. This is extremely costly, both to the client’s budget and the environment. Better and less expensive solutions are now used. <br /> <br /> A new method has been developed whereby the excavated soils are processed on site using purpose-designed and patented technology to separate and remove the knotweed rhizome from the soil. The offending rhizome is removed from site, and the processed soil re-used on site, to give zero waste to landfill.<br /> <br /> On larger development sites, there may be adequate space to excavate the infested soils from construction-critical areas, and stockpile the material on site for subsequent herbicide treatment over one or more growing seasons. This method can be cost effective but does require considerable space for the stockpile, so is often not feasible.<br /> <br /> On-site burial is a method referred to in the Environment Agency Code of Practice, whereby the infested soils are buried at depth within a membrane-lined cell. This method does contain the knotweed but should not be considered as an eradication technique, due to the fact that knotweed rhizome remains untreated on site; a rhizome which can lie dormant for up to twenty years. <br /> <br /> The best solution will be dependent upon site conditions, programme, cost and the developer's appetite for risk.<br /> <br /> It's important to ensure the knotweed company selected has the skills, experience and resources to completely eradicate the knotweed, as well as the financial stability to be able to honour any guarantees they may offer. It is advisable to check their credentials, their financial security and their trading record. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Products_/_components]]<br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Property_law]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]<br /> [[Category:Property_development]]</div>

Nicolas Seal https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Japanese_knotweed_identification_and_eradication 2012-09-25T13:18:05Z

<p>Nicolas Seal: Created page with &quot;= Japanese knotweed = == What is Japanese knotweed? == Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and h...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>= Japanese knotweed =<br /> <br /> == What is Japanese knotweed? ==<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed, the country’s most invasive weed, was imported into the UK around 1820. It grows very quickly and has now spread to every county of the UK. It is causing significant problems for owners and occupiers of affected land, and for developers and contractors on development land. The plant has an extensive root system that spreads horizontally to great depth. If the root system is not killed or removed in its entirety, it will continue to grow, infesting more land and exacerbating the problems it causes. <br /> <br /> == How is Japanese knotweed identified? ==<br /> <br /> Early identification of the plant is essential to prevent disturbance of ground within infested areas. Ground disturbance results in rapid spread of knotweed to other areas on or off site, which has significant legal ramifications. For accurate identification, search google pictures for ‘Japanese knotweed identification’. <br /> <br /> = Developing a site with Japanese knotweed =<br /> <br /> If a developer has a site infested with knotweed, then complete eradication of the knotweed should be the goal. This is not easy, but tried and tested methods do exist, and when undertaken correctly can provide the desired result. However developers should be wary, there are many pitfalls. The old adage ‘you get what you pay for’ applies to the knotweed eradication market. <br /> <br /> The legislation<br /> <br /> If a developer causes knotweed to be spread off site, they could find themselves at the wrong end of criminal proceedings under either [http://www.environetuk.com/japanese-knotweed-information/legislation.aspx the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ‘duty of care’.] Offences under these Acts, whether intentional or not, can result in significant fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences. <br /> <br /> == Eradication methods ==<br /> <br /> A number of eradication methods exist which suit different circumstances and which involve differing costs and levels of effectiveness.<br /> <br /> == Herbicide treatment ==<br /> <br /> If the ground is not going to be disturbed (which is rarely the case on a development site) and some limited regrowth is tolerable, then herbicide treatment will be the most cost effective method.<br /> <br /> Herbicide treatment is typically applied either as a foliar spray or by stem injection. There has much concern and discussion within the Japanese knotweed eradication industry. Discussion has centred on whether stem injection simply kills the above ground part of the plant, leaving the rhizome system in a state of temporary dormancy.<br /> <br /> However application by foliar spray is tried and tested, and if done correctly can kill knotweed. <br /> <br /> == Physical removal ==<br /> <br /> If the ground within an area of knotweed-infested land is likely to be disturbed, then herbicide treatment alone is unlikely to be sufficient and a physical removal method will be preferable.<br /> <br /> == Dormancy and the risk of accidental contamination ==<br /> <br /> Japanese knotweed has a particular characteristic known in the industry as ‘dormancy’ - the plant can be shocked into a state of temporary dormancy by herbicide application. It look as if the problem has been resolved at the surface, when in fact viable root rhizome remains in the ground, ready to resurface when the conditions are favourable to the plant.<br /> <br /> As Japanese knotweed roots can easily be at least 2m deep, and as the rhizomes spread laterally into areas which may appear unaffected, the risk is clear. In these circumstances a contractor may then accidentally disturb hidden rhizomes and fragment and spread them to other areas of the site, and possibly off site. This would significantly increase the scale of the problem, the cost of remediation and would be a breach environmental legislation.<br /> <br /> = Current solutions =<br /> <br /> Historically, ‘dig and dump’ was seen as the solution, where all infested soil was excavated, loaded into large lorries and taken to landfill. This is extremely costly, both to the client’s budget and the environment. Better and less expensive solutions are now used. <br /> <br /> A new method has been developed whereby the excavated soils are processed on site using purpose-designed and patented technology to separate and remove the knotweed rhizome from the soil. The offending rhizome is removed from site, and the processed soil re-used on site, to give zero waste to landfill.<br /> <br /> On larger development sites, there may be adequate space to excavate the infested soils from construction-critical areas, and stockpile the material on site for subsequent herbicide treatment over one or more growing seasons. This method can be cost effective but does require considerable space for the stockpile, so is often not feasible.<br /> <br /> On-site burial is a method referred to in the Environment Agency Code of Practice, whereby the infested soils are buried at depth within a membrane-lined cell. This method does contain the knotweed but should not be considered as an eradication technique, due to the fact that knotweed rhizome remains untreated on site; a rhizome which can lie dormant for up to twenty years. <br /> <br /> The best solution will be dependent upon site conditions, programme, cost and the developer's appetite for risk.<br /> <br /> It's important to ensure the knotweed company selected has the skills, experience and resources to completely eradicate the knotweed, as well as the financial stability to be able to honour any guarantees they may offer. It is advisable to check their credentials, their financial security and their trading record. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Products_/_components]]<br /> [[Category:Other_legislation]]<br /> [[Category:Property_law]]<br /> [[Category:Regulations]]<br /> [[Category:Client_procedures]]<br /> [[Category:Property_development]]</div>

Nicolas Seal