10 trinity square ecological impact assessment addendum

7/30/2019 10 Trinity Square Ecological Impact Assessment Addendum

1/178

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Client

THOMAS ENTERPRISES INC.

Project

10 TRINITY SQUARE

LONDON


2/178


3/178

Ecological ImpactAssessment

10 Trinity Square

12 February 2009

Final

Issue No 344407499


4/178


5/178

Ecological Impact Assessment10 Trinity Square

Project Title: Ecological Impact Assessment

Report Title: 10 Trinity Square

Project No: 44407499

Status: Revised Final

Client Company Name: Thomas Enterprises Inc

Issued By:URS Corporation Ltd.St Georges House5 St Georges RoadWimbledonLondon SW19 4DRUnited KingdomTel: + 44 (0) 20 8944 3300Fax: + 44 (0) 20 8944 3301www.urscorp.eu

Document Production / Approval Record

Issue No:1

Name Signature Date Position

Preparedby

Gemma Russell 12/02/2009 EcologicalConsultant

Checkedby

William Miles 12/02/2009 Senior EcologicalConsultant

Approvedby

Reece Fowler 12/02/2009 Principal

Document Revision Record


6/178


LIMITATION

URS Corporation Limited (URS) has prepared this Ecological Impact Assessment Report for the sole

use of Thomas Enterprises Inc in accordance with the agreement under which our services were

performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in

this Report or any other services provided by us. This Report may not be relied upon by any other

party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. Unless otherwise stated in this Report,

the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current

purpose without significant change. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Reportare based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information

has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested. Information obtained from third

parties has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report.

Where field investigations have been carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail

required to achieve the stated objectives of the services. The results of any measurements taken may

vary spatially or with time and further confirmatory measurements should be made after any significant

delay in using this Report.

COPYRIGHT

This Report is the copyright of URS Corporation Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage

by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.


7/178


CONTENTS

Section Page No

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 12. LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT .................................................... 22.1. Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 22.2. National Planning Policy .................................................................................................. 42.3. Regional Planning Policy ................................................................................................. 52.4. Local Planning Policy ....................................................................................................... 62.5. Biodiversity Action Plans.................................................................................................. 73. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY............................. 94. BASELINE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 114.1. Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 114.2. The Surrounding Area.................................................................................................... 124.3. The Site .......................................................................................................................... 194.4. Summary of Ecological Value ........................................................................................ 235. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................. 265.1. Deconstruction and Construction Impacts ..................................................................... 265.2. Operational Impacts ....................................................................................................... 276. RESIDUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 327. REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 338. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 368.1. Appendix A - Species List .............................................................................................. 368.2. Appendix B - Photographs ............................................................................................. 408.3. Appendix C - Arboricultural Survey ................................................................................ 42


8/178


9/178


1. INTRODUCTION

This report assesses the potential impacts of the proposed renovation of the former Port

London of Authority (PLA) building on Trinity Square (herein referred to as the Proposed

Development) on ecology and nature conservation. This report and the Ecological

Impact Assessment (EcIA) within it have been completed by URS Corporation Ltd (URS).

The report assesses the potential impacts to ecology through the deconstruction,construction and operational stages of the Proposed Development. Mitigation measures

have been incorporated to minimise or remove any negative impacts and to enhance the

local ecology of the site and the surrounding area.

This EcIA comprises:

A review of the national, regional and local ecological planning policy requirements,

and legislative context;

Collection and compilation of existing ecological data;

An assessment of the sites ecological importance with regards to specific ecological

receptors. A receptor is defined as an ecological component affected by a particular

action or stressor (Ref. 1). This will include an analysis of the potential of the site to

support protected species, or species of conservation significance;

Identification of impacts likely to have an adverse effect on ecological receptors; and

Recommendations for mitigation to minimise, or remove potential impacts as well as

measures to enhance local ecology where possible.


10/178


2. LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

This section reviews the legislation that is relevant to the protection of plants, animals and

habitats. In addition, the existing national, regional and local ecological planning policy

requirements within the City of London (CoL) are addressed.

2.1. Legislation

Legislation for protection of wildlife and ecology in the United Kingdom (UK) is described

in:

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) (as amended) (Ref. 2);

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW), (as amended) (Ref. 3);

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations, 1994 (as amended) otherwiseknown as the Habitat Regulations (Ref. 4);

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (Ref. 5);

and

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (Ref. 6).

In addition the following legislation is relevant to the Proposed Development:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (amended by Section 23 of the Planning and

Compensation Act 1991) (Ref. 7); and

Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 (Ref. 8).

2.1.1. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) (as amended)

The WCA is the major legal instrument for wildlife protection in the UK. This legislation isthe means by which the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and

Natural Habitats (the 'Bern Convention') (Ref. 9) and the European Union Directive on the

Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) (EC Birds Directive) (Ref. 10) are implemented

in the UK.


11/178


2.1.2. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 (CRoW) (as amended)

Part III of the CRoW deals specifically with wildlife protection and nature conservation. It

requires that Government departments have regard for the conservation of biodiversity, in

accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 (Ref. 11). In addition, it

demands that the Secretary of State publishes a list of living organisms and habitat types

that are considered to be of principal importance in conserving biodiversity.

The CRoW amends the WCA, by strengthening the protection of designated SSSIs. Inaddition, it increases the legal protection of threatened species, by also making it an

offence to recklessly destroy, damage or obstruct access to a sheltering place used by

an animal listed in Schedule 5 of the Act or recklessly disturb an animal occupying such

a structure or place.

2.1.3. Habitat Regulations 1994 (as amended)

The Habitat Regulations 1994 (as amended) transpose the European Union Directive onthe Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC) (EC Habitats Directive) (Ref.

12) into national law. The Habitat Regulations place a duty on the Secretary of State to

compile a list of sites considered to be important for habitats or species listed in Annexes

I and II of the EC Habitats Directive. Appropriate sites are identified as sites of

community importance, which are then designated as Special Areas of Conservation

(SACs). Any proposed development that may have a negative effect on a SAC or SPA,

collectively known as Natura 2000, should be assessed in relation to the sites

conservation objectives.

The Habitat Regulations assign a greater level of protection to a variety of native species

of plants and animals listed in Annex IV(a) of the EC Habitats Directive. These are known

as European Protected Species (EPS).

2.1.4. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007

These regulations address a number of gaps and inconsistencies in the transposition ofthe EC Habitats Directive and provide a greater legal certainty in a number of areas.

They simplify the species protection regime to better reflect the Habitats Directive,

provide a clear legal basis for surveillance and monitoring of EPS and toughen the

regime on trading EPS that are not native to the UK.


12/178


It also amends the CRoW, by further extending the requirement to have regard forbiodiversity to all public authorities, which includes local authorities and local planning

authorities. It also requires that the Secretary of State consults Natural England in the

publication of the list of living organisms and habitat types deemed to be of principal

importance in conserving biodiversity.

2.1.6. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning

(Trees) Regulations 1999

Both the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (amended by Section 23 of the Planning

and Compensation Act 1991) and the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations

1999 govern the protection of trees, groups of trees or woodlands for their amenity value,

through the designation of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).

A TPO makes it an offence to damage any protected tree(s), without having first received

permission from the Local Authority. In addition a TPO may make provision for securing

the replanting of any tree(s) damaged in the course of operations permitted by the order.

2.2. National Planning Policy

2.2.1. Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) (Ref. 13) details the Governments policies for the

conservation of Englands natural heritage, which embodies the Governments

commitment to sustainable development and the conservation of wildlife. The guidanceadvocates the protection of statutory designated sites and sites of particular nature

conservation importance (e.g. SSSIs).

The guidance also expresses the importance of compliance with the relevant nature

conservation and wildlife legislation and other key international obligations (e.g., WCA ,

CRoW, the Birds Directive 1979, and the Habitats Directive.

In the context of PPS9, biodiversity is the variety of life in all its forms as discussed in theUK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (Ref. 14). Geological conservation relates to sites that

are designated for their geology and/or geomorphological importance. PPS9 replaces

Planning Policy Guidance 9 (PPG9) (Ref. 15) and presents the key principles that

regional and local planning bodies should follow when considering biodiversity and

geodiversity. PPS9 lays down a number of provisions that Proposed Developments need


13/178


2.3. Regional Planning Policy

2.3.1. The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, 2008

This is the current iteration of the London Plan, "The London Plan (Consolidated with

Alterations since 2004)" (Ref. 17) and is the strategic spatial planning document for

London. This document has been produced after a series of alterations to the London

Plan originally published in 2004, including the Draft Further Alterations to the London

Plan published in 2006 (Ref. 18).

The London Plan endorses the protection of land of strategic importance for biodiversity

and stresses the requirement for development proposals to include new or enhanced

natural habitats, or design and landscaping that promotes biodiversity, the greening of the

built environment and associated provision for its management.

Policy 3D.14: Biodiversity and nature conservation suggests that opportunities should

be taken to create, enhance and manage wildlife habitat to achieve positive gains forconservation. It also states that Development Plan Documents (DPDs) should identify

areas deficient in accessible wildlife sites, such that the priority for developments is given

to sites near to such areas. In addition, it is important that biodiversity is protected in

areas where habitat restoration and re-creation would be appropriate to achieve the aims

of the London Habitat Action Plans (HAPs). These areas are identified within the London

Plan.

Of particular relevance in regards to Seething Lane Garden, this policy also states that:

Where development is proposed which would affect a site of importance for nature

conservation or important species, the approach should be to seek to avoid adverse

impact on the species or nature conservation value of the site, and if that is not possible,

to minimise such impact and seek mitigation of any residual impacts. Where,

exceptionally, development is to be permitted because the reasons for it are judged to

outweigh significant harm to nature conservation, appropriate compensation should be

sought.

Policy 3D.12i: Trees and woodland states that the Mayor and the boroughs should

protect, maintain and enhance trees and woodland in support of the London Tree and

Woodland Framework.


14/178


2.3.2. Mayors Biodiversity Strategy 2002

The Mayors Biodiversity Strategy 2002 (Ref. 19) details the Mayor's vision for protecting

and conserving London's natural open spaces. The strategy aims to:

Ensure that people have access to nature by creating new green spaces, improving

existing ones and encouraging people to visit less well-known places;

Protect wildlife habitats, stating that sites which are important for natureconservation should not be built on;

Encourage businesses to incorporate green design into their development

proposals; and

Protect London's most vulnerable wildlife, for example, bats and birds.

2.4. Local Planning Policy

The City of London (CoL) Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (Ref. 20) is the adopted

planning policy for the City and together with the London Plan forms the development

plan for the area. The CoL is preparing a new plan called the Local Development

Framework (LDF), which will eventually supersede the UDP. The most important policy

document in the LDF will be the Core Strategy. The City is consulting the public in the

preparation of the Core Strategy and the next stage of consultation will be held in Spring

2009. The Core Strategy Preferred Options document (Ref. 21) was published in 2007.It indicates the vision for the LDF and is therefore also relevant here.

2.4.1. City of London Unitary Development Plan (UDP), 2002

Seething Lane Garden is recognised as a Soft Open Space in the CoL UDP Proposals

Map. Policies within the CoL UDP that concern biodiversity and conservation, and

particularly sites of ecological importance, are outlined below.

STRAT 5B addresses the need to have regard to nature conservation in the

management of open spaces throughout the City, thereby contributing to the

environmental quality of central London. The CoL will seek to protect and enhance

nature conservation resources generally throughout the City.

Policy REC3 states that the CoL will have regard to nature conservation in the design


15/178


can help in the reduction of noise and air pollution. Well-sited trees can also providegreen corridors and stepping stone habitats for wildlife movements.

Policy ENV12 states that development in Conservation Areas will be permitted only if it

preserves or enhances the special architectural or historic character or appearance of the

conservation area. Open space, trees and areas of planting can play a central role in the

character of an area (Ref. 22).

2.4.2. The Core Strategy Preferred Options, 2007

There are two issues of relevance, specifically Issue 15: Open Spaces and Issue 20:

Biodiversity. The following paragraph details the preferred option for Issue 15:

To actively seek more open spaces on under-used highways and on development sites

and to take opportunities to link up existing open spaces. Development proposals will be

required to look at ways to enhance or integrate open spaces within their proposals

where this is appropriate to the surrounding environment.

It is recognised that open spaces in the City enhance biodiversity, particularly if there are

a variety of native plants that are resistant to the impacts of climate change. The

following paragraph details the preferred option for Issue 20:

To require development proposals to include landscaping and other ecological features,

such as green roofs and vertical habitats, which contribute towards protecting, managing

and enhancing local biodiversity. These features should be designed to take account of

the impacts of anticipated climate change.

Issue 20 acknowledges that, due to the pressure for development in the City, there are

three main challenges that planning policies must aim to meet in terms of biodiversity:

Protection of the existing habitats and species;

Management of local habitats; and

Enhancement of biodiversity through the creation of new habitats.

2.5. Biodiversity Action Plans

A key outcome of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 is a requirement by the


16/178


65 habitats and has been formally adopted. The priority actions for these habitats andspecies have yet to be defined.

Priority Species listed in the UKBAP include the water vole (Arvicola terrestris), great

crested newt (Triturus cristatus), stag beetle (Lucanus cervus), soprano pipistrelle

(Pipistrellus pygmaeus) and several other important species. The UKBAP is also

relevant in the context of Section 74 of the CRoW Act, 2000 (as amended) and Section

41 of the NERC, meaning that Priority Species and Habitats are material considerations

in planning.

2.5.2. London Biodiversity Action Plan

The London Biodiversity Partnership was established in 1996 in response to the UKBAP.

The Partnership aims to protect and enhance the capital's habitats and species and has

produced 31 Action Plans. Priority species include the black redstart, peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus) and Londons bats, including the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus

pipistrellus) and soprano pipistrelle, which are the two most common species in Londonand occur in all London Boroughs (Ref. 11-23).

2.5.3. The City Biodiversity Action Plan

In order to develop The City Biodiversity Action Plan, the CoL set up a steering group in

early 2002. The City BAP (Ref. 24) contains an HAP and SAP that should be considered

here; these are City Gardens, Vertical Habitats, the House Sparrow and Black Redstart.

A key aim of the City Gardens HAP is to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the Citys

small public gardens, churchyards and squares, particularly those designated as Sites of

Borough or Local Importance for Nature Conservation. The Vertical Habitats HAP

explains the importance of creating new habitats in densely developed areas by utilising

the building surfaces, for example on walls, terraces, balconies, fences, window boxes

and in particular, roofs.

The SAPs for the house sparrow and black redstart aim to promote the importance ofthese species in the City and enhance habitats where possible to encourage its

population.


17/178


3. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The methodology used to assess the significance of impacts on ecological receptors is

based on the Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) EcIA

guidelines published in July 2006 (Ref. 25). This guidance follows a biodiversity

approach to impact assessment (i.e. rather than relying solely on the legal protection of a

habitat or species to characterise geological extent), with other factors such as

abundance and rarity also considered.

The assessment method uses a process of assigning values to the identified ecological

features and resources, predicting and characterising ecological impacts and, through

this process, determining significance of potential impacts on ecological receptors.

The value of ecological receptors has been assigned following a standard geographic

frame of reference. An ecological resource or feature is considered to be valuable (or

have potential value) at the following scale:

International;

National (i.e., England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales);

Regional;

County or Sub-Regional;

District (or Unitary Authority, City or Borough);

Local or Parish; and/or

Within immediate zone of influence only.

Each impact has a number of characteristics that need to be fully described before

significance can be assessed. A number of factors need to be considered whendescribing and assessing impacts, which include:

Confidence of predictions;

Extent;


18/178


Each impact is then assessed against each receptor to evaluate the geographical level atwhich it is significant. For example, a resource of County value may be acted on by an

identified impact, so that effects are only noticeable at a Parish level and do not affect the

resource at a County level. Accordingly, the level at which an impact is deemed

significant determines the mitigation or compensation required.

Table 1 has been taken from the Guidance on the New Approach To Appraisal (NATA)

(Ref. 26) and outlines how the significance of each impact will be described.

Table 1: Impact Significance Criteria

Impact Significance Criteria

Major Adverse Impact Where the proposals may adversely affect the integrity of a feature,

in terms of the coherence of its ecological structure and function that

enables it to sustain the complex of habitats and/or the population

levels of species for which it is valued.

Moderate Adverse Impact Where the features integrity will not be adversely affected, but theeffects on the feature are likely to be significant in terms of its

ecological objectives (with reference to BAP or Local Plan).

Minor Adverse Impact If neither of the above apply, but some minor negative impact is

expected.

Negligible Impact No expected impact.

Minor Beneficial Impact Where improvements provide general wildlife gain through, for

example new design features (hedges, ponds etc).

Moderate Beneficial Impact Where there is an expected net positive wildlife gain at the

regional/metropolitan level, for example by significantly aiding the

achievement of UK BAP objectives through provision of substantial

new habitat.

Major Beneficial Impact Where there is an expected net positive wildlife gain at the national

level, for example by significantly aiding the achievement of UK BAP

objectives through provision of substantial new habitat.


19/178


4. BASELINE CONDITIONS

4.1. Data Collection

Baseline ecological data was obtained through the following methods:

A data-search for species and habitat records within a 2 kilometre (km) radius of the

site was commissioned from Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL)(Ref 27);

Two extended Phase 1 habitat surveys were carried out by URS; and

An Arboricultural Survey was completed by Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy

(Ref. 28, Appendix C).

In addition, the assessment has taken into consideration the Landscape and Public

Realm Approach from Capita Lovejoy, which will be submitted as an accompanying

document to the planning application.

4.1.1. Desk Study

A desk study was undertaken for the site and involved an ecological data search for

information on statutory sites, species records, habitat or open space information held by

GiGL, for the site and the surrounding land to a 2km radius. This report highlights the

most important ecological features in the surrounding area, focusing on designated sites

and protected species.

Species records held by GiGL were obtained from a broad range of surveys, including

public and species-specific surveys and formal surveys carried out by the Greater London

Authority (GLA). Only records of protected and notable species dated within the last 10

years were considered in the baseline review.

4.1.2. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

URS carried out an extended Phase 1 habitat survey of the Proposed Development site

on 3rd

September 2008. An additional survey visit was then carried out on 15th

October

2008. The surveys followed the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Phase 1

S G id li (R f 31) difi d i 1995 b th I tit t f E i t l


20/178


D Dominant;

A Abundant;

F Frequent;

O Occasional; and

R Rare.

In addition locally (L) was also appended where appropriate to any of the above five

categories to reflect a local distribution. It should be recognised that this scale represents

relative abundance within each habitat type, rather than regional or national abundances.

Incidental faunal observations were also recorded during the survey. The first survey visit

was carried out within the optimal period for habitat surveys (April to September). Access

was obtained to all external areas of the site during this survey, excluding the internal

courtyard within the former PLA building. This courtyard was accessed during thesubsequent survey visit. The second survey was conducted just outside the

recommended survey window, however the predominantly ornamental nature of planting

within this area meant that this is not considered to be a significant limitation to the survey

results.

4.1.3. Arboricultural Survey

An Arboricultural Survey was carried out in September 2008 in accordance with BS 5837Trees in Relation to Construction 2005 (Ref. 30). Each tree was assessed against a

quality and value grade classification according to the Cascade Chart for Tree Quality

Assessment within BS 5837.

A report has been issued that details the findings of this survey and provides

recommendations for tree removal and retention and identifies constraints relating to the

Proposed Development. This evidence comprises Arboricultural Stage 1 of the

development process.

4.2. The Surrounding Area

The Proposed Development site does not fall within the boundaries of any statutory or

non statutory sites Statutory sites include National Nature Reserves (NNR) Local


21/178


4.2.1. Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation

Only one SMINC is within 2km of the Proposed Development site, which is the River

Thames and Tidal Tributaries (M031 on Figure 1), located approximately 325m to the

south. MO31 is valued as a wildlife corridor and for the variety of habitats, including

saltmarsh, reed bed and running water, which support many valuable fish and bird

species. In addition, the river walls provide feeding areas for black redstarts.

4.2.2. Sites of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation

There are seven Grade II SBINCs within the search area. The following two are located

within 1km of the site.

London Wall and the Wall of the Tower of London (THBII07 on Figure 1) is located

about 100m to the southeast of the Proposed Development site. These walls support

perhaps the only remaining long-established population of London rocket (Sisymbrium

irio), in addition to a variety of other species, including prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola).There is free public access to this SBINC.

Pinchin Street Disused Railway (THBII11 on Figure 1) is around 880m to the east of

the Proposed Development site. This disused section of rail land is comprised mostly of

grassland, with scattered butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii) and wildflowers, which is likely

to be of value to invertebrates. There is no public access to this SBINC.

4.2.3. Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation

The following eight SLINCs are located within 1km of the Proposed Development site:

Pepys Garden, Seething Lane and St. Olaves Churchyard (CiL01 on Figure 1) falls

partly within the Proposed Development site.

Pepys Garden, which is hereafter referred to as Seething Lane Garden, occurs entirely

within the Proposed Development site. It is a secluded garden, which is similar to some

of the smaller garden squares in the West End. It contains a number of mature trees, a

border of shrubbery around the perimeter and a beech (Fagus sylvatica) hedge along the

southern edge. In the centre of the garden there is a lawn. There is no reference to the

fauna of Seething Lane Garden; however it is stated that blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus)

nest in air vents in a building to the east of Seething Lane Garden. Further details


22/178


London plane (Planatus x hispanica), wide lawns, tall hedges and shrubs and supportsbreeding birds. The grounds are open to the public.

Finsbury Circus (CiL07 on Figure 1) is the oldest public park in London, located about

650m to the north of the site, and provides mature trees and a shrubbery around the

perimeter, wide lawns and flowerbeds. The park is very popular in the summer.

Blackbirds (Turdus merula) nest in the square and blue tits (Parus caeruleus) can often

be seen foraging.


23/178


Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR12/02/2009

Page 15

Revised Final

Figure 1: Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation


24/178


Swedenburg Gardens (THL08 on Figure 1) is a small, public and well-used park,located around 1km to the east of the Proposed Development site. This SLINC contains

native trees such as hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and shrubs including dog-rose (Rosa

canina), in addition to common wild flowers and mown grass.

Hermitage Basin (THL14 on Figure 1) is a relic from the London Docks around 1km to

the southeast of the Proposed Development site. It is a dock of open water with vertical

brick walls and aquatic species including white water-lily (Nymphaea alba). A small

floating raft provides nesting opportunities for coots (Fulica atra).

St. Katharines Dock (THL15 on Figure 1) is a very popular marina approximately 425m

southeast of the Proposed Development site supporting small numbers of waterfowl,

including the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Less frequent avian visitors include an

occasional kingfisher (Alcedo atthis).

Wellclose Street Rough (THL18 on Figure 1) is an attractive but inaccessible wild area

of trees, scrub and wildflowers located approximately 950m to the east of the ProposedDevelopment site.

Snowsfield Primary School Nature Garden (SoL32 on Figure 1) is a sizable nature

garden approximately 1km to the south of the Proposed Development site. It contains

scrub, rough grassland and a hedge and a diversity of native trees and shrubs, including

silver birch (Betula pendula), alder (Alnus glutinosa) and hawthorn (Crataegus

monogyna).

4.2.4. Protected and Notable Species

There are relatively few records of protected and notable species from the surrounding

2km area. This can be attributed to the Proposed Development sites location in a well-

built up area.

4.2.4.1. Birds

The Proposed Development site is located within the boundaries of the black redstart

Known Key Area (Figure 2). There are also records of black redstarts within 2km of the

Proposed Development site, including a single record within 500m to the east of the

Proposed Development site during 2005. In 2001, the London Wildlife Trust's Biological

Recording Project (now superseded by GiGL) produced a map showing the distribution of


25/178


4.2.4.2. Bats

The London Bat Group holds no records of bat roosts within the surrounding 2km area.

There is only a single bat record within the last 10 years; a Daubentons bat was recorded

over 1km to the southwest of the Proposed Development site in 1999.

E l i l I A


26/178



Page 18Revised Final

Figure 2: Black Redstart Key Areas

E l i l I t A t


27/178


4.2.4.3. Herpetofauna and Invertebrates

There are five stag beetle (Lucanus cervus) records from the surrounding 2km area; two

of these occur within 1km to the southeast. There are no records from the Proposed

Development site itself. There is a single herpetofaunal record from the surrounding

area. A common frog (Rana temporaria) was also recorded beyond 1km from the

Proposed Development site in 1999.

4.3. The Site4.3.1. Land Use

The Proposed Development site contains the vacant former PLA building to the east,

Seething Lane Garden to the west and a road named Seething Gardens between the

two. Seething Lane Garden is a small and well-used green space with planted trees,

shrubs and well-managed lawns (Appendix B, Plates 1 and 2). The planting within this

garden is overcrowded and is suffering from a lack of light. The Proposed Developmentsite is located in a commercial district in the CoL.

4.3.2. Habitats and Flora

The following Phase 1 habitat types were recorded during the extended Phase 1 habitat

survey, which are described below and mapped in Figure 3:

Scattered broadleaved trees;

Dense scrub;

Scattered scrub;

Tall ruderal;

Amenity grassland;

Ephemeral/short perennial;

Introduced shrub;

Species-poor hedgerow;

Ecological Impact Assessment


28/178


albidum), false acacia (Robinia pseudacacia) (Appendix B, Plate 3), maidenhair (Gingko

biloba) (Appendix B, Plate 4), magnolia (Magnolia spp.), and black mulberry (Morus

nigra) trees. There are also a number of other younger non-native trees, including

Cheals weeping cherry (Prunus serrulata) and Norway maple (Acer platanoides).

The Arboricultural Survey report states that the majority of the trees have been

characterised as either Grade B or C trees, being either of moderate retention or low

retention priority, respectively. It also states that many of the trees are either past their

best or are failing to thrive. However, it should be recognised that both the sassafrastree and group of maidenhair trees (Appendix B, Plate 4) are classed as Grade A and are

therefore of high retention priority.

The majority of the trees within the internal courtyard are also exotics. Young Japanese

maple (Acer palmatum), American tulip (Liriodendron tulipifera) and ornamental plum

(Prunus spp.) trees were recorded. Two young hazels (Corylus avellana) were also

noted.

4.3.2.2. Dense Scrub

Ivy provides dense ground cover within the internal courtyard.

4.3.2.3. Scattered Scrub

There are occasional stands of native scattered scrub within the garden; holly (Ilex

acquifolium) and buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) were recorded. Laburnum (Laburnum

sp.) was also noted. Clipped common box (Buxus sempervirens) scrub was also noted

along path edges within the internal courtyard.

4.3.2.4. Tall Ruderal

There are a number of opportunistic ruderal species growing in cracks in the pavement

along Seething Gardens in the absence of management. Canadian fleabane (Conyza

Canadensis) was frequent and common chickweed (Stellaria media) and wall lettuce

(Mycelis muralis) were also recorded amongst a number of others. Canadian fleabanealso grows in areas of bare ground within the internal courtyard, in addition to a few

stands of spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and butterfly bush.

4.3.2.5. Amenity Grassland



29/178


(Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.) and ladys mantle (Alchemilla vulgaris)

were all noted.

4.3.2.7. Introduced Shrubs

Introduced shrubs have been planted around the edges of Seething Lane Garden.

Japanese aralia (Fatsia japonica), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), euonymous

(Euonymous spp), skimmia (Skimmia japonica), tree hollyhock (Hibiscus syriacus Blue

Bird) and ornamental roses (Rosa spp.) were recorded.

The majority of planting within the internal courtyard comprises introduced shrubs. A

variety of shrub species were recorded, including Japanese aralia, spotted laurel (Aucuba

japonica Variegata), Oregon grape, euonymous, Fuschia (Fuschia magellanica),

cotoneaster (Cotoneaster horizontalis), Adams needle (Yucca filamentosa) and

hydrangea (Hydrangea macrophylla).

4.3.2.8. Species-Poor Hedgerow

There is a beech (Fagus sylvatica) hedgerow along the southern boundary of the garden.

4.3.2.9. Other Habitat Types

The site contains a single building, the former PLA building, which is surrounded by

pavements and roads. There is also an internal courtyard, which is partially covered in

hardstanding and cobble. Metal fencing surrounds Seething Lane Garden.

4.3.3. Target Notes

1. Tall ruderal vegetation growing in cracks between the pavement and the road in the

absence of management.

2. Disused birds nest in ornamental plum tree; and

3. Disused birds nest in false acacia tree.

4.3.4. Fauna

The following species were recorded frequently throughout the survey of Seething Lane

Garden:



30/178



Page 22Revised Final

Figure 3: Phase 1 Habitat Map



31/178


4.4. Summary of Ecological Value

4.4.1. Designated Sites

While there are a total of 11 SINCs in the surrounding 1km area, the Proposed

Development could only impact one of these, Pepys Garden, Seething Lane and St.

Olaves Churchyard SLINC. Seething Lane Garden falls entirely within part of the

Proposed Development site, while the other portion of this SLINC, St. Olaves

Churchyard, is approximately 20m to the west, on the opposite side of Seething Lane.

Seething Lane Garden would be subject to direct impacts resulting from the clearance of

this garden to allow for the creation of basement levels. The proximity of St. Olaves

Churchyard to the Proposed Development site means that it would be sensitive to

impacts arising during the deconstruction and construction phases of the Proposed

Development. Potential impacts on this SLINC will therefore be considered further.

The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMINC, at approximately 325m to the south, is

considered to be too far from the Proposed Development site to be impacted by any

potential spills, contaminated runoff or dust created during deconstruction and

construction and as such is not considered further.

The other previously identified SINCs would not be subject to impacts associated with

any aspect of the Proposed Development for the following reasons. London Wall and the

Wall of the Tower of London SBINC is the closest of these SINCs at approximately 100m

to the southeast. The Proposed Development would not have the potential to adverselyaffect the rare population of London rocket growing on the walls, which is the SBINCs

key interest feature. Furthermore, although this SBINC is open to the public, its urban

location means that it is already subject to high visitor numbers, meaning that additional

users would not adversely affect this SBINC during the operation of the Proposed

Development. This follows for the other SINCs in the surrounding area, including the

River Thames and Tidal Tributaries, St. Katharines Dock and St. Botolphs Bishopsgate

Church Grounds. These SINCs are sufficiently far from the Proposed Development site

and are buffered by dense development to ensure that no significant adverse impactscould potentially arise during deconstruction and construction.

4.4.2. Existing Trees

The trees within Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard are exotics and are



32/178

g p10 Trinity Square

also located within Trinity Square Conservation Area, meaning that the CoL will

safeguard the trees within Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard.

4.4.3. Bats

All bat species are fully protected under the WCA, CRoW and Habitat Regulations, which

make it an offence to intentionally or deliberately capture, kill or injure or disturb bats

(whether in a roost or not), and intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct

access to their roosts. Soprano pipistrelles are a Priority Species under the UKBAP and

all of Londons bats are listed in the London and Local BAPs.

While there are a number of mature trees within Seething Lane Gardens, it is considered

that these do not hold any potential to support bats, due to the lack of potentially suitable

roosting opportunities, such as cracks and holes. The former PLA building is currently

vacant, but is also not considered to provide suitable roosting opportunities. The majority

of the faades are concrete and therefore provide no points of access; the top floor has a

slated faade, but there are no roof spaces. Furthermore, the GiGL data search for the

Proposed Development site and surrounding 2km area reveals a lack of bat activity in this

location. Similarly, the Proposed Development site would not be considered to provide

foraging opportunities for bats due to its isolated location within an urban environment.

Bats are therefore unlikely to be impacted by the Proposed Development.

4.4.4. Black Redstarts

The black redstart is a red list BoCC on the London BAP and as such is of particular

importance. This species is listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA and so receives more

stringent protection than most wild birds. They are rare breeding birds in Britain, with 80-

100 pairs breeding in the UK (Ref. 34). Populations are concentrated in urban areas,

particularly in Greater London and Birmingham and the Black Country. In London, they

are distributed along the River Thames east of the River Wandle and along the River Lee.

The site falls within the black redstart Key Known Area, however there is currently no

suitable foraging or nesting habitat for this species. In Europe, black redstarts aretypically associated with rocky mountainous terrain and cliffs. In London black redstarts

have taken advantage of alternative habitats provided by industrial sites and post-

industrial brownfield land. Proximity to open water, such as the River Thames, provides

insect food, such as midges and gnats. A combination of stony bare ground, sparsely

vegetated areas and a complexity of structures are the preferred habitat (Ref 35) While



33/178

10 Trinity Square

The trees and shrubs on site provide a suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds and

BoCC. For example, the house sparrow has been recorded on the site, which is a red list

BoCC and is listed on the UK, London and Westminster BAPs. The starling has also

been recorded on the site. It is also a red list BoCC and is listed on the UKBAP. The

breeding bird assemblage is of local value due to the lack of green spaces in the

surrounding area and the presence of BAP species during the habitat survey.

The former PLA building was also considered to hold nesting potential. Ledges on the

building have been netted and it is assumed that this was to prevent birds from roosting

and nesting. However, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that nesting

opportunities still exist on this building, particularly for species such as the feral pigeon

and woodpigeon that were recorded in Seething Lane Garden during the habitat survey.

Other species such as blue tits could also nest in air vents on the sides of the building.

Potential impacts on breeding birds will therefore be considered further.

4.4.6. Summary

Ecological receptors are listed in Table 2 below. The value of each receptor has also

been identified according to a standard geographic scale.

Table 2: Ecological Receptors

Ecological Receptor Geographical Scale of Importance

Pepys Garden, Seething Lane and St. OlavesChurchyard SLINC

Local

Existing Trees Local

Black Redstarts Local

Breeding Birds Local



34/178

10 Trinity Square

5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

This section addresses the potential ecological impacts associated with the Proposed

Development. Different stages of construction and operation may produce different

levels or types of impact. With this in mind, deconstruction and construction impacts are

considered separately to impacts caused during the operation of the development. All

potential impacts and mitigation measures are fully assessed in Table 3 below.

5.1. Deconstruction and Construction Impacts

5.1.1. Pepys Garden, Seething Lane and St. Olaves Churchyard SLINC

The Proposed Development involves the clearance of Seething Lane Garden, to allow for

the construction of 45 basement parking spaces underneath the garden. Furthermore,

St. Olaves Churchyard could potentially be impacted by noise, light and dust as a result

of the Proposed Development. This SLINC will therefore be subject to significant indirectand direct impacts.

Seething Lane Garden, the existing open space to the immediate west of 10 Trinity

Square, will be re-landscaped to a new design by Capita Lovejoy in consultation with the

City of London. Details regarding the Landscape and Public Realm Approach are given

below in Section 5.2.1. Lighting levels will be minimised and directed away from St

Olaves Churchyard. Hoarding will be erected throughout the duration of deconstruction

and construction works and work hours on the site will be restricted. All measures tomitigate the impacts of deconstruction and construction will be implemented through the

Construction Method Statement (CMS) (Ref. 36). Considering that Seething Lane

Gardens will be re-landscaped, it is expected that significant adverse impacts will be

mitigated in the long-term.

5.1.2. Existing Trees

All of the existing trees within Seething Lane Gardens and the internal courtyard will beremoved during the course of site clearance works. The latter is required in order to re-

construct the rotunda. The loss of these trees will be mitigated through the planting of

structural trees and smaller scale trees within Seething Lane Gardens. Details regarding

the Landscape and Public Realm Approach are outlined below in Section 5.2.1.

Ecological Impact Assessment10 T i it S


35/178

10 Trinity Square

If the Proposed Development site is left dormant for two weeks or more during the

deconstruction and construction phases; and within the bird-breeding season (March to

July inclusive), then an experienced ornithologist will be brought on to the site to check

for the presence of nesting black redstarts. If any active nests are found, then

deconstruction and construction will cease and an appropriate buffer zone will be

established in discussion with Natural England. This will comprise a circular area with a 5

metre radius that will be left intact until it has been confirmed by an experienced

ornithologist that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use.

5.1.4. Breeding Birds

The removal of the trees and shrubs on site and the renovation of the former PLA

building during the bird-breeding season could potentially disturb, injure or kill nesting

birds and lead to the loss of their nests and young, thereby contravening the WCA. This

will also result in the loss of bird nesting habitat.

Site clearance and any external renovation work will ideally be carried out outside of the

bird-breeding season, i.e. between August and February inclusive. However, should this

not be practical, and if it is necessary to undertake these works between the months of

March to July inclusive, then a survey for all nesting birds will be undertaken by an

experienced ornithologist, prior to the commencement of these works, to check for the

presence/absence of any birds nests.

In addition, if the site is left dormant between March and July, measures will be taken to

ensure that no nests are established. However, if any active nests are found, thenclearance activities will cease, the tree(s) or building with the nests will be left in situ and

an appropriate buffer zone, in consultation with Natural England, will be established. This

area will be left intact until it has been confirmed that the young have fledged and the

nest is no longer in use.

Nesting opportunities will be provided within the re-landscaped Seething Lane Garden,

through the planting of trees and shrubs and the installation of a range of different bird

boxes. Further details regarding the landscaping strategy can be found in Section 5.2.1.

5.2. Operational Impacts

There are no potentially adverse impacts associated with the operation of the Proposed

Development The Landscape and Public Realm Approach has incorporated features


36/178


37/178



38/178

10 Trinity Square

5.2.1. Landscaping and Habitat Enhancement

The Landscape Strategyby Capita-Lovejoys provides the design approach for the new

Seething Lane Garden. However, this Strategy is subject to further consultation with the

CoL. Further details can be found in Capita-Lovejoys report submitted as part of the

planning application. Native species will be selected where possible to provide habitat for

our native wildlife, including invertebrates, birds and mammals, and therefore maximise

biodiversity.

5.2.1.1. Planting

It is proposed that small to medium sized street trees be planted along the western edge

of the garden. These trees would shade the garden in the summer and provide good

nesting and foraging opportunities for birds, in addition to habitat for invertebrates. They

also provide good locations to install bird boxes (see Section 5.2.1.4. below). Native

species such as field maple (Acer campestre) will be selected where possible. The

ground under the street trees could be planted with spring bulbs such as daffodils

(Narcissus pseudonarcissus), snowdrops (Galanthus nivalis).

Single species native hedges will be planted to provide cover and foraging habitat for

birds and create natural boundaries between different garden areas. Suggested species

include holly (Ilex aquifolium) and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus).

A wilderness garden will also be created within the southern portion of the garden that will

employ mainly native species and create habitat for birds and invertebrates. Multi-

stemmed shrubs and trees will be planted, using species such as rowan (Sorbus

aucuparia) and hazel (Corylus avellana). A range of species will be used to create a field

layer underneath the trees and shrubs, to provide habitat for bees, butterflies and other

insects and therefore food for birds. Native species, such as bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-

scripta), primrose (Primula vulgaris) and wood anemone (Anemone nemorosa), will be

selected as appropriate. The northern portion of the garden will be more formal,

containing a lawn area for people to enjoy in the summer.

Two green walls will also be incorporated into the garden, using climbers planted at

ground level and encouraged to grow over trellising. The north-facing wall on the

southern pavilion will be in shade for much of the year and so will be planted with species

such as ivy (Hedera helix) and winter jasmine (Jasminum nudiflorum). The south-facing

wall on the northern pavilion will be in sun for a large part of the year and planted with



39/178

10 Trinity Square

feeders and a bird bath will also be incorporated into the garden, to further encourage

birds to visit the site.



40/178

y q

6. RESIDUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The residual impacts on black redstarts and breeding birds will be Negligible, due to the

employment of mitigation measures during the deconstruction and construction of the

Proposed Development and the creation of bird nesting habitat within the re-landscaping

of Seething Lane Garden.

The residual impacts on existing trees and Pepys Garden, Seething Lane and St. Olaves

Churchyard SLINC will be Minor Adverse in the short term, but Negligible to Minor

Beneficial in the medium to long-term. Seething Lane Garden will be larger post-

development and will incorporate native planting where possible. The planting of native

trees within this garden will, in the medium to long-term, mitigate for the loss of mature

trees required during site clearance. This is because it will take time for new trees to

become established and to mature. It is also considered that Seething Lane Garden will,

in the long-term, be of greater ecological value than the existing gardens. This is

because the re-landscaping of Seething Lane Garden will bring about the replacement ofprincipally ornamental planting with native species, including a the wilderness garden to

the south of the site that has been set aside to provide wildlife habitat.



41/178

y q

7. REFERENCES

Ref. 1 Treweek, J. (1999), Ecological Impact Assessment. Blackwell Science.

Ref. 2 Department of the Environment (DoE) (1981), The Wildlife and Countryside

Act (as amended).

Ref 3 DoE (2000), The Countryside and Rights of Way Act.

Ref 4 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1994),

Conservation (Natural Habitats &) Regulations.

Ref. 5 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2007),

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations.

Ref. 6 DEFRA (2006), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act.

Ref. 7 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (1990), Town & Country

Planning Act.

Ref. 8 DETR (1999), The Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations. HMSO.

London.

Ref. 9 Council of Europe (1979), Convention on the Conservation of European

Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). Council of Europe.

Ref. 10 Council of Europe (1979), Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on

the Conservation of Wild Birds.

Ref. 11 United Nations (UN) (1992), Convention on Biological Diversity.

Ref. 12 European Community (1992), Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the

Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Ref. 13 ODPM (2005), Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9) Biodiversity and

Geological Conservation.

Ref. 14 United Kingdom (UK) Biodiversity Partnership (1992), UK Biodiversity

Action Plan UK Biodiversity Partnership



42/178

Ref. 18 GLA (2006), Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan: Spatial

Development Strategy for Greater London.

Ref. 19 GLA (2002), Connecting with Londons Nature: The Mayors Biodiversity

Strategy.

Ref. 20 Corporation of London (2002), City of London Unitary Development Plan

(UDP).

Ref. 21 The City of London, (2007), City of London Local Development Framework(LDF) Core Strategy, Preferred Options.

Ref. 22 City of London, (1994), Conservation Areas in the City of London A

General Introduction to their Character.

Ref. 23 London Biodiversity Partnership, (2004), London Biodiversity Action Plan.

GLA. London.

Ref. 24 Corporation of London, (2003), City of London Biodiversity Action Plan.

London.

Ref. 25 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2006),

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom.

Ref. 26 DETR (1998), Guidance on the New Approach To Appraisal (NATA).

Ref. 27 Greenspace Information for Greater London, (2007), An Ecological DataSearch produced on behalf of URS Corporation Ltd. London.

Ref. 28 Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy, (2008), Ten Trinity (Trees at

Seething Gardens). Prepared for Thomas Enterprises Inc.

Ref. 29 Captiva Lovejoy, (2009); Landscape Strategy Addendum Report. Captiva

Lovejoy.

Ref. 30 British Standards Institute (2005), British Standard (BS5837): Trees in

Relation to Construction.

Ref. 31 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), (1993), Handbook for Phase

1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit revised reprint 2003



43/178

Ref. 35 London Biodiversity Partnership (2006), Species Action Plan: Black

Redstart. London Biodiversity Partnership, London.

Ref. 36 Bruce Shaw, (2008). Thomas Enterprises Inc. 10 Trinity Square

Construction Method Statement.



44/178

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR

12/02/2009 Page 36Revised Final

8. APPENDICES

8.1. Appendix A - Species List

Native Common Name Latin Name ST DS SS TR AG ESP IS PH

N Azara Azara microphylla R

N Himalayan tree cotoneaster Cotoneaster frigidus R

N Sassafras Sassafras albidum R

N Norway maple Acer platanoides O

N Maidenhair Ginkgo biloba F

N Magnolia Magnolia spp. F

N Killarney strawberry tree Arbutus unedo O

N Honey locust Gleditsia tricanthos O

N Golden rain tree Koelreuteria paniculata R

N Cherry, Sato-Zakura group Prunus spp. R

N Cheals weeping cherry Prunus serrulata R

N Black mulberry Morus nigra O

N Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia O

N Japanese maple Acer palmatum R



45/178


12/02/2009 Page 37Revised Final

N American tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera R

Y Hazel Corylus avellana O

N Ornamental plum Prunus spp. O

Y Ivy Hedera helix D

N Laburnum Laburnum spp. O

Y Holly Ilex acquifolium R

Y Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartic O

Y Common box Buxus sempervirens A

N Canadian fleabane Conyza Canadensis F

Y Common chickweed Stellaria media R

N Butterfly bush Buddleia davidii R

N American willowherb Epilobium ciliatum R

Y Annual meadow grass Poa annua O

Y Wall lettuce Mycelis muralis R

Y Smooth sow thistle Sonchus oleraceus O

Y Procumbent pearlwort Sagina procumbens R

Y Broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum O

Y Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare R



46/178


12/02/2009

Page 38

Revised Final

Y Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne D

Y Greater plantain Plantago major O

Y Daisy Bellis perennis O O

Y Annual meadow grass Poa annua O

Y Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum LF

Y Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum

leucanthemum

R

Y Crescent-cup liverwort Lunularia cruciata O

N Clover Trifolium spp. O

Y Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens R

Y Dandelion Taraxacum officinale O

Y Ladys mantle Alchemilla vulgaris O

N Japanese aralia Fatsia japonica A

N Spotted laurel Aucuba japonica Variegata O

N Fuschia Fuschia magellanica R

N Cotoneaster Cotoneaster horizontalis A

N Adams needle Yucca filamentosa O

N Ornamental rush Juncus spp. R



47/178


12/02/2009

Page 39

Revised Final

N Hydrangea Hydrangea macrophylla O

N Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium O

N Euonymous Euonymous spp. R

N Skimmia Skimmia japonica O

N Tree hollyhock Hibiscus syriacus Blue Bird R

N Ornamental roses Rosa spp. LF

N Black ornamental grass Ophiopogon planiscapus

Nigrascens

LF

Y Common beech Fagus sylvatica D



48/178

8.2. Appendix B - Photographs

Plate 1: Seething Lane Garden Facing South

Plate 2: Seething Lane Garden Facing North



49/178

Plate 3: Seething Lane Garden from Pepys Street showing Mature False Acacia on Northeast

Corner

Plate 4: Mature Maidenhair Trees in Seething Lane Garden


50/178



51/178

8.3. Appendix C - Arboricultural Survey


52/178

Forbes- Planning


53/178

Laird

ArboriculturalConsultancy

Principal Consultant:

Julian Forbes-LairdBA(Hons), MICFor, MEWI, M.Arbor.A, Dip.Arb.(RFS)

TEN TRINITY(TREES AT SEETHING GARDENS)

TREES IN RELATION TO PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION,

ARBORICULTURAL STAGE 1:

TREE SURVEY TO BS 5837:2005&

PRELIMINARY CONSTRAINTS ADVICE

Prepared for:

Planning TPO Safety Inspection

Subsidence

Litigation Design

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy LtdProject: Ten Trinity

FLAC Instruction ref: CC 28-1058


54/178

1 Introduction

1.1 Authorship

1.1.1 This report, which addresses arboricultural issues in relation to proposed development, has been

prepared by Julian Forbes-Laird, Director and Principal Consultant of Forbes-Laird Arboricultural

Consultancy Ltd (FLAC).

1.1.2 Full details of my professional qualifications and experience can be found at Appendix JFL1.

1.2 Instructions

1.2.1 This report was commissioned by Capita Lovejoy on behalf of Thompson Inc.

1.2.2 We were instructed to undertake a tree survey compliant with BS5837:2005 (see Appendices JFL2

& JFL3), to provide preliminary constraints advice in terms of retention / removal balance (JFL4).

1.2.3 We were further instructed to present the findings of the above evaluation in the form of a written

report.

1.3 Caveats

1.3.1 As this report is preliminary in nature, the following are outside its scope:

Aerial tree inspections Invasive procedures (e.g. decay mapping drills) Soil sampling and sub-soil investigationsShould any of the above be required, this will be highlighted in the report.

1.3.2 The author does not have formal qualifications in the areas of structural engineering or the law.

However, making comment on such matters from an arboricultural perspective is both within the normal




55/178

1.4 Scope

1.4.1 This report details the findings of a tree survey (see JFL2 for tree survey data and JFL3 for tree

survey plan) undertaken according to the advice of BS5837:2005, being the British Standard Trees in

Relation to Construction Recommendations. The survey is not intended to comply with BS8516 (in

press) Recommendations for Tree Inspection. Any observations on structural integrity of trees are

incidental only, though any obviously hazardous trees will have been notified to the client.

1.4.2 The purpose of our survey was firstly to assess existing trees in relation to potential development, in

order to:

1. Record their principal attributes (species, height, crown spread, stem diameter, etc);2. Determine their quality and value in order to3. Identify their retention priorities, and to4. Show relevant data graphically on a Tree Survey Plan (see JFL3).

1.4.3 Arising from the above, the second purpose of the survey is to inform our opinion as to a defensible

level of tree retention/removal, and to facilitate the mapping, at a preliminary level, of those constraints

which would be imposed on the site by trees identified/prioritised for retention. Together, the tree survey

and preliminary constraints advice comprise Arboricultural Stage 1 (AS1) of the development process (see

para. 2.6).




56/178

2 Tree constraints mapping

2.1 General

Constraints arising from retention trees, including those standing off-site which nevertheless constrain

development, are separated into three and sometimes four types of tree protection zone (TPZ), of which

TPZ1 (the Root Protection Area, RPA) is illustrated indicatively on the Preliminary Tree Constraints Plan

(TCP) at JFL4. The TPZs are explained further as follows:

2.2 TPZ1: Root protection area

2.2.1 The area, calculated in m2, which should be protected during, and preserved intact after

construction, in order to facilitate the healthy retention of the tree or trees concerned by safeguarding a

reliable quantum of functioning tree roots.

2.2.2 This area is based on a radial measure from the centre of the stem of the tree or trees, which is found

by multiplying the stem diameter of the tree concerned by a factor of twelve (or the diameter immediately

above the basal flare by a factor of ten, in the case of low crowned or multi-stemmed trees).

2.2.3 During Arboricultural Stages 2 & 3, the derived radial measure is converted by an arboriculturist into

the actual area to be protected, having due regard to prevailing site conditions and how these may have

affected the tree(s), particularly in relation to factors affecting their likely rooting disposition. However, at

this stage in the process the RPA is only shown indicatively on the Preliminary Tree

Constraints Plan, as its shape may be subject to amendment as the design progresses.

2.2.4 The means of protecting the RPA will include the installation of tree protection fencing prior to the

start of work on site, the prohibition of various activities within the RPA (e.g. mechanical excavation, soil




57/178

2.3.2 Arising from the above, the means of protecting TPZ2 is likely to include providing an adequate

separation distance between retention trees and new buildings, and may include access facilitation pruning,

where this is necessary and also arboriculturally acceptable.

2.4 TPZ3: Tree dominance zone

The above ground area dominated by the tree in relation to issues of shading, seasonal debris and safety

apprehension. In that we understand the proposals comprise, in relation to trees, insertion of a basement

structure into / under Seething Gardens, this constraint does not require consideration.

2.5 TPZ4: New planting zone

2.5.1 In some cases, it may be appropriate to identify and protect areas intended for new landscape

planting, which can fail to establish if the soil has been heavily compacted during construction to a bulk

density inimical to tree and shrub roots survival.

2.5.2 The means of protecting TPZ4 will either be by fencing it off prior to the start of works on site, or

by soil remediation once construction has finished (and prior to the start of planting). Topsoil protection in

areas destined for structure planting is frequently an economy measure, saving on plant replacement and

soil structure remediation.

2.6 An iterative process

2.6.1 The preparation of a tree survey and the resulting preliminary constraints mapping exercise, both of

which should precede significant work on site layout design, are only the first stage (Arboricultural Stage

1) in an iterative process. For tree retention in the context of new development to be successful, it isimportant that this process is followed through.

2.6.2 The next stage is for site layout masterplanners to factor the tree constraints into draft layout




58/178

2.6.4 Arboricultural Stage 4 involves the arboriculturist working as part of the design team to secure

discharge of tree related planning conditions, including any relating to levels, services and drainage, as well

as to specifically tree protection issues such as protective fencing etc.

2.6.5 Arboricultural Stage 5 covers implementation on site, including arranging approved tree removal and

access facilitation pruning, overseeing erection of fencing and ground protection, and monitoring special

engineering solutions as they are put in place.




59/178

3 Notes on the Tree Constraints Plan

3.1 General

As already described, we have identified our opinion as to the preliminary arboricultural constraints on the

site that should be respected if an arboriculturally defensible layout is to be evolved. These constraints are

shown on our Preliminary Tree Constraints Plan at Appendix JFL4, and are described further below.

3.2 Trees identified for removal to facilitate development

3.2.1 In general, C grade trees have been identified for removal to facilitate development (our notation

RTFD). This is in line with the advice of BS5837:2005 which states (in the Note to the C category in Table

1) that C category trees will usually not be retained where they would impose a significant constraint on

development. However, C grade trees on the boundary, and those situated within areas sanitised by the

presence of better quality trees preferred for retention are shown as retained or replaced with newplanting designed to improve the quality of the overall exhibit.

3.2.2 In addition, trees in higher categories that are considered to impose such a constraint on

development that their retention would be disproportionate to their existing value are also sometimes

identified for removal. This only rarely applies to A category trees, being those of high quality and value,

but can defensibly apply to B grade trees, i.e. those of moderate quality and value, especially where other

trees of equal or better quality are being retained, where the trees concerned have low public visibility,

and/or where adequate space is provided for new planting, as would be the case here. Trees 6, 10, 11, 14,

24 are shown as RTFD for this reason.

3.3 Trees preferred for retention3.3.1 Two somewhat contrasting themes emerge from the findings of our tree survey:

1. The garden remains a popular and tranquil place however it is getting tired: many of the treesare either passed their best or are failing to thrive and many of the shrubs are becoming leggy.




60/178

Our view is that selective tree replacement is desirable, implemented in tandem with renewal of the

hardscape infrastructure. The linearity of the site, together with its north-south orientation, commends

selection for replacement of either west side or east side planting, though in the context of retaining trees

to north and south to retain enclosure. The location of the Sassafras and maidenhair trees to the west

makes the decision straightforward: it is the east side trees that should be replaced. Of these, only one is of

better quality than the others: the honey locust (tree number 6, Gleditsia tricanthos) is at the top edge of the

B grade and is the only west side tree that gives one pause. In the absence of development, we would

recommend retaining this tree as an exception.

3.3.3 Having set out our view of how the garden should be restored absent development, it is now

appropriate to consider the arboricultural impact of the proposals. We understand that the scheme as

currently drawn (which we have not seen) requires the removal and replacement of the entirety of the

existing planting, so as to facilitate the construction of a two-storey basement associated with the buildingat Ten Trinity. Based on the findings of our tree survey, we are in no doubt that this has a very low chance

of success at planning, though accept that non-arboricultural arguments might be available in mitigation.

3.3.4 This being a matter properly addressed by others, and in the absence of confirmation that such

arguments for the proposals can indeed be made, we can only advise that any notion of wholesale tree

replacement is abandoned. Referring to our Tree Constraints Plan at JFL, it is apparent that removal (in

fact replacement) of the east side trees would free up ca. 375m2 of basement area. This quantum could be

increased through extending the second floor below the tree rooting zone, retaining an overburden depth

of 3000mm through undermining. This would add up to 455m 2 at -2 level giving, across the two basement

floors, ca. 1250m2 under the garden. Naturally, it is not for us to know or judge whether this is sufficient,

however it might well be a case of part of something being superior to all of nothing.

3.3.5 Finally, the approach detailed above would result in the loss of only one tree of identifiably good

quality (number 6), over and above losses that we consider are justifiable in the absence of development as

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd


61/178

APPENDIX JFL1

QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE


Planning TPO Safety Inspection Subsidence Litigation Design


62/178

JULIAN FORBES-LAIRD

QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE

Julian Forbes-Laird is Director and Principal Consultant of Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd (FLAC), asmall but nationally reputed practice. He has over eighteen years experience of undertaking a variety of arboricul-tural assessments for a wide range of public, corporate and private clients.

JFL started his career in arboriculture on the practical side of the profession, before completing a gradual transition toconsultancy in 2000. After two years spent working as an independent consultant, he spent a further two years asSenior Consultant at CBA Trees, before establishing FLAC.

FLAC provides an efficient and approachable service to Expert Witness level, geared to securing our clients objec-tives within the necessary timeframe in whatever area of arboriculture they may instruct us, though we specialise inplanning and litigation matters. Notes on specific areas of the practice follow.

Having developed and lectured widely on a respected and peer-reviewed method designed to quantify the risk posedby defective trees (THREATS), JFL is a recognised authority on tree hazard assessment, and has undertaken severalforensic accident investigations, including in relation to fatalities caused by trees.

He has published a number of articles in the arboricultural and landscape press, variously covering tree risk assess-ment, legal aspects of liability for hazard trees, subsidence, and the arboricultural significance of certain wood decayfungi on trees. In addition, JFL is a well-known figure on the arboricultural lecture circuit.

FLAC has undertaken several projects concerning the assessment, management and preservation of veteran trees.Particular specialisations in this field are determining crown restoration needs, and the management/restoration ofhistoric avenues and landscapes

FLAC has advised various landscape design projects focussing on the selection and establishment of woody plants.These include both amenity woodlands and rural and urban planting schemes in the United Kingdom and also abroad.

JFL is regularly instructed in the area of tree root damage to buildings, frequently acting as an expert witness in thisdemanding area of arboriculture.



63/178

JFL was a member of the British Standards Institution (BSI) drafting group which prepared the consultation draft ofthe current edition of the authoritative British Standard Trees in Relation to ConstructionRecommendations,

BS5837:2005. He is also one of three technical editors of the final document and is currently undertaking a mid-termreview of it at the request of BSI. Additionally, he served on the Drafting Group currently revisingRecommendations for Tree Work, BS3998.

For BS5837, JFL was responsible for preparing drafts of the sections relating to tree survey methodology, and demoli-tion and construction in proximity to trees.

JFL is currently chair of the drafting group preparing a new British Standard, BS8516, provisionally titledRecommendations for Tree Safety Inspection, which is due to be published in autumn 2008. He is a member of theBSI technical committee on trees, B/213.

Julian Forbes-Laird is a member and Registered Consultant of the Arboricultural Association; the latter remains thepremier professional designation in arboriculture. He is a Member and Registered Consultant of the Institute of Char-tered Foresters, through examination as an arboriculturist at Masters level, a member of the Expert Witness Institute,and a Sweet & Maxwell Checked Expert Witness. He is a member of and holds the Royal Forestry Society's'Professional Diploma in Arboriculture', a degree-level professional qualification, and is also a member of the Arbori-cultural Journal peer referee panel.

JFL and FLAC have recently undertaken or have ongoing work on projects for/with the following:

Local Authorities

Cheltenham Borough Council (Subsidence)East Dorset District Council (Subsidence)Forest Heath District Council (PLI)

Hart District Council (PLI)Kings Lynn & West Norfolk District Council (Advice)Loch Lomond & The Trossachs NPA (TPO review)London Borough of Camden (Advice)Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (PLI)St Albans City & District Council (PLI)St Edmundsbury Borough Council (TPO prosecution)West Lindsey District Council (TPO prosec