You are on page 1of 178

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Client THOMAS ENTERPRISES INC.

Project 10 TRINITY SQUARE LONDON

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square


12 February 2009 Final
Issue No 3 44407499

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

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

Project Title: Report Title: Project No: Status: Client Company Name: Issued By:

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square 44407499 Revised Final Thomas Enterprises Inc URS Corporation Ltd. St Georges House 5 St Georges Road Wimbledon London SW19 4DR United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0) 20 8944 3300 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 8944 3301 www.urscorp.eu

Document Production / Approval Record


Issue 1 No: Name

Signature

Date

Position

Prepared by

Gemma Russell

12/02/2009

Ecological Consultant

Checked by

William Miles

12/02/2009

Senior Ecological Consultant

Approved by

Reece Fowler

12/02/2009

Principal

Document Revision Record Issue No 1 2 3 Date 5/11/2008 11/11/2008 12/02/2009 Details of Revisions Original issue Final Issue Revised Final Issue

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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 Report are 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.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

CONTENTS
Section 1. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 3. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 6. 7. 8. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. Page No INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT .................................................... 2 Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 2 National Planning Policy .................................................................................................. 4 Regional Planning Policy ................................................................................................. 5 Local Planning Policy ....................................................................................................... 6 Biodiversity Action Plans .................................................................................................. 7 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY............................. 9 BASELINE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 11 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 11 The Surrounding Area .................................................................................................... 12 The Site .......................................................................................................................... 19 Summary of Ecological Value ........................................................................................ 23 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................. 26 Deconstruction and Construction Impacts ..................................................................... 26 Operational Impacts ....................................................................................................... 27 RESIDUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 32 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 33 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 36 Appendix A - Species List .............................................................................................. 36 Appendix B - Photographs ............................................................................................. 40 Appendix C - Arboricultural Survey ................................................................................ 42 Appendix D BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report ............................................... 43 Appendix E Ecohomes 2006 Ecology Report ............................................................. 44

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page i Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 1 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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) otherwise known 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 is the 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. The WCA protects the most important habitats as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It also requires that the Secretary of State take special measures to protect certain rare or vulnerable bird species, as defined in Annex I of the EC Birds Directive, through the designation and protection of Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Wild animals listed in Schedule 5 of the Act are subject to specific protection under Section 9 and the Act prohibits the intentional killing, injuring or taking of any wild bird (with certain exceptions) and the taking, damaging or destroying of a wild birds nest or eggs. Special penalties are given for offences related to birds listed in Schedule 1, which includes black redstarts (Phoenicurus ochruros).

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 2 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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. In addition, 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 on the 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 of the 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. The 2007 regulations also amend the WCA, updating Schedules 5 and 8 to consider provisions made by the Habitat Regulations in relation to the protection of EPS. They also offer further clarification to Part 4 of Section 9 considering reckless offences on wild animals, which was previously amended by the CRoW.

2.1.5.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC)


The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 created a new integrated agency, named Natural England, through the merger of the Countryside Agency's landscape, access and recreation functions, English Nature and the part of the Rural Development Service (RDS) that dealt with nature conservation.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 3 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

It also amends the CRoW, by further extending the requirement to have regard for biodiversity 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.
2.2.1.

National Planning Policy


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 guidance advocates 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 the UK 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 to consider with regard to designated sites, non-designated sites and species protection. The document also stresses the importance of building in beneficial biodiversity to new developments and protecting networks of natural habitats. PPS9 should be read in conjunction with the Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, ODPM Circular 06/2005 (Ref. 16).

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 4 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

2.3.
2.3.1.

Regional Planning Policy


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 for conservation. 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. Policies have been incorporated into the London Plan in relation to Sustainable Design and Construction, which will conserve and enhance the natural environment. These include Policy 4A.11, which advises the incorporation of living roofs and walls into major developments where possible. The London Plan also 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.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 5 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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 nature conservation 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 and management of open spaces and throughout the City. Wherever possible the CoL will favour the use of species of plants and trees, native or otherwise, which help to sustain wildlife. The CoL will also take into consideration the recommendations set out in the London BAP (Ref. 6) in the management of its open spaces. This Plan sets out a strategy for the conservation of listed habitats and species on a regional scale. Policy ENV9 recognises the importance of trees within the inner city environment. Trees make a substantial contribution to the green environment in urban areas where there is insufficient scope for further environmental improvement, they provide visual amenity and

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 6 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

can help in the reduction of noise and air pollution. Well-sited trees can also provide green 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 UK government to halt, and if possible reverse, the steady decline of species and natural habitats. To this aim, Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are produced at national, regional and local levels. They contain plans to protect and enhance species and natural habitats, with targets against which progress can be measured.

2.5.1.

UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP)


The UKBAP reviews the status of species and habitats on a national scale. It sets out targets for a number of Priority Species and Habitats as well as for broad habitat types. After two years of work, the revised UK List of Priority Species and Habitats was presented in a UK BAP website report in June 2007. This list contains 1149 species and

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 7 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

65 habitats and has been formally adopted. The priority actions for these habitats and species 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 London and 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 of these species in the City and enhance habitats where possible to encourage its population.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 8 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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 when describing and assessing impacts, which include: Confidence of predictions; Extent; Magnitude; Duration; Reversibility; Timing and frequency; and Cumulative effects.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 9 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

Each impact is then assessed against each receptor to evaluate the geographical level at which 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 Major Adverse Impact Criteria 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. Where the features integrity will not be adversely affected, but the effects on the feature are likely to be significant in terms of its ecological objectives (with reference to BAP or Local Plan). If neither of the above apply, but some minor negative impact is expected. No expected impact. Where improvements provide general wildlife gain through, for example new design features (hedges, ponds etc). 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. 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.

Moderate Adverse Impact

Minor Adverse Impact

Negligible Impact Minor Beneficial Impact

Moderate Beneficial Impact

Major Beneficial Impact

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 10 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

4. 4.1.

BASELINE CONDITIONS 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 rd th on 3 September 2008. An additional survey visit was then carried out on 15 October 2008. The surveys followed the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Phase 1 Survey Guidelines (Ref. 31) as modified in 1995 by the Institute of Environmental Assessment (Ref. 32). The habitats on site were classified according to the Phase 1 habitat survey methodology and the survey was extended to also assess the potential of the site to support protected and notable species. Target notes (TN) were also taken during the survey to provide further detail on important habitats or features. The reference number relates the target notes to the corresponding location shown on Phase 1 habitat survey map in Appendix B. During the habitat survey higher plant species identified within each of the habitat parcels were recorded and their relative abundance was assessed on the DAFOR scale:

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 11 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

D A F O R

Dominant; Abundant; Frequent; Occasional; and 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 the subsequent 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 5837 Trees 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 Nature Reserves (LNR), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites. Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) are non-statutory and are identified by the Greater London Authority (GLA) on account of their fauna and flora. A total of 30 SINC designations are situated within 2km of the site (Figure 1). Those that are within 1km are considered in relation to potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Development.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 12 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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 regarding the species and habitats found within this garden can be found in the section headed The Site in Section 4.3. St. Olaves Churchyard is a fragment of a former larger churchyard. It contains a few trees, several small pockets of shrubbery and herbaceous planting, and small areas of grass and carpets of liverwort (Lunularia spp). Mosses and liverworts grow on the tombstones, and ferns grow in the west wall of the garden. St. Botolphs Bishopsgate Church Grounds (CiL04 on Figure 1) is a charming mature garden located around 725m to the north of the site. It supports many trees, including

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 13 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

London plane (Planatus x hispanica), wide lawns, tall hedges and shrubs and supports breeding 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.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 14 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square


Figure 1: Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 15 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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 Proposed Development 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 wellbuilt 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 black redstarts in London. This map indicates that there were two non-breeding pairs and two solitary males within CoL (Ref. 33). Various other notable bird species have been recorded within 2km of the site in the last 10 years, specifically the greylag goose (Anser anser), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), dunnock (Prunella modularis), starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus).

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 16 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 17 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square


Figure 2: Black Redstart Key Areas

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 18 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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.
4.3.1.

The Site
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 Development site 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; Fence; Buildings; and Bare ground.

4.3.2.1.

Scattered Broadleaved Trees The trees within the Proposed Development site are located in Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard; there are no trees on pavements surrounding the former PLA building. The trees in the garden are exotics, including the mature sassafras (Sassafras

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 19 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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 sassafras tree 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 fleabane also 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 There are two small areas of amenity grassland in the middle of the garden; they are well managed and dominated by perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne). Other common species were also recorded, including greater plantain (Plantago major), daisy (Bellis perennis), annual meadow grass (Poa annua) and crescent-cup liverwort (Lunularia cruciata). There are also areas of bare ground where the grass has died, likely due to shading caused by surrounding trees. 4.3.2.6. Ephemeral/Short Perennial Short perennial vegetation occurs in patches within areas of bare ground within the internal courtyard. Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), daisy, dandelion

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 20 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

(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. Disused birds nest in ornamental plum tree; and Disused birds nest in false acacia tree.

2. 3.

4.3.4.

Fauna
The following species were recorded frequently throughout the survey of Seething Lane Garden: Feral pigeon (Columba livia); Woodpigeon (Columba palumbus); Blackbird (Turdus merula); Flock of house sparrows feeding on bread; and Flock of starlings feeding on mulberries.

No fauna was observed during the survey of the internal courtyard.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 21 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square


Figure 3: Phase 1 Habitat Map

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 22 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

4.4.
4.4.1.

Summary of Ecological Value


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 adversely affect 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 impacts could 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 therefore of less ecological value than equivalently sized native trees, which typically support a greater diversity of invertebrate species. However, the mature and middleaged trees within the garden are notable ecological features that support a diversity of wildlife. They provide habitat for both birds and invertebrates and are valuable features that would be difficult to replace within any landscaping strategy in both the short and medium term. The trees within the internal courtyard are young, meaning that they are of lower ecological value. However, they nevertheless still provide habitat for wildlife, as demonstrated by the birds nest in one of these trees. The Proposed Development site is

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 23 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 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 80100 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 are typically associated with rocky mountainous terrain and cliffs. In London black redstarts have taken advantage of alternative habitats provided by industrial sites and postindustrial 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 these habitat features are currently absent from the site, such habitat could be created during the deconstruction and construction of the Proposed Development. Black redstarts are therefore ecological receptors and will be considered further.

4.4.5.

Breeding Birds
All birds, their active nests and eggs are protected under the WCA, with the exception of species considered as pests. This legislation makes it an offence to kill, injure or take any wild bird or to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 24 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 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
Pepys Garden, Seething Lane and St. Olaves Churchyard SLINC

Geographical Scale of Importance Local Local Local Local

Existing Trees Black Redstarts Breeding Birds

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 25 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 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.
5.1.1.

Deconstruction and Construction Impacts


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 indirect and 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 to mitigate 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 be removed during the course of site clearance works. The latter is required in order to reconstruct 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.

5.1.3.

Black Redstarts
During the construction of the Proposed Development, the open ground, heavy machinery and structures may offer attractive nesting opportunities for black redstarts should disturbance on site, or on part of the site, be temporarily reduced or removed. Potential impacts on black redstarts will be mitigated by not leaving the Proposed Development site dormant for more than two weeks during the deconstruction and construction phases. Activity, noise and light on the Proposed Development site during this period will cause a large enough disturbance impact to deter any nesting birds.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 26 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 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, then clearance 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 within the scheme that will enhance the value of the Proposed Development for wildlife during the operation of the scheme. These are discussed below.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 27 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square


Table 3: Ecological Impact Assessment Table
Ecological Receptor Proposed Activity Characterisation of Impact Significance of Potential Impact Mitigation Significance of Residual Impact

Pepys Garden, Seething Lane and St. Olaves Churchyard SLINC Seething Lane Garden falls entirely within the site, while St. Olaves Churchyard is approximately 20m to the west. This SLINC is valued for its managed habitats and the urban wildlife that it supports. This SLINC is of local value.

Deconstruction and Construction Impacts Habitat Loss The clearance and relandscaping of all of Seething Lane Garden in order to allow for the construction of basement parking levels underneath. Disturbance St. Olaves Churchyard could also be impacted by noise, light and dust during the duration of deconstruction and construction work. The potential impact on this SLINC resulting from habitat loss will be temporary, considering that it will be re-landscaped following the construction of the basement levels. The current area of this SLINC is approximately 1,200m2. Approximately 907m2 of this SLINC will be removed, meaning that 293m2 will remain, which equates to the temporary loss of 76% of the SLINC. The magnitude of potential impact resulting from habitat loss will be moderate and irreversible. Potential impacts on St. Olaves Churchyard will occur temporarily, during only the deconstruction and construction of the Proposed Development. The magnitude and extent of impact is likely to be low, due to the 20m buffer between the SLINC and the site provided by Seething Lane. Moderate Adverse Temporary The garden will be re-landscaped using native species where possible. The proposed new garden will be larger than it is currently, as approximately 136m2 of land will be incorporated. Details regarding the Landscape and Public Realm Approach can be found in Section 5.2.1. Lighting levels will be minimised and directed away from St. Olaves Churchyard and the hoarding will retain the majority of the dust, light and noise created during the entire duration of the Proposed Development. All measures to mitigate the impacts of deconstruction and construction will be implemented through a Construction Method Statement (CMS), which will be agreed with the CoL. Minor Adverse Impact in the short-term. Negligible to Minor Beneficial Impact in the medium to long-term.

Existing Trees The mature trees in Seething Lane Garden are exotics, but nevertheless provide valuable habitat for birds and invertebrates in an urban environment. The young trees within the internal courtyard also provide habitat for wildlife. The site also falls within Trinity Square Conservation Area. This is a receptor of local value.

Deconstruction and Construction Impacts Habitat Loss The felling of all the trees within the site boundary, both within Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard. The potential impact on existing trees will be temporary, considering that trees will be planted during the re-landscaping of Seething Lane Garden. The magnitude of impact will be moderate. This is because a total of 25 trees in Seething Lane Garden will be removed, of which nine are mature. A further seven young trees will be removed within the internal courtyard, however this loss is considered to be relatively insignificant. This potential impact will be limited to the site. Minor Adverse Temporary The landscaping strategy for the new Seething Lane Garden includes the planting of small to medium street trees along the western boundary of the garden and multi-stemmed trees within the wilderness garden, which will in the medium to longterm mitigate for the loss of mature exotic trees within the garden. Details regarding the Landscape and Public Realm Approach can be found in Section 5.2.1. Minor Adverse Impact in the short-term. Negligible to Minor Beneficial Impact in the medium to long-term.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 28 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square


Black Redstarts No suitable nesting or foraging habitat occurs on the site, however the site falls within the Key Known Area and there are a number of records from the surrounding area. Black redstarts are listed on Schedule I of the WCA and are a red list BoCC on the London BAP. Should black redstarts nest on the site then this receptor would be of local value. Breeding Birds The trees and shrubs within Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard have the potential to support nesting birds, including the house sparrow and starling, which are species of conservation concern listed on BAPs. All birds, their active nests and eggs are protected under the WCA. The breeding bird assemblage is of local value. Deconstruction and Construction Impacts Habitat Creation and Loss Suitable nesting habitat for black redstarts could be created and then lost during the deconstruction and construction stages of the Proposed Development. Potentially suitable habitat for nesting black redstarts would only be created for a limited period during deconstruction and construction if activities were suspended for a continuous period of two weeks or more over the breeding period. Potential impacts would be restricted to the site, irreversible and minor in magnitude but could occur a number of times, depending on the construction programme. If a black redstart nest were disturbed then a Minor adverse impact would be expected. Permanent If the site is left dormant for two weeks or more during the deconstruction and construction phases and within the bird-breeding season, measures will be taken to ensure that no nests are established. In addition, an experienced ornithologist will carry out a survey 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. Negligible

Deconstruction and Construction Impacts Habitat Loss The felling of all of the trees within the site will result in the loss of bird nesting habitat. Injury The felling of the trees on site could potentially result the death or injury of nesting birds and loss of their young. Potential impacts on nesting birds resulting from the loss of trees and shrubs will be temporary following the creation of habitat for breeding birds during the re-landscaping of Seething Lane Garden. Potential impacts will be moderate in magnitude, due to the extent of habitat loss in an urban context. Potential impacts on nesting birds would occur once but would be irreversible. The magnitude of potential impact could be moderate, due to the number of trees proposed for removal. Potential impacts resulting from habitat loss and injury will be limited to the site. Minor adverse Temporary Clearance works will ideally be carried out outside of the bird-breeding season. Should this not be practical then a survey will be undertaken by an experienced ornithologist prior to clearance, to check for 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. If any active nests are found, then clearance activities will cease and an appropriate buffer zone will be established in consultation with Natural England. This area will be left intact until it has been confirmed that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use. Small to medium sized trees will be planted within Seething Lane Garden, which will provide nesting and foraging habitat. Nest boxes will also be provided for a range of species, such as house sparrows, in addition to bird feeders and a bird bath. Details regarding the Landscape and Public Realm Approach can be found in Section 5.2.1. Negligible

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 29 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

5.2.1.

Landscaping and Habitat Enhancement


The Landscape Strategy by 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. Multistemmed 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 nonscripta), 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 species such as ivy and honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum).

5.2.1.2.

Artificial Habitats Nest boxes will be positioned in appropriate locations within the new Seething Lane Garden, including within the more natural and less disturbed area of planting to the south. A range of different box designs will be incorporated in order to accommodate different bird species, such as house sparrows, tits and starlings. The provision of nest boxes for notable bird species is in line with the UK, London and Local BAPs. The house sparrow is afforded SAPs within these BAPs and the starling is also listed on the UKBAP. Bird

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 30 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 31 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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 postdevelopment 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 of principally 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.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 32 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

7.

REFERENCES
Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Treweek, J. (1999), Ecological Impact Assessment. Blackwell Science. Department of the Environment (DoE) (1981), The Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended). DoE (2000), The Countryside and Rights of Way Act. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1994), Conservation (Natural Habitats &) Regulations. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2007), Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations. DEFRA (2006), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (1990), Town & Country Planning Act. DETR (1999), The Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations. HMSO. London. Council of Europe (1979), Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). Council of Europe. Council of Europe (1979), Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds. United Nations (UN) (1992), Convention on Biological Diversity. European Community (1992), Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. ODPM (2005), Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. United Kingdom (UK) Biodiversity Partnership (1992), UK Biodiversity Action Plan. UK Biodiversity Partnership. ODPM (1994), Conservation. Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG 9): Nature

Ref 3 Ref 4

Ref. 5

Ref. 6 Ref. 7

Ref. 8

Ref. 9

Ref. 10

Ref. 11 Ref. 12

Ref. 13

Ref. 14

Ref. 15

Ref. 16

ODPM (2005), Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation- Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within The Planning System. Greater London Authority (GLA) (2008), The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Consolidated with Alterations since 2004.

Ref. 17

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 33 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

Ref. 18

GLA (2006), Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. GLA (2002), Connecting with Londons Nature: The Mayors Biodiversity Strategy. Corporation of London (2002), City of London Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The City of London, (2007), City of London Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy, Preferred Options. City of London, (1994), Conservation Areas in the City of London A General Introduction to their Character. London Biodiversity Partnership, (2004), London Biodiversity Action Plan. GLA. London. Corporation of London, (2003), City of London Biodiversity Action Plan. London. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2006), Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. DETR (1998), Guidance on the New Approach To Appraisal (NATA). Greenspace Information for Greater London, (2007), An Ecological Data Search produced on behalf of URS Corporation Ltd. London. Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy, (2008), Ten Trinity (Trees at Seething Gardens). Prepared for Thomas Enterprises Inc. Captiva Lovejoy, (2009); Landscape Strategy Addendum Report. Captiva Lovejoy. British Standards Institute (2005), British Standard (BS5837): Trees in Relation to Construction. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), (1993), Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit, revised reprint 2003. JNCC. Peterborough. Institute of Environmental Assessment, (1995), Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E & FN Spon (Chapman & Hall, London). London Biodiversity Partners. (2007), Black Redstarts.org.uk. Available at: http://www.blackredstarts.org.uk/index.html. RSPB, (2007), Black redstart. Available at: uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/b/blackredstart/index.asp. http://www.rspb.org.

Ref. 19

Ref. 20

Ref. 21

Ref. 22

Ref. 23

Ref. 24

Ref. 25

Ref. 26 Ref. 27

Ref. 28

Ref. 29

Ref. 30

Ref. 31

Ref. 32

Ref. 33

Ref. 34

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 34 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

Ref. 35

London Biodiversity Partnership (2006), Species Action Plan: Black Redstart. London Biodiversity Partnership, London. Bruce Shaw, (2008). Thomas Enterprises Inc. Construction Method Statement. 10 Trinity Square

Ref. 36

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 35 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

8. 8.1.
Native N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

APPENDICES Appendix A - Species List


Common Name Azara Himalayan tree cotoneaster Sassafras Norway maple Maidenhair Magnolia Killarney strawberry tree Honey locust Golden rain tree Cherry, Sato-Zakura group Cheals weeping cherry Black mulberry Black locust Japanese maple Latin Name Azara microphylla Cotoneaster frigidus Sassafras albidum Acer platanoides Ginkgo biloba Magnolia spp. Arbutus unedo Gleditsia tricanthos Koelreuteria paniculata Prunus spp. Prunus serrulata Morus nigra Robinia pseudoacacia Acer palmatum ST R R R O F F O O R R R O O R DS SS TR AG ESP IS PH

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 36 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square


N Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y American tulip tree Hazel Ornamental plum Ivy Laburnum Holly Buckthorn Common box Canadian fleabane Common chickweed Butterfly bush American willowherb Annual meadow grass Wall lettuce Smooth sow thistle Procumbent pearlwort Broad-leaved willowherb Spear thistle Liriodendron tulipifera Corylus avellana Prunus spp. Hedera helix Laburnum spp. Ilex acquifolium Rhamnus cathartic Buxus sempervirens Conyza Canadensis Stellaria media Buddleia davidii Epilobium ciliatum Poa annua Mycelis muralis Sonchus oleraceus Sagina procumbens Epilobium montanum Cirsium vulgare R O O D O R O A F R R R O R O R O R
Page 37 Revised Final

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square


Y Y Y Y Y Y Perennial rye-grass Greater plantain Daisy Annual meadow grass Common mouse-ear Oxeye daisy Lolium perenne Plantago major Bellis perennis Poa annua Cerastium fontanum Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Lunularia cruciata Trifolium spp. Ranunculus repens Taraxacum officinale Alchemilla vulgaris Fatsia japonica Aucuba japonica Variegata Fuschia magellanica Cotoneaster horizontalis Yucca filamentosa Juncus spp. D O O O LF R O

Y N Y Y Y N N N N N N

Crescent-cup liverwort Clover Creeping buttercup Dandelion Ladys mantle Japanese aralia Spotted laurel Fuschia Cotoneaster Adams needle Ornamental rush

O O R O O A O R A O R

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 38 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square


N N N N N N N Hydrangea Oregon grape Euonymous Skimmia Tree hollyhock Ornamental roses Black ornamental grass Hydrangea macrophylla Mahonia aquifolium Euonymous spp. Skimmia japonica Hibiscus syriacus Blue Bird Rosa spp. Ophiopogon Nigrascens Fagus sylvatica planiscapus O O R O R LF LF

Common beech

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 39 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

8.2.

Appendix B - Photographs

Plate 1: Seething Lane Garden Facing South

Plate 2: Seething Lane Garden Facing North

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 40 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

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

Plate 4: Mature Maidenhair Trees in Seething Lane Garden

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 41 Revised Final

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

8.3.

Appendix C - Arboricultural Survey

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 42 Revised Final

Planning TPO Safety Inspection Subsidence Litigation Design

ForbesLaird Arboricultural Consultancy


Julian Forbes-Laird BA(Hons), MICFor, MEWI, M.Arbor.A, Dip.Arb.(RFS)
Principal Consultant:

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: Thompson Enterprises Inc FLAC Instruction ref: CC 28-1058 Issued: September 2008
Dendron House Barford Road Blunham Bedford MK44 3ND

T/F: 01767 641648 E: jfl@flac.uk.com www.flac.uk.com

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd


Project: Ten Trinity FLAC Instruction ref: CC 28-1058

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 investigations

Should 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 scope of our instructions and also the range of the authors experience. Notwithstanding this, specialist professional advice should be sought to clarify/confirm any observations on engineering or legal matters that this report may contain.

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd


Project: Ten Trinity FLAC Instruction ref: CC 28-1058

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 to 3. Identify their retention priorities, and to 4. 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).

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd


Project: Ten Trinity FLAC Instruction ref: CC 28-1058

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 stripping, fire lighting, materials storage, lowering levels and creating excessive sealed surfacing), and may include the use of temporary ground protection and/or special engineering solutions where construction is proposed near to retention trees/within the RPA. 2.3 TPZ2: Tree crown protection zone 2.3.1 The above ground area occupied by the crown of the tree, plus allowances for working space and, if appropriate, for future growth. The extent of TPZ2 is determined by considering the existing and future crown spread of the tree(s), bearing in mind the possibility of this being modified by an acceptable quantum of pruning.

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd


Project: Ten Trinity FLAC Instruction ref: CC 28-1058

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 is important 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 proposals, and for these to be referred to the arboriculturist for arboricultural implications assessment, as part of an ongoing dialogue, in order to arrive at a best fit scheme, that achieves site viability whilst allowing for the retention of appropriate trees. This is the Design Review, or Arboricultural Stage 2. 2.6.3 Once a settled layout has been agreed, the arboriculturist can then prepare a supporting statement (i.e. an arboricultural impact assessment) to accompany the planning application (Arboricultural Stage 3). This statement should demonstrate that the trees have been properly considered, at a professional level, such that the site layout is defensible in arboricultural terms, both at the application stage and also, if necessary, at appeal.

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd


Project: Ten Trinity FLAC Instruction ref: CC 28-1058

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.

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd


Project: Ten Trinity FLAC Instruction ref: CC 28-1058

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 new planting 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 retention 3.3.1 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 trees are either passed their best or are failing to thrive and many of the shrubs are becoming leggy. The paved footpaths have lasted extremely well in relation to lifting by tree roots, but this process is in hand and only deterioration is likely from here 2. Many of the trees and shrubs are unusual, with several being more usually found in arboreta; the highlight of the collection is the Sassafras tree (tree number 5, Sassafras albidum), a member of a species represented by only a few examples in the UK. The four maidenhair trees (TG1, Ginkgo biloba) are also a feature, if, perhaps, something of an acquired taste 3.3.2 In light of these findings, it is perhaps instructive to consider how the garden might be managed going forward in the absence of any development influence.

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd


Project: Ten Trinity FLAC Instruction ref: CC 28-1058

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 building at 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 455m2 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 part of a balanced restoration programme. We consider that this magnitude of explicitly developmentrelated arboricultural impact is defensible in the context of returning the garden to a high quality space. As part of this process, tree and shrub species should be selected that include specimens of botanical interest, as this will help replicate the planting philosophy apparent in the present exhibit.

Julian Forbes-Laird
JULIAN FORBES-LAIRD Director

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd

APPENDIX JFL1 QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd


Planning TPO Safety Inspection Subsidence Litigation Design

JULIAN FORBES-LAIRD QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE

Julian Forbes-Laird is Director and Principal Consultant of Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd (FLAC), a small but nationally reputed practice. He has over eighteen years experience of undertaking a variety of arboricultural 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 to consultancy in 2000. After two years spent working as an independent consultant, he spent a further two years as Senior Consultant at CBA Trees, before establishing FLAC. FLAC provides an efficient and approachable service to Expert Witness level, geared to securing our clients objectives within the necessary timeframe in whatever area of arboriculture they may instruct us, though we specialise in planning 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 posed by defective trees (THREATS), JFL is a recognised authority on tree hazard assessment, and has undertaken several forensic 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 assessment, legal aspects of liability for hazard trees, subsidence, and the arboricultural significance of certain wood decay fungi 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 of historic 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 this demanding area of arboriculture. A significant proportion of our work relates to Tree Preservation Orders, and JFL has been instructed on several occasions to assist, as an expert witness, local authorities with prosecutions for offences under the relevant legislation. Additionally, he is author of the TEMPO system (and its cousin, Woodland TEMPO) for assessing whether trees merit TPO protection, a method currently in use with over 60 local authorities. The majority of our instructions derive from the planning process, such that we are very frequently asked to assist with all tree-related aspects of site development. As a natural consequence of this, JFL regularly contributes to all types of planning Appeals, representing both local authorities and also developers. JFL also undertakes advocacy at Public Local Inquiries on behalf of third party objectors, being the only arboricultural consultant in the UK to offer this service.

Principal Consultant:

Julian Forbes-Laird T/F E W

Registered Office:

BA(Hons), MICFor, MEWI, M.Arbor.A, Dip.Arb.(RFS)

01767 641648 jfl@flac.uk.com www.flac.uk.com

Dendron House 74 Barford Road Blunham Bedford MK44 3ND


Company Number 5253618

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd

JFL was a member of the British Standards Institution (BSI) drafting group which prepared the consultation draft of the 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-term review of it at the request of BSI. Additionally, he served on the Drafting Group currently revising Recommendations for Tree Work, BS3998. For BS5837, JFL was responsible for preparing drafts of the sections relating to tree survey methodology, and demolition and construction in proximity to trees. JFL is currently chair of the drafting group preparing a new British Standard, BS8516, provisionally titled Recommendations for Tree Safety Inspection, which is due to be published in autumn 2008. He is a member of the BSI technical committee on trees, B/213. Julian Forbes-Laird is a member and Registered Consultant of the Arboricultural Association; the latter remains the premier professional designation in arboriculture. He is a Member and Registered Consultant of the Institute of Chartered 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 Arboricultural 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 prosecution) Wokingham Unitary (Accident investigation) Solicitors ASB Law (Subsidence) Ellisons (Litigation) Forsters (PLI) Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (Litigation) Howes Percival (Litigation) Masons (Litigation) Taylor Wessing (Planning) Wedlake Bell (TPO Appeal) Architects Foster + Partners Hamiltons Hopkins Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands Stanton Williams Sutters Partnership Wilkinson Eyre Associates

Planning Consultants Barton Willmore Broadway Malyan Cluttons Cushman & Wakefield Hepher Dixon Hives RPS Tyler Parkes Landscape Architects Barton Willmore Design Cooper Partnership Hankinson Duckett Associates Lovejoy The Terra Firma Consultancy Developers Anderson Group Barratt Southern Counties Bellway David Wilson Durkan Fairview New Homes Gladedale Group Hollybrook Laing ORourke Martin Grant Persimmon Saxby Taylor Wimpey

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd

APPENDIX JFL2 TREE SURVEY: EXPLANATORY INFORMATION & DATA

ForbesLaird Arboricultural Consultancy

TEN TRINITY (TREES AT SEETHING GARDENS): KEY TO TREE SURVEY DATA

Methodology & tree safety This survey has been undertaken in compliance with BS5837:2005; it is not intended to be a tree safety survey in compliance with BS8516 (in press). Trees have been assessed visually from ground level; no invasive inspections have been undertaken nor have any trees been climbed. Any notes offered on structural integrity of trees are incidental; where hazard trees have been identified, and recommendations given for immediate intervention (red highlight in survey data schedule), this should be put in hand as soon as can be arranged. See also notes on management recommendations and pre-development treatments, below

Tree No. Tree numbers as per Tree Survey Plan (FLAC dwg no. TSP 28-1058.01) and subsequent drawings. In line with the advice of BS5837:2005, where trees occur as a cohesive group feature (suffixed TG), they are assessed as such, with all size data being given as mean figures unless either as stated or where individual trees within the group are also assessed. TG outlines follow the topographical survey. Any trees omitted from the topo survey are listed on the TSP, though their positions are only shown indicatively. Off-site trees may be included where deemed relevant, though their positions are also shown indicatively if omitted from topo base

Species Listed in the schedule by common name. Species present are: Common name Azara Black locust Black mulberry Cheals weeping cherry Cherry, Sato-Zakura gp Golden rain tree Honey locust Killarney strawberry tree Magnolia Maidenhair Norway maple Sassafras Tree cotoneaster Botanical name Azara microphylla Robinia pseudoacacia Morus nigra Prunus Cheals Weeping Prunus sp. Koelreuteria paniculata Gleditsia tricanthos Arbutus unedo Magnolia sp. Ginkgo biloba Acer platanoides Sassafras albidum Cotoneaster frigidus Provenance Exotic Exotic Exotic Exotic Exotic Exotic Exotic Native Exotic Exotic Exotic Exotic Exotic Notes Some authorities class as a shrub Also present as cv. Frisia Japanese cherries of garden origin Aka pride of India Republic of Ireland Species probably M. Heaven Scent Very rare in UK cultivation

Ht. (m) Tree height in metres

Dia. (mm) Stem diameter measured at 1.5m above ground level, given in millimetres. Where the stem sub-divides below 1.5m measurement is taken immediately above the basal flare, indicated by the notation MS. Where the entry appears in brackets, this indicates that it was estimated by the surveyor (for example, due to the presence of ivy on the stem). It is our practice to round up when estimating stem diameters

Note The root protection area (RPA) for any given tree is calculated as per Table 2 of BS5837:2005 and is based on multiplying the stem diameter either at 1.5m AGL by 12 (single stem trees), or at a point immediately above the basal flare by 10 (multi-stemmed or low crowned trees). This derives a radius which, when further multiplied according to the formula r2, gives the area in square metres requiring protection. However, the actual shape of this area is site & tree specific, and should only be determined by an arboriculturist. RPAs shown on the TCP for tree groups are indicative only

NSWE Radial crown spread in metres, listed for each of the four cardinal points

Ht. 1st br. Height above ground in metres of attachment point of first significant branch (cardinal point may be given indicating growing direction)

Age class Life stage divided into: Y MA M OM V Young Middle-aged Mature Over-mature Veteran

Phys. Condition An assessment of the physiological condition (i.e. health/vitality) status of the tree summarised into: GOOD FAIR POOR DEAD Generally in healthy condition Condition satisfactory though below mean species performance Tree in decline/retrenching Self explanatory

Structural condition & Notes Notes on the structural integrity of the tree based on visual tree assessment, including notes on form, taper, forking habit, storm damage, decay fungi, pests, etc as appropriate, plus other pertinent observations

Either Pre-development treatments Recommendations for intervention (e.g. tree surgery, felling, etc) prior to any development (NB this is not a specification for tree work: further advice will be required prior to implementation). Trees assessed as being in apparently immediately hazardous condition will be notified to the client separately as soon as practicable. Where the recommendation is for further investigation, including removal of ivy and reinspection, the given retention span and quality/value grade (see below) should be treated as provisional

Or Management recommendations Recommendations for intervention (e.g. tree surgery, felling, etc) in relation to existing context (NB this is not a specification for tree work: further advice will be required prior to implementation). Trees assessed as being in apparently immediately hazardous condition will be notified to the client separately as soon as practicable. Where the recommendation is for further investigation, including removal of ivy and reinspection, the given retention span and quality/value grade (see below) should be treated as provisional. Change in land use (target value) requires further assessment

Ret. Span An estimate of the remaining retention span that the tree or group of trees is expected to have, based on species, condition & context. The following longevity bands are used, categorised accordingly: 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 40+ Tree is dead, dying or collapse is imminent, or possibly requires sanitation felling. Highly unsuitable for retention or impossible to retain Tree is dying, has a severe structural defect, or will become exposed following inevitable loss of companion. Unsuitable for retention Short-term longevity only: replacement planting generally appropriate Mid-term longevity Good longevity

QV Grade Quality & Value grade classification according to BS5837:2005 (see attached extract from BS5837:2005 Table 1 - Cascade Chart for Tree Quality Assessment) R Removal priority A High retention priority B Moderate retention priority C Low retention priority

Note At paragraph 6.1 BS5837:2005 states: Certain trees are of such importance and sensitivity as to prevent development occurring or to substantially modify its design Should trees be found which we consider to fall within this description, this will be identified by the suffix * after the A grade, e.g. A1*

Table 1 Cascade chart for tree quality assessment


TREES FOR REMOVAL Category and definition
Category R Those in such a condition that any existing value would be lost within 10 years and which should, in the current context, be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management

Criteria
Trees that have a serious, irremediable, structural defect, such that their early loss is expected due to collapse, including those that will become unviable after removal of other R category trees (i.e. where, for whatever reason, the loss of companion shelter cannot be mitigated by pruning). Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, and irreversible overall decline. Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other trees nearby (e.g. Dutch elm disease), or very low quality trees suppressing adjacent trees of better quality. NOTE Habitat reinstatement may be appropriate (e.g. R category tree used as a bat roost: installation of bat box in nearby tree).

Identification on plan DARK RED RGB code: 127-000-000 AutoCAD 246

TREES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION Category and definition


1 Mainly arboricultural values Category A Those of high quality and value: in such a condition as to be able to make a substantial contribution (a minimum of 40 years is suggested) Category B Those trees of moderate quality and value: those in such a condition as to make a significant contribution (a minimum of 20 years is suggested) Trees that are particularly good examples of their species, especially if rare or unusual, or essential components of groups, or of formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (e.g. the dominant and/or principal trees within an avenue) Trees that might be included in the high category, but are downgraded because of impaired condition (e.g. presence of remediable defects including unsympathetic past management and minor storm damage)

Criteria Subcategories
2 Mainly landscape values Trees, groups or woodlands which provide a definite screening or softening effect to the locality in relation to views into or out of the site, or those of particular visual importance (e.g. avenues or other arboricultural features assessed as groups) 3 Mainly cultural values, including conservation Trees, groups or woodlands of significant conservation, historical, commemorative or other value (e.g. veteran trees or wood-pasture)

Identification on plan

LIGHT GREEN RGB code: 000-255-000 AutoCAD 90 MID BLUE RGB code: 000-000-255 AutoCAD 170

Category C Those trees of low quality and value: currently in adequate condition to remain until new planting could be established (a minimum of 10 years is suggested), or young trees with a stem diameter below 150 mm

Trees present in numbers, usually as groups or woodlands, Trees with clearly identifiable such that they form distinct landscape features, thereby conservation or other cultural benefits attracting a higher collective rating than they might as individuals but which are not, individually, essential components of formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (e.g. trees of moderate quality within an avenue that includes better, A category specimens), or trees situated mainly internally to the site, therefore individually having little visual impact on the wider locality Trees not qualifying in higher categories Trees present in groups or woodlands, but without this Trees with very limited conservation or conferring on them significantly greater landscape value, other cultural benefits and/or trees offering low or only temporary screening benefit NOTE Whilst C category trees will usually not be retained where they would impose a significant constraint on development, young trees with a stem diameter of less than 150 mm should be considered for relocation.

GREY RGB code: 91-91-91 AutoCAD 251

EXTRACT FROM BS5837:2005 TREES IN RELATION TO CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS BSI 2005 ADDITIONAL COLOUR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR

SEETHING GARDENS: TREE SURVEY DATA SCHEDULE

Tree No.

Species

Ht.

Dia. N (mm)

Ht. Age Class 1st br. (Y-MA-MOM-V)

Phys. Condition
(G-F-P-D)

Structural condition & Notes

Management recommendations

Ret. Span

QV Grade

Black locust cv. Frisia Black locust Honey locust

19

250

3.5 6.1 3.8 3

MA

2 3

18.9

305 135

2.9 6.2 3.7 2.5 3.3 2.9 1.5 5.9 3.5 3.2

MA Y

F F

4 5

Norway maple 7.4 Sassafras 6.6

175 335

3.0 3.6 3.3 2

1.8

Y M

G G

6.5 6.6 5.2 5.5 1.5

Honey locust

14.6

340

7.8 7.6 5.7 4.3 4

Magnolia

11.2

225

3.7 3.7 3.9 4.6 2

MA

8 9

Magnolia

6.5

180 BF 165

3.7 4.1 1.2 1.2

MA Y

F G

Norway maple 10.1

2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6

Bifurcates at 3m union appears satisfactory; minor deadwood throughout. Minor decay at elbow on limb at 4.1m, though not apparently severe. Prominent and attractive tree Crown shape distorted by adjacent tree though not severely so; minor dead wood. No apparent significant defects Crown shape distorted by adjacent tree to give poor shape and form; lower crown moribund & generally failing to thrive. Label gives planting date of 1983; tree is not cv. Sunburst per label Unions satisfactory for species; of low significance and poorly placed Spreading habit; profuse though minor dead wood throughout crown. Union to south crown becoming overstressed due to end-loading. Notable absence of root buttressing to east. Partially occluded pruning wounds in low crown Bifurcates at 4m union appears satisfactory though apparently with potential for deterioration: will require checking. Nest in upper crown. Planting date & cv. error as tree 3. Attractive shape & form, prominent tree Partially occluded pruning wound from removal of scaffold limb 450mm AGL: likely future decay point. Good shape & form. Good display in flower, though exhibit ephemeral Crown shape & stem distorted by adjacent tree to giving very poor shape and form. Decay pockets noted Unions satisfactory for species; of low significance and poorly placed

Remove dead wood

20 40 B1

No action required at time of survey Remove dead wood

20 40 B1 10 20 C1

No action required at time of survey Crown clean & prune previously noted limb for weight relief

20 - 40 C1 40+ A3

Remove dead wood

40+

B1

No action required at time of survey

20 40 B1

No action required at time of survey No action required at time of survey

10 20 C1 40+ C1

Tree No. 10 11

Species

Ht.

Dia. N (mm) 345 265 1.2 5 3 3

Ht. Age Class 1st br. (Y-MA-MOM-V)

Phys. Condition
(G-F-P-D)

Structural condition & Notes

Management recommendations

Ret. Span 40+ 40+

QV Grade B1 B1

Black mulberry Golden rain tree Black mulberry Azara

6.5 7

4.1 4 3 3

700 mm 2.1

M Y

G F

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

6.2 5.5

270 115 310 155 130 250 260

2.2 2 1 1

3.2 3 1 1

GL GL

MA MA M MA MA MA MA

F F G G F F G

Himalayan tree 6.5 Cotoneaster Cheals weeping cherry Cherry, SatoZakura group Magnolia Magnolia 2.5 5.2 6.9 7.2

4.5 5 3 3 2 4 3 4 5

4.7 4.2 2 4 4.5 1.8

Leans W; typical habit for species. No apparent significant defects Bifurcates at 2m AGL union appears satisfactory. Minor crown shape distortion by adjacent tree. Minor dead wood throughout crown. Label gives planting date of 1992 Typical habit for species; generally failing to thrive Best of several, others below size threshold for survey. Rare tree but drawn up with poor shape & form Good example with attractive shape and form; water shoots and basal epicormic growth; minor dead wood Good shape and form. Good display in flower, though at other times unremarkable Currently fair shape & form but future suppression & distortion by 17 likely; of low significance Bifurcates at 1m union appears satisfactory. Stem distorted with westerly lean Companion to 17. Good shape and form. Good display in flower. Occluded pruning wound on stem at 2.2m AGL. Minor dead wood though no apparent significant defects Crown shape distorted by adjacent tree & with lean to W though not apparently severe; generally no apparent significant defects Drawn up and insignificant

No action required at time of survey No action required at time of survey

No action required at time of survey No action required at time of survey Crown clean No action required at time of survey No action required at time of survey No action required at time of survey No action required at time of survey

40+

C1

20 40 C3 40+ B1

20 40 C1 20 40 C1 20 - 40 C1 20 40 B1

3.5 3.5 1.8 4 4 GL

4.4 4.3 4.2 1.9

19 20 21

Killarney strawberry tree Black locust Black locust

6 14.5 9.2

255 BF 145 520

1.7 3

3.5 1

700 Mm

M MA M

G G G

No action required at time of survey No action required at time of survey

40+ 40+ 20-40

B1 C1 B1

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.5 6.9 2.5 3.7 3 2.5

Phototropically induced growth distortion to lean Reduce height by ca. 4m & grow N into wind tunnel formed by high-rise office buildings: rapid adaptive growth reinforcing stem against increased loading

Tree No. 22 23 24

Species

Ht.

Dia. N (mm) 110 235 BF 355 BF

Ht. Age Class 1st br. (Y-MA-MOM-V)

Phys. Condition
(G-F-P-D)

Structural condition & Notes

Management recommendations

Ret. Span

QV Grade

Black locust Magnolia Killarney strawberry tree 4 no. Maidenhair trees

7.8 5 7.5

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.5 4 5 4 3.5 2.5 GL 4.5 1.5 500 mm

Y M M

F F G

Fair shape and form though failing to thrive

Formative pruning would improve

20 40 C1 40+ C1

TG1

21 22.4

445 mm

3.9 3.2 5.2 5.1 2.5 mm

Indifferent example with gappy crown though no No action required at time of survey apparent significant defects Bifurcates at 550mm AGL union forms as No action required at time of survey compression fork though no apparently weak. However form spoiled by loss of scaffold limb to E at 1.5m AGL. Remains as prominent and attractive tree. Surface rooting noted Prominent and ultimately attractive group No action required at time of survey despite slightly illogical planting layout and general scruffiness of species. North & south trees lean W; central pair drawn up, however, no apparent significant defects

20 40 B1

40+

A2

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd

APPENDIX JFL3 TREE SURVEY PLAN

Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy Ltd

APPENDIX JFL4 PRELIMINARY TREE CONSTRAINTS PLAN

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

8.4.

Appendix D BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 43 Revised Final

Appendix D BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report


12/02/2009 Revised Final
Issue No 4 44407499 /

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

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

Project Title: Report Title: Project No: Status: Client Company Name: Issued By:

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report 44407499 Revised Final Thomas Enterprises Inc URS Corporation Ltd. St Georges House 5 St Georges Road Wimbledon London SW19 4DR United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0) 20 8944 3300 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 8944 3301 www.urscorp.eu

Document Production / Approval Record Issue No: 1 Prepared by Name Gemma Russell Signature Date 12/02/2009 Position Ecological Consultant

Checked by

William Miles

12/02/2009

Senior EIA and Ecological Consultant

Approved by

Dr Reece Fowler

12/02/2009

Principal

Document Revision Record Issue No 1 2 3 4 Date 05/11/2008 06/11/2008 14/11/2008 12/02/2008 Details of Revisions Original Issue Final Issue Final Issue Revised Final Issue

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

LIMITATION URS Corporation Limited (URS) has prepared this 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 Report are 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.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

CONTENTS
Section Page No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... 1 1. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 4. 4.1. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 6. 7. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 8. 9. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 2 BREEAM BESPOKE HOTEL.......................................................................................... 3 Background ...................................................................................................................... 3 Land Use & Ecology Credits ............................................................................................ 3 PROFESSIONAL PROFILES.......................................................................................... 6 Suitably Qualified Ecologist.............................................................................................. 6 Surveyor ........................................................................................................................... 7 METHOLODOGY............................................................................................................. 8 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey ................................................................................... 8 EXISTING SITE ECOLOGY .......................................................................................... 10 Habitats .......................................................................................................................... 10 Target Notes................................................................................................................... 12 Fauna ............................................................................................................................. 12 Potential for Protected Species...................................................................................... 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 13 LAND USE AND ECOLOGY CREDITS LE3 TO LE6................................................... 14 LE3: Ecological Value of Land and Protection of Ecological Features .......................... 14 LE4: Mitigating Ecological Impact .................................................................................. 14 LE5: Enhancing Site Ecology......................................................................................... 15 LE6: Long Term Impact on Biodiversity ......................................................................... 16 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 18 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 19

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 20 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5. Appendix A - Curriculum Vitae ....................................................................................... 20 Appendix B - Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map.................................................................... 21 Appendix C - Species List .............................................................................................. 22 Appendix D Photographs ............................................................................................ 26 Appendix E Landscaping Strategy .............................................................................. 28

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page i Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10 Trinity Square is proposed for redevelopment. The new scheme shall provide hotel and residential accommodation within the former Port of London Authority (PLA) building and new areas of landscaped public realm. The Proposed Development requires alterations to the former PLA building and the clearance and re-establishment of the site, including the vegetation and trees within Seething Lane Garden, to allow for the creation of up to 40 basement parking spaces. BRE (Building Research Establishment) pre-assessments are being completed for the residential and hotel elements of the Proposed Development at 10 Trinity Square. This Ecology Report provides pre-assessments for the hotel element. The assessment has been carried out in accordance with BRE Bespoke Hotel 2008 guidelines for another development called Whitbread Premier Inn, as Bespoke Hotel guidelines have not yet been produced for this Development. Ecological assessments have been carried out for LE3 to LE6 by a suitably qualified ecologist. Baseline ecological information was obtained via two extended Phase 1 habitat surveys. Buildings and hardstanding dominate the site, however other features, including scattered broadleaved trees, amenity grassland, introduced shrub and scattered scrub were recorded within Seething Lane Garden to the west of the site and the internal courtyard within the former PLA building. A number of assumptions have been made within this ecological assessment, as the information required to make a full pre-assessment has not been made available at this stage. There are features of ecological value within the construction zone, meaning that 0 credits can be awarded for LE3. The ecological value of the site pre-development was calculated to be 0.147. It is not yet possible to determine the change in ecological value of the site, as the areas of habitat and numbers of species to be planted within these areas have not been provided. It is considered that 2 out of a possible 2 credits could potentially be awarded for LE4, which would require no negative change in the ecological value of the site. A total of six recommendations have been provided for LE5, however it has not been confirmed whether these will all be incorporated. It is considered, however, that these could be taken on 2 board to result in an increase in ecological value by up to six species per metre squared (m ) post-development. A total of 2 credits could therefore be gained for LE5. 1 credit could also be gained for LE6, by achieving all of the mandatory requirements and two of the additional requirements. To summarise, a total of 5 out of a possible 8 credits could be awarded for LE3 to LE6. Only 1 of these can be awarded at the preliminary stage (for LE4), as the information to confirm compliance has not yet been provided to achieve the other credits.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 1 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

1.

INTRODUCTION
10 Trinity Square (hereafter referred to as the site) is proposed for redevelopment. There are two different building uses within the Proposed Development, specifically residential and hotel. BRE pre-assessments are being completed for both of these elements, however this report relates to the latter only. The residential element falls under the jurisdiction of an EcoHomes 2006 assessment and is therefore considered in a separate report. This report and the ecological assessment within it have been completed by URS Corporation Limited. (URS) on behalf of Thomas Enterprises Inc. The format of this report complies with the BRE Ecology Report template (Ref. 1). BRE are in the process of creating Bespoke Hotel assessment guidelines for this Development and are therefore not as yet available for reference in this report. This assessment has therefore been completed in line with Bespoke Hotel guidelines produced for another development in 2008, called Whitbread Premier Inn (Ref. 2). The Land Use and Ecology Credits for Bespoke Hotel assessments are typically the same between developments, meaning that these guidelines are considered to provide a reliable reference. This Ecology Report relates only to the Land Use & Ecology Credits LE3 to LE6. LE1 and LE2 are not relevant here, as they do not require ecological assessments; the former relates to the reuse of land previously occupied by building developments and the latter to the use of reclaimed contaminated land. This ecological assessment aims to determine the impacts of the Proposed Development by identifying any important ecological features on site and detailing how they should be protected. Suitable enhancements to incorporate into the Proposed Development are also recommended. The main sections in this report are outlined as follows: Section 2 A brief outline of the BRE Bespoke Hotel assessment, including how the credits can be achieved; The qualifications of those involved in the completion of this report, specifically the surveyor and suitably qualified ecologist; The methodology used to complete the surveys required for the ecological assessment; A brief description of what is currently on the site; A brief description of the Proposed Development; Which credits can be achieved; and A summary of the credits awarded.

Section 3

Section 4

Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 2 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

2. 2.1.

BREEAM BESPOKE HOTEL Background


BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) Buildings can be used to assess the environmental performance of any type of building (new and existing). Standard versions exist for common buildings; three of which will be used to assess the site. Buildings that are less common can be assess against tailored criteria, and buildings outside the UK can also be assessed using BREEAM International. Trained personnel complete the final assessment awarding the development a number of credits interpreted in an overall rating of Excellent, Very Good, Good or Pass. The assessment is carried out in two stages, one at design stage to provide an interim certification and the second post-construction to confirm compliance to the interim certification during management and operation. The Land Use & Ecology credits LE3 to LE6 aim to reduce the impact on the ecology present on site by: Reducing any adverse impacts upon important ecological features on site predevelopment; and Providing guidance on positively enhancing the sites ecology by incorporating new habitats and enhancing those already present. Guidance is also provided on the long-term management of the site.

2.2.

Land Use & Ecology Credits


Credits LE3 to LE6 relate to different aspects of the potential impact on the sites ecology. LE3 considers the protection of ecological features whereas LE4 and LE5 relate to what is currently on site, compared to what will be on the site post-development. LE6 relates to the long-term impact on biodiversity. Further details regarding each of these credits are given below.

2.2.1.

LE3: Ecological Value of Land and Protection of Ecological Features (1 Credit)


One credit is awarded when it has been demonstrated that the construction zone can be defined as land of low ecological value. All existing features of ecological value outside of the construction zone, but within the Proposed Development site, need to be fully protected from damage during deconstruction and construction works.

2.2.2.

LE4: Mitigating Ecological Impact (2 Credits)


The change in ecological value as a result of the Proposed Development is calculated using Ecology Calculator 1 or Ecology Calculator 2, which are both provided by BRE.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 3 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

The latter requires that a suitably qualified ecologist be appointed to confirm actual species numbers for the existing site following a site survey. Ecology Calculator 2 calculates the ecological value of the site before and after 2 Development, as the number of species per square metre (species/m ). Then the overall change in ecological value is calculated by comparing the ecological value of the site pre and post-development. If there is a minor negative change in ecological value, between less than zero and equal 2 to or less than minus nine species per m , then one credit is awarded. The full two credits will be awarded if there is a neutral or enhancement, of equal to, or greater than, 2 zero species/m as a result of the Development.

2.2.3.

LE5: Enhancing Site Ecology (3 Credits)


One credit is awarded where evidence is provided to demonstrate that the design team appointed a professional to advise and report on enhancing and protecting the ecological value of the site, and implement the professionals recommendations for general enhancement and protection of the ecology on site. One credit is also awarded if evidence is provided to demonstrate a positive increase in 2 the ecological value of the site of up to (but not including) six species per m using the same calculator as for LE4. An additional credit is awarded if the positive increase in the 2 ecological value of the site is six species per m or greater.

2.2.4.

LE6 Long Term Impact on Biodiversity (2 Credits)


One credit is awarded when evidence is provided to demonstrate that the client has committed to achieving the mandatory requirements listed below and at least two of the additional requirements. Two credits are awarded when evidence is provided to demonstrate that the client has committed to achieving the mandatory requirements listed below and at least four of the additional requirements.

2.2.4.1.

Mandatory Requirements A suitably qualified ecologist appointed prior to commencement of activities on site, must confirm in writing that: 1. All relevant United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) legislation relating to protection and enhancement of ecology has been, or will be, complied with during the design and construction process. 2. An appropriate management plan is produced covering at least the first 5 years after project completion. This is to be handed over to the building occupants and includes: (a) Management of any protected features on site; (b) Management of any new, existing or enhanced habitats; and

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 4 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

(c) A reference to the current or future site level Biodiversity Action Plan. 3. Where there is a commitment to produce a management plan, information is provided detailing: (a) Scope of management plan; and (b) Key responsibilities, and with whom these responsibilities lie, for example with the owner or landlord. 2.2.4.2. Additional Requirements 1. The contractor is required to nominate a Biodiversity Champion with the authority to influence site activities and ensure that detrimental impacts on site biodiversity are minimised in line with the recommendations of a suitably qualified ecologist, as defined in Ecological Value of Land and Protection of Ecological Features, LE3. 2. The contractor is required to train all relevant site workforces on how to protect site ecology during the project. Specific training should be carried out for the site workforces to ensure they are aware of how to avoid damaging site ecology. Training should be based on the findings and recommendations for protection of ecological features highlighted within a report prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist. 3. The contractor is required to record actions taken to protect biodiversity and monitor their effectiveness throughout the key stages of construction. The requirement commits the contractor to make such records available where publicly requested. 4. The client requires that a new ecologically valuable habitat, appropriate to the local area, be created. This includes habitat that supports nationally, regionally or locally important biodiversity, and/or which is nationally, regionally or locally important itself; including any habitat listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP), those protected within statutory sites (e.g. SSSIs), or those within non-statutory sites identified in local plans. 5. The client requires the contractor to programme site works to minimise disturbance to wildlife. For example, site preparation, ground works, and landscaping have been, or will be, scheduled at an appropriate time of year to minimise disturbance to wildlife. Timing of works may have a significant impact on, for example, breeding birds, flowering plants, seed germination, amphibians, etc. Actions such as phased clearance of vegetation may help to mitigate ecological impacts. This additional requirement will be achieved where a clear plan has been produced detailing how activities will be timed to avoid any impact on site biodiversity in line with the recommendations of a suitably qualified ecologist. 6. The client requires actions to be taken to protect/enhance biodiversity, take full account of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) and use local biodiversity experts (e.g. the local wildlife trust) to help identify ecologically important habitats/species on site. A suitably qualified ecologist can advise on incorporating UKBAP issues into the project (information is also available at: www.ukbap.org.uk).

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 5 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

3. 3.1.

PROFESSIONAL PROFILES Suitably Qualified Ecologist


Name: Position: Qualifications: William Miles. Senior Ecological Consultant at URS. MSc Environmental Assessment and Management; and BSc (Hons) Biological Sciences. Memberships: Associate Member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) and of the Institute Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).

3.1.1.

Experience
Will has been working in ecological consultancy since 2000. Over this time he has worked as an Ecologist for Terence ORourke (2000 and 2003), an Ecological Planner for Land Use Consultants (2004 to 2005) and currently works as the Senior Ecologist in URS London Office (2005 to present). Will has also worked in a volunteer capacity for both English Nature (1995 & 1996), as an assistant conservation officer, and Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Hunting BRAE (1999), as an ecological surveyor. Wills work in consultancy has included undertaking and managing ecology work in the field as well as in the office. He has worked for both the public and private sectors on a wide variety of projects, plans and proposals in urban and countryside environments, aquatic and terrestrial. This work has included field surveys, management plans, watching briefs, impact assessment (for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Appropriate Assessment and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)) peer review (both internal and external), report writing and project management. This work has given Will experience with a wide variety of notable and protected species including bats, badgers, reptiles, water voles, Schedule 1 birds and great crested newts. He has managed the completion of a number of strategic and local habitat management plans and has advised on and produced Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). Since joining URS, Will has worked and managed on over 40 Ecological Impact Assessments and has developed ecological mitigation strategies for each when necessary.

3.1.2.

Verification of Report:
William Miles, who has verified this report, is a suitably qualified ecologist as defined by BRE, that is to say: He holds an undergraduate degree in Biological Sciences, which was focused on the ecological sciences. He also holds a masters degree in Environmental

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 6 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

Assessment and Management, which in particular focused on ecology surveying, impact assessment and mitigation; He is a practising ecologist with five years of direct ecological experience out of the last five years; and He is a member of both the Institute of Ecology and Environment (IEEM) and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), and is therefore covered by a professional code of conduct. His work is also subject to peer review.

A full CV is provided in Appendix A of this report.

3.2.

Surveyor
Name: Position: Qualifications: Memberships: Gemma Russell. Ecological Consultant at URS. BSc Combined Honours Animal Behaviour and Wildlife Biology. Graduate Member of the IEEM (Associate Membership Pending).

3.2.1.

Experience
In 2005, Gemma completed a BSc in Animal Behaviour and Wildlife Biology at Anglia Polytechnic University (now Anglia Ruskin University). Gemma has gained over a year and a halfs experience within ecological consultancy at URS since graduating in 2005. At URS she predominantly completes ecological field survey work, particularly Extended Phase 1 habitat surveys, and Ecological Impact Assessments both as part of EIAs and stand-alone documents. Through the impact assessment process, she develops appropriate mitigation strategies and provides recommendations on how to enhance the ecological value of landscaping strategies for a range of developments. Her baseline survey experience also includes reptile, water vole and bat surveys. A full CV is provided within Appendix A of this report.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 7 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

4.

METHOLODOGY
This section outlines the survey work and processes involved in carrying out the BREEAM Bespoke Hotel assessment for LE3 to LE6: Two extended Phase 1 habitat surveys, including the completion of a Phase 1 habitat map (Appendix B) and species list (Appendix C); A review of landscaping proposals (Appendix E); and Compilation of recommendations to enhance the ecological value of the site.

4.1.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey


An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was conducted throughout the site and the surrounding pavements, in accordance with guidance provided by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (Ref. 3). A Phase 1 habitat survey is a standard technique for rapidly obtaining baseline ecological information over a large area of land. It is primarily a mapping technique and uses a standard set of habitat definitions for classifying areas of land on the basis of the vegetation present. This technique was modified (or extended) to give further consideration to fauna. Incidental records of fauna were made during the survey and the habitats identified were evaluated for their potential to support protected species and other species of conservation concern, including BAP priority species. Target notes (TN) were also taken during the survey to provide further detail on important habitats or features. The reference number relates the target notes to the corresponding location shown on Phase 1 habitat survey map in Appendix B. The dominant and readily identified species of higher plants from each habitat type within the survey area were also recorded and their abundance was assessed on the DAFOR scale: D A F O R Dominant; Abundant; Frequent; Occasional; and Rare.

It should be recognised that this scale represents relative abundance within each habitat type, rather than regional or national abundances. The first survey was conducted on 3 September 2008. This is within the optimal period for habitat surveys (April to September). Access was gained to all public areas of the site, specifically Seething Lane Garden and the pavements surrounding the former PLA

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 8 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

building. A separate survey was carried out on 15 October 2008, when access was gained into the internal courtyard of the former PLA building. This is just outside the recommended survey window, however the nature of planting within this area means that this is not considered to be a significant limitation to the survey results.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 9 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

5.

EXISTING SITE ECOLOGY


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 D, Plates 1 and 2). The site is located in a commercial district in the CoL.

5.1.

Habitats
The following Phase 1 habitat types were recorded during the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, which are described below and mapped in Appendix B: Scattered broadleaved trees; Dense scrub; Scattered scrub; Tall ruderal; Amenity grassland; Ephemeral/short perennial; Introduced shrub; Species-poor hedgerow; Fence; Buildings; and Bare ground.

5.1.1.

Scattered Broadleaved Trees


All trees within the site are located in Seething Lane Garden; there are no trees on pavements surrounding the former PLA building. The trees in the garden are exotics, including the mature sassafras (Sassafras albidum), false-acacia (Robinia pseudacacia) (Appendix D, Plate 3), maidenhair (Gingko biloba) (Appendix D, 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 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 native young hazels (Corylus avellana) were also noted.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 10 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

5.1.2.

Dense Scrub
Ivy provides dense ground cover within the internal courtyard.

5.1.3.

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.

5.1.4.

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 fleabane also grows in areas of bare ground within the internal courtyard, in addition to a few stands of spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and butterfly bush.

5.1.5.

Amenity Grassland
There are two small areas of amenity grassland in the middle of the garden; they are well managed and dominated by perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne). Other common species were also recorded, including greater plantain (Plantago major), daisy (Bellis perennis), annual meadow grass (Poa annua) and crescent-cup liverwort (Lunularia cruciata). There are also areas of bare ground where the grass has died, likely due to shading caused by surrounding trees.

5.1.6.

Ephemeral/Short Perennial
Short perennial vegetation occurs in patches within areas of bare ground within the Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), daisy, dandelion internal courtyard. (Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.) and ladys mantle (Alchemilla vulgaris) were all noted.

5.1.7.

Introduced Shrubs
Introduced shrubs have been planted around the edges of the 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).

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 11 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

5.1.8.

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

5.1.9.

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.

5.2.

Target Notes
1. Tall ruderal vegetation growing in cracks between the pavement and the road in the absence of management. Disused birds nest in ornamental plum tree; and Disused birds nest in false acacia tree.

2. 3.

5.3.

Fauna
The following species were recorded frequently throughout the survey of Seething Lane Garden: Feral pigeon (Columba livia); Woodpigeon (Columba palumbus); Blackbird (Turdus merula); Flock of house sparrows (Passer domesticus) feeding on bread; and Flock of starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) feeding on mulberries.

No fauna was observed during the survey of the internal courtyard.

5.4.

Potential for Protected Species


The site has a limited potential to support protected species, due to the urban nature of the surrounding area. The site does, however, provide nesting habitat for breeding birds. Further details are provided below.

5.4.1.

Nesting Birds
The trees in Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard, in addition to the former PLA building provide suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds, including Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC). For example, the house sparrow was recorded within Seething Lane Garden, which is a red list BoCC listed on the UK, London and Westminster BAPs. The starling has also been recorded in the garden, which is also a red list BoCC listed on the UKBAP. All birds, their active nests and eggs are protected

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 12 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

under the WCA 1981 (as amended), with the exception of species considered as pests listed on Schedule 2. The existing site does not have the potential to support nesting or foraging black redstarts (Phoenicurus ochruros). However, the open ground, heavy machinery and structures during the deconstruction and construction of the Development may offer attractive nesting opportunities for black redstarts should disturbance on site, or on part of the site, be temporarily reduced or removed. 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 1981 (as amended) and so receives more stringent protection than most wild birds.

6.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Proposed Development will alter and extend the existing building to provide hotel 2 and residential accommodation, totalling approximately 41,528m gross internal area (GIA) of floor space. Furthermore, up to 40 basement parking spaces are proposed as part of the Proposed Development, for both residential and hotel use. The Proposed Development will involve the clearance of all vegetation on site, both within Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard within the former PLA building. Other elements of the scheme include high-quality re-landscaping of Seething Lane Garden, along with the provision of communal and back of house facilities including leisure spa facilities, hotel servicing, ballroom, rotunda, restaurant and the second floor function areas.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 13 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

7. 7.1.

LAND USE AND ECOLOGY CREDITS LE3 TO LE6 LE3: Ecological Value of Land and Protection of Ecological Features
The site cannot be defined as land of low ecological value. The majority of the planting within Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard is ornamental, however the presence of numerous mature trees in the garden and the native common beech hedge along the southern boundary means that this credit cannot be awarded. These trees must be considered as features of ecological value, especially given the urban location of the site and the lack of vegetation and bird nesting opportunities in the surrounding area. This conclusion has been drawn by a suitably qualified ecologist considering the findings of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey. 0 credits are therefore awarded for LE3.

7.2.
7.2.1.

LE4: Mitigating Ecological Impact


Ecological Value of the Existing Site
A suitably qualified ecologist has been appointed to provide accurate species numbers for the existing site. Ecology Calculator 2 has therefore been used to assess the predevelopment score, which quantifies the ecological value of the site. The species recorded within each habitat type are listed in Appendix C. For the purposes of this calculation, broadleaved scattered trees have been included within the site area of the habitat in which they have been found. Only native species or species of known benefit to local fauna have been included in the calculation as stated in the BREEAM Bespoke Hotel 2008 guidelines for Whitbread Premier Inn (Ref. 2). The numbers of native species recorded within each habitat type are detailed in Table 1, in addition to the respective site areas and pre-development score. Table 1: Pre-Development Site Score
Habitat type Amenity Grassland Tall Ruderal Ephemeral/Short Perennial Scattered Scrub Dense Scrub Species-Poor Intact Hedge Pebble Introduced Shrub Bare Ground Buildings Area of Habitat 2 (Approximate m ) 80.78 29.33 5.43 13.48 36.64 8.55 282.25 322.89 570.56 3978.93 Number of Native Species Present 7 7 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 Pre-Development Site Score 0.072 0.026 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.036 0 0 0

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 14 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

Habitat type Hardstanding Total

Area of Habitat 2 (Approximate m ) 2440.46 7769.30

Number of Native Species Present 0 23

Pre-Development Site Score 0 0.147

Therefore the pre-development site score provided by the Ecology Calculator 2 is 0.147.

7.2.2.

Change in Ecological Value


It has not yet been confirmed how many native species will be planted on the site postdevelopment, or within what areas of habitat, meaning that it is not currently possible to determine the change in ecological value. This can be determined once these details have been provided using Ecology Calculator 2. As the areas of planting post-development and numbers of native species have not been provided, it is only possible to award 1 credit at the preliminary stage. This requires there to be a minimal decrease in the ecological value of the site. This credit can be awarded by default, as the pre-development site score is only 0.147. However, based on the landscaping information provided in Appendix E and the pre-development score, it is considered that 2 credits could be awarded for LE4. This requires there to be no decrease in the ecological value of the site.

7.3.
7.3.1.

LE5: Enhancing Site Ecology


Recommendations
All recommendations need to be implemented to achieve the first credit for LE5. The following recommendations have been suggested to the design team: Plant at least 60% native shrubs and trees within the boundaries of the site; Create a field layer underneath trees and shrubs planted within the wilderness garden, using at least 80% native species. This will increase the diversity of Seething Lane Garden and provide habitat for bees, butterflies and other insects; Incorporate at least 1 native hedgerow that is at least 12 metres (m) in length. This will create valuable foraging opportunities for birds; Install at least 4 bird boxes in appropriate locations within the scheme. Nest boxes with different sized holes (32 millimetres (mm) and 25mm diameter) should be provided, in order to cater for a variety of different species. Bird boxes should be installed onto the trees within Seething Lane Garden; Allow the grassland and flowering plants within the wilderness garden to grow tall during the summer, allowing a maximum of one cutting each summer period (April through to August inclusive). This would provide habitats and food for invertebrates and seeds for birds; and

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 15 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

Employ good horticultural practice. This includes minimising the use of pesticides, using leaf mulches and using organic fertilisers.

7.3.2.

Change in Ecological Value


A further 2 credits are available for LE5, however it is not yet possible to determine whether these credits can be achieved. Once the areas of habitat to be planted postdevelopment are available, in addition to the total species numbers, then Ecology Calculator 2 can then be used again to assess the change in ecological value. 0 credits are awarded for LE5 at this stage. A written commitment has not been received confirming that these recommendations have been, or will be, implemented. Similarly, the recommendations have not been incorporated into the landscaping information provided in Appendix E. However, based on the existing landscaping information provided in Appendix E, it is considered that a total of 2 credits could be awarded for LE5. The recommendations detailed above would need to be incorporated to result in an increase 2 of up to six species per m post-development.

7.4.
7.4.1.
7.4.1.1.

LE6: Long Term Impact on Biodiversity


Mandatory Requirements
Legislative Compliance Relevant UK and EU legislation relating to protection and enhancement of the ecology will be complied with during the deconstruction and construction of the Proposed Development. The following paragraphs detail the mitigation measures that will be put in place to ensure compliance, which are also detailed within the Ecological Impact Assessment completed for the purposes of the planning application. All birds, their active nests and eggs are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), with the exception of species considered as pests listed on Schedule 2. The clearance of the trees within Seething Lane Garden and the demolition of the existing buildings will therefore be undertaken outside of the breeding season, i.e. vegetation clearance and deconstruction will be undertaken in the period August to February inclusive. However, should this not be practicable, 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 clearance, to check for the presence/absence of any birds nests. If any active nests are found, then clearance activities and demolition will cease and an appropriate buffer zone will be established. This buffer zone will be left intact until it has been confirmed that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use. Black redstarts are listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA 1981 (as amended) and therefore receive more stringent protection than most wild birds. Potential impacts on black redstarts will be mitigated by not leaving the site dormant for more than two weeks during

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 16 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

the deconstruction and construction phases. Activity, noise and light on the site during this period will cause a large enough disturbance impact to deter any nesting birds. If the site is left dormant for two weeks or more during the deconstruction and construction phases of the Development and within the bird-breeding season, then an experienced ornithologist will be brought on to the site to check for the presence of nesting black redstarts. Measures will be undertaken to deter birds from nesting. However, 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 may comprise a circular area with a 5m radius that will be left intact until it has been confirmed by the ornithologist that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use. 7.4.1.2. Management Plan The completion of a Management Plan will be a condition of the planning application. An appropriate management plan will therefore be produced, covering the first 5 years after project completion, in accordance with the BREEAM Bespoke Hotel 2008 guidelines for Whitbread Premier Inn.

7.4.2.

Additional Requirements
There are a total of six additional requirements; it is suggested that the following two requirements could be adhered to in order to gain 1 credit for LE6. It would not be possible to keep to points 1, 2, and 3, as all of the vegetation and trees on site are proposed for removal. Full descriptions of all six additional requirements are listed in Section 2.2.4.2 Additional Requirements. 4. The client requires that a new ecologically valuable habitat, appropriate to the local area, be created. This would be achieved automatically if the recommendations detailed in Section 7.3.1 are taken on board; and 5. The client requires the contractor to programme site works to minimise disturbance to wildlife. This would be achieved if clearance works were carried out outside of the birdbreeding season (August to February inclusive). 0 credits can be awarded for LE6 at the preliminary stage. While a commitment has been made to producing the Management Plan and complying with all relevant UK and EU legislation, adherence to two of the additional requirements has not been confirmed. However, 1 credit could be awarded for LE6. This would require confirmation of compliance with these two additional requirements, as well as with the mandatory requirements.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 17 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

8.

SUMMARY
Table 2 summarises the number of Land Use and Ecology credits that could be awarded at the preliminary stage and could awarded if evidence is supplied. Table 2 Summary of Credits (LE3-LE6)

Credit

Available Credit(s)

Credits Achieved at Preliminary Stage

Credits that could Potentially be Awarded

Explanation

LE3

The construction zone cannot be defined as land of low ecological value. The mature trees in Seething Lane Garden are features of ecological value. It is not currently possible to calculate the change in ecological value, as the necessary information has not been provided at this stage. However 1 credit has been awarded by default, due to the low pre-development site score. 2 credits could be awarded, based on the current landscaping information. This requires there to be a neutral or positive change in the ecological value of the site. Evidence has not been provided to prove that all of the key and 30% of the additional recommendations have been or will be incorporated, meaning that 0 credits can be awarded at the preliminary stage. 2 credits could potentially be awarded. This requires that the recommendations be incorporated into the landscaping strategy to result in an increase in the ecological 2 value of the site by up to six species per m . Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the client has committed to achieving all the mandatory requirements and two of the additional requirements. 1 credit could be awarded if evidence is provided to confirm compliance.

LE4

LE5

LE6

Total

1 credit can be awarded out of a possible 8 for LE3 to LE6 at the preliminary stage, however 5 credits could potentially be awarded if evidence is provided.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 18 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

9.

REFERENCES
Ref. 1 BRE, (2006); BREEAM 2006 Land Use & Ecology Guidance to relate ecology reports to BREEAM. BRE, Watford. BRE, (2008); BREEAM Bespoke 2008 Whitbread Premier Inn. Land Use & Ecology Section. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), (1993); Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit (revised reprint). JNCC. Peterborough.

Ref. 2

Ref. 3

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 19 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

APPENDICES 9.1. Appendix A - Curriculum Vitae

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 20 Revised Final

William Miles
Senior Ecological Consultant Environmental Assessment Team

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Areas of Environmental Impact Assessment Expertise Ecological Survey


Ecological Impact Assessment Appropriate Assessment and Habitats Directive Advice Ecological Planning and Management Expert Witness on Ecological Issues Environmental Planning Advice

Education MSc in Environmental Assessment and Management, Oxford Brookes University,


2002-2003 BSc (Hons) in Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, 1997-2000

Career Will has been working in Environmental Consultancy since 2000. In that time he has Summary completed various projects for Terence ORourke and Land Use Consultants and is

now an established member of the Environmental Assessment Team at URS. Since starting at URS, Will has worked on a number of EIAs in both rural and urban environments as well as providing more detailed expertise on ecological planning, management and impact assessment. This ecology work has also focused Habitats Directive work and Appropriate Assessment. Wills EIA work has resulted in the production and management of Scoping Reports and Environmental Assessments, as well as managing sub-consultants, client expectations and project deadlines. Will has also worked on SEA, land management strategies and impact assessment guidance.

Career Detail Environmental Consultant


URS corporation Ltd, London, November 2005-Present

Popeswood Park, Bracknell- Project Manager for the environmental, socioeconomic and sustainability elements of ARLs proposals for land to the west of Bracknell. These proposals include the development of 6,500 new homes, a new business park, a new station, new social infrastructure including schools and health care, retail facilities and a number of other elements. To date this has involved the production of numerous technical and feasibility documents as well as responding and contributing to planning representations and examination in public. Work has included producing: Strategic Environmental Constraints and Opportunities Report; Preliminary socio economic report; Sustainability forecasting report and statement; Thames Basin Heaths SPA technical report; Policy compliance and transport needs statement; Ecological surveys; Agricultural surveys; North and west comparative work; Planning representations and a local and regional level; Site allocations SEA critique.

Brants Bridge Expert Witness, Bracknell- Will has been commissioned as an expert witness for a planning appeal relating to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and the implications of the Habitats Directive. This involved writing witness proofs, advising the legal team, completing an appropriate assessment, negotiating with both the local council and Natural England. This proposal now has planning permission.

William Miles
Senior Ecological Consultant Environmental Assessment Team

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

North Killingholme Port Facility, Lincolnshire- Lead Ecological consultant on a proposal to develop 450ha of agricultural land for a new port facility. This work has involved liaising and working with numerous other ecological consultants as well as undertaking our own survey work for Badgers and Bats. The Environmental Statement is being produced and URS are completing the ecological impact assessment as well as representing the client when responding to stakeholder issues. Battersea Power Station, Wandsworth- Lead Ecological consultant for the proposal to redevelop this site. The old power station site represents one of the best brownfield habitats in London and contains Peregrine Falcons and Black Redstarts. Will has managed the completion of the survey work and impact assessments. Mitigation strategies and Code for Sustainable Homes Ecology work are currently being completed. Will has been leading consultation with both Natural England and the Environment Agency. Llandinam Windfarm Repowering and Extension, Powys- Will reviewed the baseline ecological data for the windfarm project and managed the production of the Llandinam Windfarm extension. He ensured that the work that was completed has accurate and correct and that the survey was robust. He also helped complete the Ecological Impact Assessment for the project and dealt with any appropriate assessment issues. Kilbirnie Hydrogen Plant- Will reviewed the baseline ecology studies and ensured that all necessary work had been completed prior to the Ecological Impact Assessment being completed. Once complete, he reviewed and made necessary amendments to the ecological impact assessment to ensure that impacts had been properly described and appropriate mitigation had been agreed. Swanwick Marina, Southampton- URS is providing both engineering and environmental advice to Premier Marinas to re-develop an existing Marina site on the River Hamble in Hampshire. Will is the project manager with regard to the environmental part of the work. A Scoping Report, Environmental Statement, and an Appropriate Assessment Report including Recreation Surveys have been completed and planning permission has been granted. URS is now helping Premier Marinas with the post planning licensing and consents process. Chichester Marina, Chichester- Follow on work from Premier Marinas following a successful application for Swanwick Marina. Will is again project managing the work and both a Scoping Report and EIA will be required. Overwintering bird surveys have been completed and discussions regarding the nearby SPA are underway. BP Humber Pipeline, Yorkshire and North Lincs - Seven years ago an EIA was produced for a pipeline from one side of the Humber to the north. Planning permission for this scheme was granted but expired. URS was commissioned to review, update and revise the old ES so that a new, robust planning application could be submitted. Will is a key member of this team, managing subconsultants, completing ES chapters, attending client meetings and revising the ecology work.

William Miles
Senior Ecological Consultant Environmental Assessment Team

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Station View, Guildford- Will provided Habitats Directive advice to the Regional Group of Companies regarding a residential development within the centre of Guildford and the new planning framework that is developing around the Thames Basin Heaths. Wharf Road, Hackney- Will managed the completion of the survey effort and the ecological impact assessment for this residential planning permission. This site was adjacent to an old canal basin which was designated as a site of borough importance for nature conservation. Negotiations and discussions were required with both the project team (landscape architects and architects) and the Environment Agency, to find a satisfactory solution to a number of ecological issues relating to water edge developments. The result of this work meant that EA dropped its objection to the proposal. Project Olive, East London- This project was for a large residential and mixeduse scheme in the London Borough of Newham. Will was a key member of the EIA team at URS helping to managing and review various technical reports to ensure consistency throughout the Environmental Statement. Will has since been advising the team on the complex intertidal ecological implication of their proposals, and finding a positive solution for the client, statutory agencies and local authorities. The Bishopsgate Tower, London- A member of the EIA team for the Bishopsgate Tower located in the heart of the City of London. The development proposals included the demolition of the current on-site buildings and the construction of a 63-storey signature building, which at a height of 307m is destined to be the tallest in the city Holland Park School, West London- Will provided ecological advice to the ES for the redevelopment of a school in the West of London. These scheme had a number of sensitive ecological receptors and it was important that each one was properly considered if planning permission is to be granted. Managing, reviewing and undertaking over 40 Ecological Impact Assessments for projects including, the Tate Modern, Bucklesbury House commercial development, Aldgate Union mixed use development, Commercial Road residential development, East India Dock and Mill Lane residential developments and many others. Will also provides ecological advice to members of the URS team and regularly attends meetings and leads discussions with the Environment Agency and Natural England. In addition to the Ecological Impact Assessment work outlined above will has also completed and managed the ecological element of numerous Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM assessments, including work for the Tate Modern, East Road, Mill harbour Quarter, Wharf Road and 10 Trinity Square.

A selection of Previous Work 2000-2004 Dunlaw Windfarm, Borders- Will reviewed a number of ES chapters within the Environmental Statement to ensure technical compliance with current impact assessment guidance and legal precedent. Particular focus was given to the ecology chapter and the consideration of cumulative impacts.

William Miles
Senior Ecological Consultant Environmental Assessment Team

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Green Arc Biodiversity Audit and Objective Setting Exercise- Project Manager for a study looking at collating and prioritising the various Species, Habitat and Natural Area Targets found within the Green Arc, in order to produce a suite of Biodiversity Targets to inform the Green Arc project plan.

ODPM Study into EIA Scoping- This project is was carried out by LUC and the

University of Manchesters EIA Centre. Its aim was to look into the use of scoping and scoping opinions in the UK and to assess whether the introduction of scoping has benefited EIA and the UKs environment, and to ask whether or not the process should become mandatory. SSSI PSA Delivery Plan for the East of England- Project Manager for a study that produced a delivery plan so that DEFRA could meet its Public Service Agreement (PSA) of bringing 95% of all SSSIs into favourable condition by 2010. This study was led by English Nature and involved the cooperation of a number of public bodies. The study built on the work already completed by various EN teams in the East of England and looked to solve and highlight key issues for the areas SSSIs, whilst bringing together various public bodies to meet the targets challenge. London Borough of Harrow Green Belt Management Strategy- This project looked to improve the Harrow Green Belt area for the local people and the wildlife that lives there. The strategy aimed to improve access, biodiversity, and recreation whilst improving the economics of the area through farm diversification. The study also provided new funding options and management structures for Harrows Green Belt. Yorkshire and Humber RSS SEA Baseline Study- Will helped complete a study to balance the stipulations of the SEA Regulations and the Sustainability Appraisal guidelines to provide a report that could meet both sets of requirements. Information was collected from a variety of public and private sources and presented in a concise and succinct report which accurately illustrated the diverse baseline condition of the Yorkshire and Humberside Region.

Professional Environmental Planner for Land Use Consultants, 2004-2005 History Ecologist for Terence ORourke, 2000 & 2003 Affiliations Associate Member of the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management
(IEMA) Associate Member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)

Publications Going Going Gone? The Cumulative Impact of Land Development on Biodiversity in
England, English Nature, 2005 Bringing the Big Outdoors Closer to People- A Biodiversity Audit and Objective Setting Exercise for the Green Arc, English Nature, 2005 The Problems with In Combination Effects, Oxford Brookes University, 2003. Also referenced within the SEA and Biodiversity Guidance produced in 2004 by English Nature, RSPB, CCW and SNH.

Gemma Russell
Ecological Consultant

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Areas of Ecological Impact Assessment Expertise Ecological field survey work and research
Planning and management of ecological mitigation and enhancement Environmental Impact Assessment

Education Anglia Polytechnic University: 2002 2005


BSc Combined Honours Animal Behaviour and Wildlife Biology 1 (First Class)

Career Gemma has gained experience working in a variety of fields within the environmental Summary sector since gradating in 2005. She undertook field research at the Hawk Conservancy
Trust near Andover and then went on to work as a Voluntary Officer for BTCV, where she led volunteers on practical conservation projects. She also delivered an environmental education programme at an Environmental Action Camp in 2006.

She started working in Environmental Consultancy for URS Corporation in March 2007. Working within the Environmental Assessment Team (EAT), she provides support for the team in the production of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and other reports, by providing research and professional consulting services. She primarily deals with ecology and nature conservation issues arising from developments and has specific experience carrying out Ecological Impact Assessments (EcIAs), from baseline surveys and research to impact assessment and mitigation.

Career Ecological Consultant Detail URS Corporation Ltd, London: March 2007 Present
Gemma has worked on a number of EIAs and other projects in both rural and urban environments as well as providing more detailed expertise on ecological planning, management and impact assessment. Earls Court Road Link, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Gemma completed an Ecology chapter for an EIA and planning application in August 2008, for the development of brownfield land designated as part of a Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (SBINC). She undertook an Ecological Walkover and then commissioned and managed protected species surveys, namely reptile, terrestrial macroinvertebrate and bat activity surveys. She also provided guidance on creating a Landscaping Strategy within a buffer strip to mitigate potential impacts. Westhill Court Care Home, Surrey Gemma completed an extended Phase 1 habitat survey and desktop review in July 2008, for a complicated site in Surrey close to the Metropolitan Green Belt. The work involved sourcing background ecological records and completing the habitat survey, before reporting these findings to inform the design of the proposed redevelopment. A number of protected species surveys are also planned for the site. Girvan Community Hospital, South Ayrshire Gemma completed an Ecology chapter, forming part of an Environmental Statement (ES), for an EIA and planning application. This involved assimilating baseline ecological information, reviewing legislation and planning policy and an EcIA. This paved the way for ecological mitigation that was incorporated into the design, including the proposed landscaping and lighting strategies. Jewish Community Secondary School, London Borough of Barnet Gemma produced the Ecology chapter for the EIA, which was submitted for full planning approval in June 2007. The proposed development brought a variety of challenges, being immediately adjacent to two SBINCs. A number of mitigation measures were incorporated into the design, particularly with regards to the proposed access road over the adjacent Pymmes Brook SBINC.

Gemma Russell
Ecological Consultant

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Thomas Tallis School, London Borough of Greenwich Revised EIAs for the redevelopment of the school were completed in September 2007 and September 2008, following revisions to the scheme. Gemma completed revised Ecology chapters for both of these schemes. The first was completed considering new information acquired through an Arboricultural Assessment and reptile, great-crested newt and bat surveys. Potential and residual impacts were re-evaluated in both cases considering changes to the Landscaping Strategy. Reading Station Redevelopment, Reading Borough URS carried out an Environmental Review of the proposed redevelopment of Reading Station in October 2007. To this aim, Gemma undertook an Ecological Walkover Survey of the site. Based on this information and a desk study, she produced a report identifying the baseline conditions on the site, the ecological opportunities and constraints with regards to the proposals and identified the requirements for further survey work.

BTCV Biodiversity Action Team South Volunteer Officer


BTCV Lambeth, Merton and Southwark: January July 2006 and September 2006 February 2007 Gemma supported the Project Officer by organising and carrying out voluntary conservation projects. A variety of tasks were undertaken, to include creating wildlife gardens in schools and hedgelaying. She carried out practical conservation work, either as a member of a team or leading a group of volunteers. She also managed projects by carrying out site visits, sourcing and pricing materials and liaising with clients.

BTCV Project Leader


Do it 4 Real Environmental Action Camp, Ivinghoe: July September 2006 Gemma delivered a programme of educational activities to teach children aged 11-17 about the environment and the practical ways it can be maintained and improved. She worked in a team alongside three other BTCV staff members and Youth Hostel Association Councillors.

Research Student
Hawk Conservancy Trust, Weyhill, Andover: July September 2005 In a small research team, she studied the post release survival and behaviour of juvenile tawny owls (Strix aluco), to allow the Trust to determine the optimum release technique, based on data collated over a number of years. She prepared the methods of study, radio tracked the owls after their release and presented the results to members of the public at the park.

Professional Ecological Consultant at URS Corporation Ltd, London: March 2007 Present History Flowering Plant Identification, May 2008 Training IEEM:
Surveying for Bats and Development, March 2008 Phase 1 Habitat Survey, September 2007

BTCV:

First Aid at Work (Four Day Course), February 2007 Path Construction, December 2006 Project Management, April 2006 Leading Conservation Day Projects (Two Days), March 2006 Water Shrew Survey Course, August 2004

Mammal Society:

Affiliations Associate Member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

9.2.

Appendix B - Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 21 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

9.3.
Native N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Appendix C - Species List


Common Name Azara Himalayan tree cotoneaster Sassafras Norway maple Maidenhair Magnolia Killarney strawberry tree Honey locust Golden rain tree Cherry, Sato-Zakura group Cheals weeping cherry Black mulberry Black locust Japanese maple American tulip tree Latin Name Azara microphylla Cotoneaster frigidus Sassafras albidum Acer platanoides Ginkgo biloba Magnolia spp. Arbutus unedo Gleditsia tricanthos Koelreuteria paniculata Prunus spp. Prunus serrulata Morus nigra Robinia pseudoacacia Acer palmatum Liriodendron tulipifera ST R R R O F F O O R R R O O R R DS SS TR AG ESP IS PH

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 22 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report


Native Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Name Hazel Ornamental plum Ivy Laburnum Holly Buckthorn Common box Canadian fleabane Common chickweed Butterfly bush American willowherb Annual meadow grass Wall lettuce Smooth sow thistle Procumbent pearlwort Broad-leaved willowherb Spear thistle Latin Name Corylus avellana Prunus spp. Hedera helix Laburnum spp. Ilex acquifolium Rhamnus cathartic Buxus sempervirens Conyza Canadensis Stellaria media Buddleia davidii Epilobium ciliatum Poa annua Mycelis muralis Sonchus oleraceus Sagina procumbens Epilobium montanum Cirsium vulgare ST O O D O R O A F R R R O R O R O R
Page 23 Revised Final

DS

SS

TR

AG

ESP

IS

PH

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report


Native Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Name Perennial rye-grass Greater plantain Daisy Annual meadow grass Common mouse-ear Oxeye daisy Latin Name Lolium perenne Plantago major Bellis perennis Poa annua Cerastium fontanum Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Lunularia cruciata Trifolium spp. Ranunculus repens Taraxacum officinale Alchemilla vulgaris Fatsia japonica Aucuba japonica Variegata Fuschia magellanica Cotoneaster horizontalis Yucca filamentosa ST DS SS TR AG D O O O LF R O ESP IS PH

Y N Y Y Y N N N N N

Crescent-cup liverwort Clover Creeping buttercup Dandelion Ladys mantle Japanese aralia Spotted laurel Fuschia Cotoneaster Adams needle

O O R O O F O R A O

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 24 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report


Native N N N N N N N N Common Name Ornamental rush Hydrangea Oregon grape Euonymous Skimmia Tree hollyhock Ornamental roses Black ornamental grass Latin Name Juncus spp. Hydrangea macrophylla Mahonia aquifolium Euonymous spp. Skimmia japonica Hibiscus syriacus Blue Bird Rosa spp. Ophiopogon Nigrascens Fagus sylvatica 1 1 3 7 7 3 0 planiscapus ST DS SS TR AG ESP IS R O O R O R LF LF PH

Common beech

D 1

Total Native Species

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 25 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

9.4.

Appendix D Photographs

Plate 1: Seething Lane Garden Facing South

Plate 2: Seething Lane Garden Facing North

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 26 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

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

Plate 4: Mature Maidenhair Trees in Seething Lane Garden

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 27 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square BREEAM Bespoke Hotel Ecology Report

9.5.

Appendix E Landscaping Strategy

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 28 Revised Final

LANDSCAPE STRATEGY LANDSCAPE STRATEGY ADDENDUM REPORT


FEBRUARY 2009
Client
To be read in conjunction with Landscape Strategy, November 2008.

THOMAS ENTERPRISES INC.

Project Client

THOMAS ENTERPRISES 10 TRINITY SQUARE INC. LONDON


Project

10 TRINITY SQUARE LONDON

CONTEXT FOR THE LANDSCAPE STRATEGY Following the planning application submission Landscape Strategy - November 2008, this planning addendum report has been compiled in response to consultation with the City of Londons Open Spaces department. The report explains the emerging landscape masterplan for Seething Lane garden further to the re-design of the pavilions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS The landscape strategy addendum report covers the following issues: Page Wider Context - The Hotel Quarter Townscape and Green Views Access and Permeability Design Approach for the New Seething Lane Garden Sun Path Analysis Seething Lane Garden - Masterplan Interface with New Buildings Hard Landscape Materials Soft Landscape Materials 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

10 TRINITY SQUARE
October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

4643 February 2009

Legend
Crosswall

Gateway/decision points Primary pedestrian links Vehicular priority


rd Goodmans Ya

c Crut

iar r F ed

Streetscape improved/ or to be improved Pedestrian only area Open space Crossing zone

Savage

et e r t S t r a

Garden

Mariner House - City Inn

St Olaves Church
P et epys Stre

s
Hotel Novotel
Savage Ga

Tower Hill tube station

Apex City of London Hotel


Seething Lane

Coopers Row

Addendum restaurant

The area bounded by Seething Lane, Crutched Friars, Coopers Row/ Minories and Trinity Square already has three hotels with one hotel (City Inn) on site and one proposed (10 Trinity Square). It is generally accepted that the requirements and expectations for the public realm is different in an area where hotels rather than offices predominate. The area is also likely to attract a greater number of first time visitors. The opportunity exists for joined up thinking and a co-ordinated response to public realm improvements in this hotel quarter of the City. Some key issues for consideration are listed below: Gateways key approaches Railway arches/Savage Gardens (north end) Coopers Row Trinity Square Seething Lane Streets Public street design/improvements will be guided by the Citys Street Scene Manual Special areas possibly Savage Gardens (northern end); under the gateway/arches and the footway between Seething Lane garden and 10 Trinity Square may require a different approach for both practical and aesthetic reasons. Lighting Strategy Build upon the Citys existing lighting strategy, using feature lighting to reinforce the character and identity of gateways and pocket spaces across the quarter. Green Links Promote green links and visual links towards green space and tree planting. Identify potential new green pockets while protecting historic layers of townscape. Opportunities for planting street trees in Pepys Street and Seething Lane (subject to survey)

Minorie

y t i n Tri

u q S

rdens

e ar

eet Muscovy Str

Pret
Tow er H

ill

tow

er h

ill

Wider Context - The Hotel Quarter


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

One attribute of the City of Londons townscape is the appearance of greening at junctions and corners. It is a City aspiration to maintain and promote these opportunities in terms of the townscape, amenity and environmental value of urban greening.
1

View looking south from Seething Lane/Crutched Friars junction The northern garden building will complete Pepys Street at eye level. The trees on the garden edge of Seething Lane will create a green view beyond. View looking east along Pepys Street Main point of interest is St Olaves church doorway. Existing view is framed by the gardens tree canopy. Aspirational tree planting options a. Possible tree planting in Pepys Street - This is not traditional townscape in this service road but need to consider present environmental benefits amenity value (subject to survey) b. Strategic tree to create landmark link and frame doorway View looking north towards garden from pedestrianised part of Seething Lane. The impact of greening from this important approach will be retained. The southern garden building has been placed in a predominantly shady area to enable maximum impact of the gardens greenery. View looking west along Muscovy Street. A green landmark link on this approach is maintained. Possible widening of the pavement at the junction with Muscovy Street adjacent to 10 Trinity Square could improve the approach and crossing experience to Trinity Square Gardens.

3 1 View looking south from Seething Lane 2 View looking east along Pepys Street

1 2

4 3

3 View looking north towards gardens

4 View looking east along Muscovy Street

Townscape and Green Views


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

Legend
Main entrance to 10 Trinity Square Access Pedestrian movements around gardens Pedestrian zone Existing entrances to Trinity Square Gardens

Seething Lane garden is a public garden owned and managed by the City of London. Currently the gardens are enclosed with railings and unlocked from approximately 9am until 5pm from Mondays to Fridays. The City of London is concerned to discourage street drinking and other unsociable uses of public spaces. The proposal for Seething Lane garden is based on the premise that a space that is not enclosed but has a variety of access points to encourage movement in and through the space during a 24/7 period is likely to be safer than a space enclosed by railings that could be climbed over and occupied after hours. It is also anticipated that the garden will be used more extensively with the changing predominant use in the area from offices to hotels and residential. Open access for all will also add to the areas amenities for visitors to the nearby World Heritage Site (Tower of London). A 2 metre wide pedestrian City alley will run between the west side of 10 Trinity Square and Seething Lane garden.
N
Scale : NTS

The disabled access to 10 Trinity Square is via the central door to the building off the pedestrian walkway between 10 Trinity and Seething Lane garden. Drop-offs to this access will be on Muscovy Street and Pepys Street.

Access and Permeability


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

BRIEF The brief and design approach for this public garden, owned and managed by the City of London, has been undertaken in consultation with the Open Spaces Department. (Ref. Landscape Strategy in main Planning application documentation pages 11- 13) The new garden area The existing garden area is 907 square metres. The existing service road will be reduced to a 2 metre wide City pedestrian alley. The service buildings for 10 Trinity Square have been reviewed and reduced to a minimum footprint. The new garden area will be 1043 square metres an increase in the garden area of approximately 15% - with an improved proportion. The available depth for planting and drainage in the full garden area will be 2 metres. A garden square The design is intended to create a garden square to respond to the changing use of the area that retains the qualities of the existing garden in terms of providing a green oasis while achieving a balance between the needs of people, the environment/ biodiversity, heritage and townscape. The garden provides a series of choices with a variety of local conditions for both people and wildlife. Garden Buildings These buildings provide the servicing requirements of 10 Trinity Square. There footprint has been reduced to a minimum and the final designs have been integrated with both the garden and the adjacent public realm. GARDEN AREAS AND ACTIVITIES Seating This is a key requirement for open spaces within the City of London. The garden will offer a range of seating for individuals and social grouping: The pergola will offer a place to sit in summer shade or spring/autumn sun. It is an open structure to discourage rough sleeping and anti-social behaviour. Individual seats can be set out on the terrace area Timber benches against the eastern boundary hedge looking out onto the lawn. The lawn area itself for summer lounging. The wilderness area offers raised stone seating on the various walkways. These will be integrated with raised parts of the planting beds. Strolling The wilderness garden creates an opportunity for a woodland stroll away from traffic through a variety of paths with planting and installations which focus on biodiversity. Play: Opportunities will be provided for incidental play throughout the garden Heritage The pergola will have climbing red roses and the pergola and terrace area provide a stage for the Knollys Rose Ceremony. The Navy Office Blue Plaque will also be located in this area as an integrated part of the design. The Pepys Statue will be located on a key route in the Wilderness Garden. The City of London Open Spaces Department Interpretation board will be placed at a suitable pausing place within the garden. Re-use of timber from felled trees in garden and other City locations Trees in Seething Lane The City aspires to have street trees in Seething Lane. The present proposal provides for a row of street trees within the garden planting area. Any other location will require investigation and be subject to approval by other CoL departments.
Existing Size 907 sqm

Service Road

9.7m 74.5m 16.5m

Pedestrian Route

16.0m 52.1m

19.4m

Garden maintenance store/ Irrigation plant room - 22 sqm

Proposed Size 1043 sqm INCREASE IN GARDEN AREA: 14.9 %

Design Approach for the New Seething Lane Garden


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

MICROCLIMATE Microclimate particularly in terms of sun and wind has a strong influence on how garden spaces are planted and used by both people and wild life. Detailed wind studies have not been carried out on the present site but it is anticipated that existing conditions will remain. Indicative sun-path diagrams have been prepared for mid-day in Spring/Autumn, midSummer and mid-Winter. It is important to get the balance of light and shade right in a garden. This influences the choice of trees in terms of size and canopy over time as well as the percentage of tree canopy in terms of shading the lower landscape layers. The existing garden has become a little over-planted and over-grown over time and this has been to the detriment of the shrub storey and ground cover (Ref. Landscape Strategy in Planning Application). The final selection of trees will be refined in accordance with a more detailed understanding of microclimate especially sun path analysis

March / September 12 noon Sunlight at these times of year is desirable for pausing/sitting places for people. Part from mid-Summer the southern pavilion is in a triangle of garden that is in shade for the major part of the year

June 12 noon Increased sunlight promotes the need for shade through planting choices.

December 12 noon Seething Lane is a prime location for sun, particularly in Winter when, as with many northsouth routes in the City of London, it enjoys shafts of sunlight which extend from mid-day until they run the full length of the road briefly at about 1.30pm.

Sun Path Analysis - Indicative for 12 noon in Spring/Autumn, Summer and W inter
October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

TOWNSCAPE.................PEOPLE..................ENVIRONMENT

PERGOLA / TERRACE
FUNCTION Meeting Place All year use CHARACTER Paved court ELEMENTS Pergola with climbing red roses for Knollys Rose Ceremony Navy Office Blue Plaque incorporated in design Tables & chairs for public use Special effect lighting

LAWN
FUNCTION Area for summer relaxation Biodiversity (trees & hedges) Open space CHARACTER Formal garden lawn ELEMENTS Lawn Seating Low key lighting

WILDERNESS GARDEN
FUNCTION Support Biodiversity Garden for strolling and sitting CHARACTER Organic, free-flowing with natural planting ELEMENTS Planting & arboricultural interest Bird and bat boxes Green Wall Low key lighting on pathways

Log pile Bird bath Pepys Statue Seating

Seething Lane Garden - Masterplan


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

TOWNSCAPE.................PEOPLE..................ENVIRONMENT

NORTHERN END LOOKING TOWARDS SEETHING LANE (Section A-A)

Street trees on Seething Lane A row of street trees planted within the garden area along Seething Lane with intermediate hedging layer.

SOUTHERN END FROM THE CORNER OF SEETHING LANE AND MUSCOVY STREET LOOKING NORTH-EAST (Section B-B)

There will be an extended area on the garden side to protect wildlife and biodiversity on both the horizontal and vertical planes. Walkways and seating The area will have a series of walkways with seating on raised lengths of edges to the planting beds. Stands of shrubs and small or multi-stemmed trees will create summer shade and support biodiversity. This could be a healing garden in the heart of the City for people and nature.

North garden building and pergola The building at the north end of the garden is the servicing building for 10 Trinity Square. It has street faades on three sides. On the garden elevation a substantial timber pergola is proposed to reduce the impact of the building height and create a more human scale adjacent to the garden. Climbing plants planted in the ground to grow up the pergola will be encouraged over time to grow up the garden faade of the building.

A
B

South pavilion The southern pavilion has been reduced in size and its oval form reduces its impact and invites entry to the garden from Muscovy Street and Seething Lane. The positioning of the building retains views of the garden/greenery for residents on Muscovy Street. The proposal is that this building will have a continuous green wall with plants grown from ground level only providing a valuable vertical habitat as well as softening the relationship between the building and the garden.

Interface with New Buildings


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

Yorkstone paving

Granite setts

Granite paving

Bound gravel

Pergola

1.0 LANDSCAPE STRATEGY The landscape design strategy seeks to create a simple, robust and elegant garden space that will contribute positively to the surrounding streetscape and also provide an outdoor setting for relaxation, reflection and social interaction by existing residents, office workers and visitors. A hierarchy of spaces will be defined by a green framework of hedges, semi-mature trees, green walls, lawns and flowering/ berrying and fragrant plants which will be selected to maximise environmental benefits. The new garden will be created over structure. Soil depth 2.0m deep will be provided to ensure the successful establishment and development to maturity of all the planting including semi-mature trees, supported by a fully automatic irrigation system. 2.0 HARD LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 2.1. Elements Paving and hard surfaces Edges Seating Lighting Pergola Other elements including bird baths, bird feeders, bird boxes, log piles, heritage items. 2.2. Selection Paving: The City of Londons Street Scene Manual. York stone with granite kerbs for public pavement enhancement areas. York stone for pergola and terrace area.

Granite for pedestrian walkway/ alley between 10 Trinity Square and Seething Lane garden for performance and maintenance in a shady area.

The pedestrian walkway between the garden and 10 Trinity Square will be lit by the existing lights on the building.

Paths through the woodland walk: Sealed/bound gravel to specification agreed with the CoL Open Spaces Department. Edges and seating walls: Wide-top stone edging to protect and contain planted areas and lawn with dropkerb detail to provide wheelchair access onto lawn. Beds in woodland walk will have areas of raised stone edges (approximately 450mm high) and deep enough (350-400mm) for sitting spaces allowing seating individually or in groups. Edges will be designed to deter skateboarders. Other seating: City of London wooden benches and seats alongside eastern boundary hedge. Individual seats and free caf tables and chairs on terrace and under pergola. Pergola: Oak pergola

2.4. Other items Bird boxes and bird feeders Stone bird bath to design approved by the CoL. Log piles using logs from the felled garden trees. Pepys Statue will be reinstated at a focal point on the woodland walk. Navy Office Blue plaque will be integrated with the northern pavilion and pergola. 2.5. Integration of drainage Drainage of hard finished will be integrated elegantly by a combination of gentle falls to slot and channel drains. 2.6. Service Covers All covers to all access/inspection chambers or other features shall be recessed to take the adjacent paving finish. All covers will be aligned to co-ordinate with the paving orientation. 2.7. Specification Paving materials These will be selected for optimum performance for density and strength. All finishes will be capable of supporting the appropriate level of necessary loading. Other Materials will be chosen, wherever possible, to satisfy agreed environmental/ sustainability performance criteria.

2.3. Lighting Wherever possible, light units will be integrated within the fabric of buildings/walls and other structures to minimise clutter. The lighting focus will be on: Walkways through the garden. This will be subdued, low energy lighting in sympathy with biodiversity approach. Terrace and pergola can have additional/special effects lighting in keeping with use particularly during late summer evenings.

Service cover

Discrete slot drain and tactile paving

Seating edge with anti-skateboard treatment

Low level lighting

Pepys Statue

Hard Landscape Materials


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

10

Seasonal variation

Multi-stem tree - Amelanchier


-

Parrotia persica

Woodland understorey

Hornbeam hedge
snow-drops, crocuses and daffodils. This would then be cut for summer use by people. The grass mix selected should be robust and suitable for both full sun and semishady conditions.

3.0 SOFT LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 3.1. Overview The selection of soft landscape elements will be guided by the following: Climate change adaptation. Local microclimate conditions within the garden. Satisfactory performance for level of usage and maintenance programme. Promoting biodiversity through a flora-for-fauna approach to species selection. A garden for all seasons. Variety of local conditions for both people and nature. Reflecting species choice in existing garden. 3.2. Species Selection The final soft landscape design will be agreed with the City of Londons Open Spaces Department and will be a condition of any permission granted for 10 Trinity Square either through the Planning & Transportation Committee or the Open Spaces Committee. 3.3. Green Walls & Pergola The proposed green walling system will use stainless steel wire or grill backing rather than a bio-wall approach. All climbing plants will be planted at ground level and encouraged to envelope the walls as far as possible over time. The north facing green wall on the southern pavilion will be in shade for much of the year and the suggested species to consider could include: Hedera helix (for evergreen cover) Parthenocissus henryana (Chinese Virginia Creeper) Jasminum nudiflorum (Winter jasmine) The pergola and the south facing green wall on the northern pavilion will be in sunlight for a large part of the year and the suggested species choices to consider could include: Hedera helix (Ivy for evergreen cover) Parthenocissus tricuspidata (Boston Ivy) Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia Creeper)

Clematis armandii (good wildlife cover in summer) Lonicera periclymenum (Honeysuckle) Wisteria floribunda (Wisteria) Passiflora (Passion flower) Climbing or rambling red rose for the Knollys Rose ceremony Dublin Bay

3.4. Street Trees on Seething Lane These are shown planted within the garden area at this stage. Any other location will require investigation and be subject to approval by other CoL departments. Canopy cover: there are no specific requirements for this in terms of climate change adaptation strategies. A recent report by CABE and Bioregional proposes a minimum 25% canopy cover for residential areas. It is important to balance the provision of canopy cover and the lighting needs of the lower landscape layers. The approach is to consider small to medium, relatively small-leafed trees which reach approximately 10-12 metres at maturity. The smaller leaves will provide the opportunity for dappled sunlight. Possible species to consider could include: Ulmus New Horizon (Elm) Acer campestre Elegant (Field Maple) Sorbus aria Lutescens (Whitebeam) Fraxinus ornus (Flowering Ash) Sophora japonica Quercus frainetto (Hungarian Oak) 3.5. Hedging The species selection will depend on local conditions. Suggested species to consider could include: Ilex aquifolium (Holly) Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam) 3.6. Lawn area This is a principal location for people to enjoy in summer. There could be an area under the trees on Seething Lane for spring bulbs such as

3.7. Woodland walk/wilderness garden This is a part of the garden that will provide strolling and sitting opportunities for people while offering a significant habitat for wildlife. The landscape layers here could include: Multi-stemmed shrubs and trees such as: o Corylus avellana (Hazel) o Amelanchier lamarkii (Shadbow serviceberry) o Acer campestre (Field Maple) o Parrotia persica (Persian ironwood) Berry bearing trees such as Sorbus aucuparia (Mountain Ash) A range of ground covers and nectar plants using native plants as much as possible. 4.0 MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT 4.1. Overview All the proposals have been considered with maintenance in mind to ensure that the quality of the external environment does not diminish with time. Measures will include the selection of robust materials and careful detailing to facilitate cleaning, repair and where necessary, replacement of the landscape components. A maintenance store will be accommodated within the northern pavilion for tools and machinery. 4.2. Irrigation An automated irrigation system will be installed to ensure vigorous plant establishment at completion of the works and to periodically irrigate plants during the growing season. An above ground irrigation plant room will be integrated with the maintenance store in the north pavilion.

Pergola

Deciduous climber - Jasminum nudiflorum

Green wall / evergreen climber - Hedera helix

Red rose

Seating opportunities

Soft Landscape Materials


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

11

Ecological Impact Assessment 10 Trinity Square

8.5.

Appendix E Ecohomes 2006 Ecology Report

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 44 Revised Final

Appendix E EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report


12/02/2009 Revised Final
Issue No 4 44407499

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

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

Project Title: Report Title: Project No: Status: Client Company Name: Issued By:

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report 44407499 Final Thomas Enterprises Inc URS Corporation Ltd. St Georges House 5 St Georges Road Wimbledon London SW19 4DR United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0) 20 8944 3300 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 8944 3301 www.urscorp.eu

Document Production / Approval Record Issue No: 1 Prepared by Name Gemma Russell Signature Date 12/02/2009 Position Ecological Consultant

Checked by

William Miles

12/02/2009

Senior EIA and Ecological Consultant

Approved by

Dr Reece Fowler

12/02/2009

Principal

Document Revision Record Issue No 1 2 3 4 Date 25/10/2008 05/11/2008 14/11/2008 12/02/2009 Details of Revisions Original Issue Final Issue Final Issue Revised Final Issue

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

LIMITATION URS Corporation Limited (URS) has prepared this 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 Report are 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.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

CONTENTS
Section Page No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... 1 1. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 4. 4.1. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 6. 7. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 8. 9. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 2 ECOHOMES 2006 ........................................................................................................... 3 Background ...................................................................................................................... 3 Ecology Credits ................................................................................................................ 3 PROFESSIONAL PROFILES.......................................................................................... 5 Suitably Qualified Ecologist.............................................................................................. 5 Surveyor ........................................................................................................................... 6 METHOLODOGY............................................................................................................. 7 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey ................................................................................... 7 EXISTING SITE ECOLOGY ............................................................................................ 9 Habitats ............................................................................................................................ 9 Target Notes................................................................................................................... 11 Fauna ............................................................................................................................. 11 Potential for Protected Species...................................................................................... 11 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 12 ECOLOGY CREDITS ECO 1 TO ECO 4....................................................................... 13 Eco 1 Ecological Value of Site ....................................................................................... 13 Eco 2 Ecological Enhancement ..................................................................................... 13 Eco 3 Protection of Ecological Features ........................................................................ 14 Eco 4 Change in Ecological Value of Site...................................................................... 14 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 16 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 17

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 18 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5. Appendix A - Curriculum Vitae ....................................................................................... 18 Appendix B - Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map.................................................................... 19 Appendix C - Species List .............................................................................................. 20 Appendix D Photographs ............................................................................................ 24 Appendix E Landscaping Strategy .............................................................................. 26

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page i Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10 Trinity Square is proposed for redevelopment. The new scheme would provide hotel and residential accommodation within the former Port of London Authority (PLA) building and new areas of landscaped public realm. The Proposed Development requires alterations to the former PLA building and the clearance of the site, including the vegetation and trees within Seething Lane Garden, to allow for the creation of up to 40 basement parking spaces. BRE (Building Research Establishment) pre-assessments are being completed for the residential and hotel elements of the Proposed Development at 10 Trinity Square. This Ecology Report provides pre-assessments for only the residential element, in accordance with the EcoHomes 2006 assessment guidelines. Ecological assessments have been carried out for Eco 1 to Eco 4 by a suitably qualified ecologist. Baseline ecological information was obtained via two extended Phase 1 habitat surveys. Buildings and hardstanding dominate the site, however other features, including scattered broadleaved trees, amenity grassland, introduced shrub and scattered scrub were recorded within Seething Lane Garden to the west of the site and the internal courtyard within the former PLA building. A number of assumptions have been made within this ecological assessment, as the information required to make a full assessment has not been made available at this stage. There are features of ecological value within the Proposed Development site that will not remain undisturbed during deconstruction and construction works, meaning 0 credits can be awarded for Eco 1. A total of six key and five additional recommendations have been provided for Eco 2; however, it has not been confirmed whether all of the key and 30% of the additional recommendations will be incorporated. Should confirmation of this be provided, then 1 credit could be awarded for Eco 2. There are features of ecological value within the Proposed Development site that will be removed during deconstruction and construction works, meaning that 0 credits can be awarded for Eco 3. The ecological value of the site pre-development was calculated to be 0.147. It is not yet possible to determine the change in ecological value of the site, as the areas of habitat and numbers of species to be planted within these areas have not been provided. It is considered that 3 out of a possible 4 credits could potentially be awarded for Eco 4, which 2 would require an increase of between three and nine species per metre squared (m ) postdevelopment. To summarise, a total of 4 out of a possible 7 credits could be awarded for Eco 1 to Eco 4. Only 2 of these credits can be awarded at the preliminary stage (for Eco 4), as the information to confirm compliance has not yet been provided to achieve the other credits.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 1 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

1.

INTRODUCTION
10 Trinity Square (hereafter referred to as the site) is proposed for redevelopment. There are two different building uses within the Proposed Development, specifically residential and hotel. BRE pre-assessments are being completed for both of these elements, however this report relates to the former only. The hotel element falls under the jurisdiction of a BRE Bespoke Hotel assessment and is therefore considered in a separate report. This report and the ecological assessment within it have been completed by URS Corporation Limited (URS) on behalf of Thomas Enterprises Inc. The format of this report complies with the BRE EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report template (Ref. 1) and the assessment has been completed in line with the BRE EcoHomes 2006 guidelines (Ref. 2). This report provides an ecological assessment relating to the EcoHomes credits Eco 1 to Eco 4. Eco 5 is not relevant here, as it does require an ecological assessment; it relates to the efficient use of a buildings footprint. This ecological assessment aims to identify the impact(s) the Proposed Development will have on the environment by identifying, if any, the important ecological features on site and detailing how they should be protected. Suitable enhancements to incorporate into the Proposed Development are also recommended. The main sections in this report are as follows: Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 An outline on EcoHomes 2006, including how credits can be achieved; The qualification details of those involved in the completion of this report; The methodology used to complete the surveys required for assessment; A brief description of what is currently on site; A brief description of the Proposed Development; Which credits can be achieved; and A summary of the credits awarded.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 2 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

2. 2.1.

ECOHOMES 2006 Background


BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) Buildings can be used to assess the environmental performance of any type of building (new and existing). EcoHomes 2006 is a version of BREEAM for homes. EcoHomes covers houses as well as apartment buildings and can be applied to both new and renovated homes. Other types of accommodation, such as sheltered homes, student flats or nursing homes can be assessed using BREEAM Multi-Residential. In April 2007 the Code for Sustainable Homes replaced EcoHomes for the assessment of new housing in England. However, EcoHomes will continue to be used for refurbished housing in England and is therefore applicable in this case. EcoHomes provides an authoritative rating for new build, converted or renovated homes, and covers houses, flats and apartments. EcoHomes assesses the balance in environmental performance with the need for a high quality of life and a safe and healthy internal environment. The issues assessed are grouped into eight categories:

Management; Energy; Water; Pollution; Materials; Transport; Land use and ecology; and Health and well-being.

All of the issues are optional, ensuring that an EcoHomes assessment is flexible enough to be tailored to a particular development or market. Credits are awarded based on environmental performance and the rating of Excellent, Very Good, Good or Pass. Independent assessors who are trained and licensed by BRE carry out EcoHomes assessments.

2.2.

Ecology Credits
Credits Eco 1 to Eco 4 relate to different aspects of the potential impact of the Proposed Development on the sites ecology. Eco 1 concerns the ecology of the existing site, Eco 2 deals with recommendations to enhance the sites ecology post-development, Eco 3 concerns the protection of features of ecological value and Eco 4 relates to what is currently on site, compared to what will be on site post-development.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 3 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

2.2.1.

Eco 1 Ecological Value of Site (1 Credit)


One credit is awarded when it has been demonstrated that the Proposed Development site is defined as land of inherently low ecological value or that the areas of ecological value within the Development site will remain undisturbed by construction works.

2.2.2.

Eco 2 Ecological Enhancement (1 Credit)


One credit is awarded when a suitably qualified ecologist provides appropriate key and additional recommendations that will enhance the ecological value of the site. The developer needs to adopt all key recommendations and 30% of additional recommendations to gain the credit.

2.2.3.

Eco 3 Protection of Ecological Features (1 Credit)


One credit is awarded where all existing features of ecological value within the Development site are maintained and adequately protected from damage during site clearance, preparation and construction works.

2.2.4.

Eco 4 Change in Ecological Value of Site (4 Credits)


The Change in Ecological Value Calculator provided by BRE is used to calculate the ecological value of the site before and after the Proposed Development as the number of 2 species per square metre (m ). The overall change in ecological value is then calculated by comparing the ecological value of the site pre and post-development. If there is a moderate negative change in ecological value then 1 credit is awarded, if there is between a minor negative and minor positive difference then 2 credits are awarded and if there is a moderate enhancement then 3 credits will be awarded. The full 2 4 credits will be awarded if there is a major enhancement, of more than nine species/m as a result of the redevelopment.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 4 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

3. 3.1.

PROFESSIONAL PROFILES Suitably Qualified Ecologist


Name: Position: Qualifications: William Miles. Senior Ecological Consultant at URS. MSc Environmental Assessment and Management; and BSc (Hons) Biological Sciences. Memberships: Associate Member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) and of the Institute Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).

3.1.1.

Experience
Will has been working in ecological consultancy since 2000. Over this time he has worked as an Ecologist for Terence ORourke (2000 and 2003), an Ecological Planner for Land Use Consultants (2004 to 2005) and currently works as the Senior Ecologist in URS London Office (2005 to present). Will has also worked in a volunteer capacity for both English Nature (1995 & 1996) as an assistant conservation officer, and Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Hunting BRAE (1999), as an ecological surveyor. Wills work in consultancy has included undertaking and managing ecology work in the field as well as in the office. He has worked for both the public and private sectors on a wide variety of projects, plans and proposals in urban and countryside environments, aquatic and terrestrial. This work has included field surveys, management plans, watching briefs, impact assessment (for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Appropriate Assessment and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)) peer review (both internal and external), report writing and project management. This work has given Will experience with a wide variety of notable and protected species including bats, badgers, reptiles, water voles, Schedule 1 birds and great crested newts. He has managed the completion of a number of strategic and local habitat management plans and has advised on and produced Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). Since joining URS, Will has worked and managed on over 40 Ecological Impact Assessments and has developed ecological mitigation strategies for each when necessary.

3.1.2.

Verification of Report:
William Miles, who has verified this report, is a suitably qualified ecologist as defined by BRE, that is to say: He holds an undergraduate degree in Biological Sciences, which was focused on the ecological sciences. He also holds a masters degree in Environmental

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 5 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

Assessment and Management, which in particular focused on ecology surveying, impact assessment and mitigation; He is a practising ecologist with five years of direct ecological experience out of the last five years; and He is a member of both the Institute of Ecology and Environment (IEEM) and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) and is; therefore, covered by a professional code of conduct. His work is also subject to peer review.

A full CV is provided in Appendix A of this report.

3.2.

Surveyor
Name: Position: Qualifications: Memberships: Gemma Russell. Ecological Consultant. BSc Combined Honours Animal Behaviour and Wildlife Biology. Graduate Member of the IEEM (Associate Membership pending).

3.2.1.

Experience
In 2005, Gemma completed a BSc in Animal Behaviour and Wildlife Biology at Anglia Polytechnic University (now Anglia Ruskin University). Gemma has gained over a year and a halfs experience within ecological consultancy at URS since graduating in 2005. At URS she predominantly completes ecological field survey work, particularly Extended Phase 1 habitat surveys, and Ecological Impact Assessments both as part of EIAs and stand-alone documents. Through the impact assessment process, she develops appropriate mitigation strategies and provides recommendations on how to enhance the ecological value of landscaping strategies for a range of developments. Her baseline survey experience also includes reptile, water vole and bat surveys. A full CV is provided within Appendix A of this report.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 6 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

4.

METHOLODOGY
This section outlines the survey work and processes involved in carrying out the BRE EcoHomes assessment for Eco 1 to Eco 4: Two extended Phase 1 habitat surveys, including the completion of a Phase 1 habitat survey map (Appendix B) and species list (Appendix C); A review of landscaping proposals (Appendix E); and Compilation of recommendations to enhance the ecological value of the site.

4.1.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey


An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was conducted throughout the site and the surrounding pavements, in accordance with guidance provided by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (Ref. 3). A Phase 1 habitat survey is a standard technique for rapidly obtaining baseline ecological information over a large area of land. It is primarily a mapping technique and uses a standard set of habitat definitions for classifying areas of land on the basis of the vegetation present. This technique was modified (or extended) to give further consideration to fauna. Incidental records of fauna were made during the survey and the habitats identified were evaluated for their potential to support protected species and other species of conservation concern, including BAP priority species. Target notes (TN) were also taken during the survey to provide further detail on important habitats or features. The reference number relates the target notes to the corresponding location shown on Phase 1 habitat survey map in Appendix B. The dominant and readily identified species of higher plants from each habitat type within the survey area were also recorded and their abundance was assessed on the DAFOR scale: D A F O R Dominant; Abundant; Frequent; Occasional; and Rare.

It should be recognised that this scale represents relative abundance within each habitat type, rather than regional or national abundances. The first survey was conducted on 3 September 2008. This is within the optimal period for habitat surveys (April to September). Access was gained to all public areas of the site, specifically Seething Lane Garden and the pavements surrounding the former PLA

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 7 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

building. A separate survey was carried out on 15 October 2008, when access was gained into the internal courtyard of the former PLA building. This is just outside the recommended survey window, however the nature of planting within this area means that this is not considered to be a significant limitation to the survey results.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 8 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

5.

EXISTING SITE ECOLOGY


The Proposed Development site contains the vacant former PLA building to the east, Seething Lane Garden to the west and a road called 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 D, Plates 1 and 2). The site is located in a commercial district in the CoL.

5.1.

Habitats
The following Phase 1 habitat types were recorded during the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, which are described below and mapped in Appendix B: Scattered broadleaved trees; Dense scrub; Scattered scrub; Tall ruderal; Amenity grassland; Ephemeral/short perennial; Introduced shrub; Species-poor hedgerow; Fence; Buildings; and Bare ground.

5.1.1.

Scattered Broadleaved Trees


All trees within the site are located in Seething Lane Garden; there are no trees on pavements surrounding the former PLA building. The trees in the garden are exotics, including the mature sassafras (Sassafras albidum), false-acacia (Robinia pseudacacia) (Appendix D, Plate 3), maidenhair (Gingko biloba) (Appendix D, 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 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 native young hazels (Corylus avellana) were also noted.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 9 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

5.1.2.

Dense Scrub
Ivy provides dense ground cover within the internal courtyard.

5.1.3.

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.

5.1.4.

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 fleabane also grows in areas of bare ground within the internal courtyard, in addition to a few stands of spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and butterfly bush.

5.1.5.

Amenity Grassland
There are two small areas of amenity grassland in the middle of the garden; they are well managed and dominated by perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne). Other common species were also recorded, including greater plantain (Plantago major), daisy (Bellis perennis), annual meadow grass (Poa annua) and crescent-cup liverwort (Lunularia cruciata). There are also areas of bare ground where the grass has died, likely due to shading caused by surrounding trees.

5.1.6.

Ephemeral/Short Perennial
Short perennial vegetation occurs in patches within areas of bare ground within the Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), daisy, dandelion internal courtyard. (Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.) and ladys mantle (Alchemilla vulgaris) were all noted.

5.1.7.

Introduced Shrubs
Introduced shrubs have been planted around the edges of the 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).

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 10 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

5.1.8.

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

5.1.9.

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.

5.2.

Target Notes
1. Tall ruderal vegetation growing in cracks between the pavement and the road in the absence of management. Disused birds nest in ornamental plum tree; and Disused birds nest in false acacia tree.

2. 3.

5.3.

Fauna
The following species were recorded frequently throughout the survey of Seething Lane Garden: Feral pigeon (Columba livia); Woodpigeon (Columba palumbus); Blackbird (Turdus merula); Flock of house sparrows (Passer domesticus) feeding on bread; and Flock of starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) feeding on mulberries.

No fauna was observed during the survey of the internal courtyard.

5.4.

Potential for Protected Species


The site has a limited potential to support protected species, due to the urban nature of the surrounding area. However, the site does provide nesting habitat for breeding birds. Further details are provided in the following section.

5.4.1.

Breeding Birds
The trees in Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard, in addition to the former PLA building, provide suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds, including Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC). For example, the house sparrow was recorded within Seething Lane Garden, which is a red list BoCC listed on the UK, London and Westminster BAPs. The starling has also been recorded in the garden, which is also a red list BoCC listed on the UKBAP. All birds, their active nests and eggs are protected

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 11 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

under the WCA 1981 (as amended), with the exception of species considered as pests listed on Schedule 2. The existing site does not have the potential to support nesting or foraging black redstarts (Phoenicurus ochruros). However, the open ground, heavy machinery and structures during the deconstruction and construction of the Development may offer attractive nesting opportunities for black redstarts should disturbance on site, or on part of the site, be temporarily reduced or removed. 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 1981 (as amended) and so receives more stringent protection than most wild birds.

6.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Proposed Development will alter and extend the existing building to provide hotel 2 and residential accommodation, totalling approximately 41,528m gross internal area (GIA) of floor space. Furthermore, up to 40 basement parking spaces are proposed as part of the Proposed Development, for both residential and hotel use. The development will involve the clearance of all vegetation on site, both within Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard within the former PLA building. Other elements of the scheme include high-quality re-landscaping of Seething Lane Garden, along with the provision of communal and back of house facilities including leisure spa facilities, hotel servicing, ballroom, rotunda, restaurant and the second floor function areas.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 12 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

7. 7.1.

ECOLOGY CREDITS ECO 1 TO ECO 4 Eco 1 Ecological Value of Site


The Development site cannot be defined as land of low ecological value. The majority of the planting within Seething Lane Garden and the internal courtyard is ornamental, however the numerous mature trees in the garden must be considered as features of ecological value, in addition to the common beech hedgerow along the southern boundary. This is especially true given the urban location of the site and the lack of vegetation and bird nesting opportunities in the surrounding area. Furthermore, these features will not remain undisturbed during deconstruction and construction works, due to the clearance works required prior to the creation of the basement levels underneath the garden. This conclusion has been drawn by a suitably qualified ecologist considering the findings of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey. 0 credits are awarded for LE3.

7.2.
7.2.1.

Eco 2 Ecological Enhancement


Key Recommendations
All of the key recommendations need to be implemented to achieve the credit for Eco 2. The following recommendations have been suggested to the design team: Plant at least 60% native shrubs and trees within the boundaries of the site; Create a field layer underneath trees and shrubs planted within the wilderness garden, using at least 80% native species. This will increase the diversity of Seething Lane Garden and provide habitat for bees, butterflies and other insects. Incorporate at least 1 native hedge that is at least 12 metres (m) in length. This will create valuable foraging opportunities for birds. Install at least 4 bird boxes in appropriate locations within the scheme. Nest boxes with different sized holes (32 millimetres (mm) and 25mm diameter) should be provided, in order to cater for a variety of different species. Bird boxes should be installed onto the trees within Seething Lane Garden; Allow the grassland and flowering plants within the wilderness garden to grow tall during the summer, allowing a maximum of one cutting each summer period (April through to August inclusive). This would provide habitats and food for invertebrates and seeds for birds; and Employ good horticultural practice. This includes minimising the use of pesticides, using leaf mulches and using organic fertilisers.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 13 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

7.2.2.

Additional Recommendations
A total of 30% (2) of the following additional recommendations need to be implemented to achieve the credit for Eco 2: Incorporate at least 2 log piles, using the logs produced during the clearance of Seething Lane Garden. This will provide habitat for a wide range of invertebrates, potentially including stag beetles (Lucanus cervus); Plant at least 1 native tree within pavements surrounding the former PLA building. They would create habitat for birds and invertebrates and increase connectivity with nearby habitat; Install window boxes onto window ledges on the renovated PLA building where appropriate, planted with native species, or species of known benefit to wildlife; Incorporate at least 1 birdbath and 2 bird feeders within the scheme. These should be installed alongside the bird boxes in Seething Lane Garden; Incorporate at least 1 buried stone pile within Seething Lane Garden. This would provide shelter and an over-wintering site for a variety of wildlife, including invertebrates, such as bees; and Install green roofs on both of the pavilions proposed within Seething Lane Garden, and seed them with a mix of native wildflowers and grasses.

0 credits could be awarded for Eco 2 at the preliminary stage. A written commitment has not been received confirming that all of the key and 30% of the additional recommendations have been, or will be, implemented. Similarly, the recommendations have not been incorporated into the landscaping information provided in Appendix E. However, based on the existing landscaping information provided in Appendix E, it is considered that 1 credit could be awarded for Eco 2. This would require confirmation that all of the key and 30% of the additional recommendations have been, or will be, implemented.

7.3.

Eco 3 Protection of Ecological Features


Features of ecological value will be removed during deconstruction works. As stated in Section 6 Proposed Development, Seething Lane Garden will be re-landscaped; mature trees within this garden will be felled to allow for the creation of basement levels underneath. This means that this credit cannot be awarded. 0 credits are awarded for Eco 3.

7.4.

Eco 4 Change in Ecological Value of Site


A suitably qualified ecologist has been appointed to provide accurate species numbers for the existing site. The pre-development score has been calculated, which quantifies

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 14 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

the ecological value of the site. The list of species recorded within each habitat type is listed in Appendix C. Only native species, or those of known attraction or benefit to local wildlife, have been included in the calculation, as stated in the EcoHomes 2006 guidelines.

7.4.1.

Pre-Development Site Score


The numbers of native species recorded within each habitat type are detailed in Table 1, in addition to the respective site areas and pre-development site score. Table 1: Pre-Development Site Score
Habitat type Amenity Grassland Tall Ruderal Ephemeral/Short Perennial Scattered Scrub Dense Scrub Species-Poor Intact Hedge Pebble Introduced Shrub Bare Ground Buildings Hardstanding Total Area of Habitat 2 (Approximate m ) 80.78 29.33 5.43 13.48 36.64 8.55 282.25 322.89 570.56 3978.93 2440.46 7769.30 Number of Native Species Present 7 7 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 23 Pre-Development Site Score 0.072 0.026 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.036 0 0 0 0 0.147

Therefore, the pre-development site score is 0.147.

7.4.2.

Change in Ecological Value


A total of 4 credits are available for Eco 4. However, it is not yet possible to determine how many credits can be achieved. Once the areas of habitat to be planted postdevelopment are available, in addition to the total species numbers, then the Change in Ecological Value Calculator can be used to assess the change in ecological value. 2 credits could be awarded at the preliminary stage. This requires there to be between a minor decrease and minor increase in the ecological value of the site. This credit can be awarded by default, as the pre-development site score is only 0.147. However, based on the existing landscaping information provided in Appendix E, it is considered likely that 3 credits could be awarded for Eco 4. This would require 2 confirmation of an increase in ecological value of between three and nine species/m post-development.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 15 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

8.

SUMMARY
Table 2 summarises the number of ecology credits that could be awarded at the preliminary stage and that could be awarded if evidence is supplied. Table 2 Summary of Credits (Eco 1 - Eco 4)
Credits Achieved at Preliminary Stage Credits that could Potentially be Awarded

Credit

Available Credit(s)

Explanation

Eco 1

The Proposed Development site cannot be defined as land of inherently low ecological value. The mature trees and common beech hedgerow within Seething Lane Garden are features of ecological value. Furthermore, these features will not remain undisturbed during site clearance and construction works. Evidence has not been provided to prove that all of the key and 30% of the additional recommendations have been or will be incorporated, meaning that 0 credits can be awarded at the preliminary stage. 1 credit could be awarded if this evidence is provided.

Eco 2

Eco 3

Features of ecological value are being removed during site clearance works, meaning that this credit cannot be awarded. It is not currently possible to calculate the change in ecological value, as the necessary information has not been provided at this stage. However 2 credits could be awarded by default, due to the low pre-development site score. 3 credits could potentially be awarded. In order to achieve these credits, there would need to be a moderate positive change in the ecological value of the site, by between 2 three and nine species per m postdevelopment.

Eco 4

Total

In summary, 2 credits could be awarded out of a possible 7 at the preliminary stage for Eco 1 to Eco 4, however 4 credits could potentially be awarded if evidence is provided.

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 16 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

9.

REFERENCES
Ref. 1 Ref. 2 BRE, (2006); Guidance to relate ecology reports to EcoHomes. BRE, Watford. BRE, (2006); EcoHomes 2006 The environmental rating for homes. The Guidance 2006 / Issue1.2. BRE, Watford. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), (1993); Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit, revised reprint 2003. JNCC. Peterborough.

Ref. 3

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 17 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

APPENDICES 9.1. Appendix A - Curriculum Vitae

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 18 Revised Final

William Miles
Senior Ecological Consultant Environmental Assessment Team

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Areas of Environmental Impact Assessment Expertise Ecological Survey


Ecological Impact Assessment Appropriate Assessment and Habitats Directive Advice Ecological Planning and Management Expert Witness on Ecological Issues Environmental Planning Advice

Education MSc in Environmental Assessment and Management, Oxford Brookes University,


2002-2003 BSc (Hons) in Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, 1997-2000

Career Will has been working in Environmental Consultancy since 2000. In that time he has Summary completed various projects for Terence ORourke and Land Use Consultants and is

now an established member of the Environmental Assessment Team at URS. Since starting at URS, Will has worked on a number of EIAs in both rural and urban environments as well as providing more detailed expertise on ecological planning, management and impact assessment. This ecology work has also focused Habitats Directive work and Appropriate Assessment. Wills EIA work has resulted in the production and management of Scoping Reports and Environmental Assessments, as well as managing sub-consultants, client expectations and project deadlines. Will has also worked on SEA, land management strategies and impact assessment guidance.

Career Detail Environmental Consultant


URS corporation Ltd, London, November 2005-Present

Popeswood Park, Bracknell- Project Manager for the environmental, socioeconomic and sustainability elements of ARLs proposals for land to the west of Bracknell. These proposals include the development of 6,500 new homes, a new business park, a new station, new social infrastructure including schools and health care, retail facilities and a number of other elements. To date this has involved the production of numerous technical and feasibility documents as well as responding and contributing to planning representations and examination in public. Work has included producing: Strategic Environmental Constraints and Opportunities Report; Preliminary socio economic report; Sustainability forecasting report and statement; Thames Basin Heaths SPA technical report; Policy compliance and transport needs statement; Ecological surveys; Agricultural surveys; North and west comparative work; Planning representations and a local and regional level; Site allocations SEA critique.

Brants Bridge Expert Witness, Bracknell- Will has been commissioned as an expert witness for a planning appeal relating to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and the implications of the Habitats Directive. This involved writing witness proofs, advising the legal team, completing an appropriate assessment, negotiating with both the local council and Natural England. This proposal now has planning permission.

William Miles
Senior Ecological Consultant Environmental Assessment Team

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

North Killingholme Port Facility, Lincolnshire- Lead Ecological consultant on a proposal to develop 450ha of agricultural land for a new port facility. This work has involved liaising and working with numerous other ecological consultants as well as undertaking our own survey work for Badgers and Bats. The Environmental Statement is being produced and URS are completing the ecological impact assessment as well as representing the client when responding to stakeholder issues. Battersea Power Station, Wandsworth- Lead Ecological consultant for the proposal to redevelop this site. The old power station site represents one of the best brownfield habitats in London and contains Peregrine Falcons and Black Redstarts. Will has managed the completion of the survey work and impact assessments. Mitigation strategies and Code for Sustainable Homes Ecology work are currently being completed. Will has been leading consultation with both Natural England and the Environment Agency. Llandinam Windfarm Repowering and Extension, Powys- Will reviewed the baseline ecological data for the windfarm project and managed the production of the Llandinam Windfarm extension. He ensured that the work that was completed has accurate and correct and that the survey was robust. He also helped complete the Ecological Impact Assessment for the project and dealt with any appropriate assessment issues. Kilbirnie Hydrogen Plant- Will reviewed the baseline ecology studies and ensured that all necessary work had been completed prior to the Ecological Impact Assessment being completed. Once complete, he reviewed and made necessary amendments to the ecological impact assessment to ensure that impacts had been properly described and appropriate mitigation had been agreed. Swanwick Marina, Southampton- URS is providing both engineering and environmental advice to Premier Marinas to re-develop an existing Marina site on the River Hamble in Hampshire. Will is the project manager with regard to the environmental part of the work. A Scoping Report, Environmental Statement, and an Appropriate Assessment Report including Recreation Surveys have been completed and planning permission has been granted. URS is now helping Premier Marinas with the post planning licensing and consents process. Chichester Marina, Chichester- Follow on work from Premier Marinas following a successful application for Swanwick Marina. Will is again project managing the work and both a Scoping Report and EIA will be required. Overwintering bird surveys have been completed and discussions regarding the nearby SPA are underway. BP Humber Pipeline, Yorkshire and North Lincs - Seven years ago an EIA was produced for a pipeline from one side of the Humber to the north. Planning permission for this scheme was granted but expired. URS was commissioned to review, update and revise the old ES so that a new, robust planning application could be submitted. Will is a key member of this team, managing subconsultants, completing ES chapters, attending client meetings and revising the ecology work.

William Miles
Senior Ecological Consultant Environmental Assessment Team

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Station View, Guildford- Will provided Habitats Directive advice to the Regional Group of Companies regarding a residential development within the centre of Guildford and the new planning framework that is developing around the Thames Basin Heaths. Wharf Road, Hackney- Will managed the completion of the survey effort and the ecological impact assessment for this residential planning permission. This site was adjacent to an old canal basin which was designated as a site of borough importance for nature conservation. Negotiations and discussions were required with both the project team (landscape architects and architects) and the Environment Agency, to find a satisfactory solution to a number of ecological issues relating to water edge developments. The result of this work meant that EA dropped its objection to the proposal. Project Olive, East London- This project was for a large residential and mixeduse scheme in the London Borough of Newham. Will was a key member of the EIA team at URS helping to managing and review various technical reports to ensure consistency throughout the Environmental Statement. Will has since been advising the team on the complex intertidal ecological implication of their proposals, and finding a positive solution for the client, statutory agencies and local authorities. The Bishopsgate Tower, London- A member of the EIA team for the Bishopsgate Tower located in the heart of the City of London. The development proposals included the demolition of the current on-site buildings and the construction of a 63-storey signature building, which at a height of 307m is destined to be the tallest in the city Holland Park School, West London- Will provided ecological advice to the ES for the redevelopment of a school in the West of London. These scheme had a number of sensitive ecological receptors and it was important that each one was properly considered if planning permission is to be granted. Managing, reviewing and undertaking over 40 Ecological Impact Assessments for projects including, the Tate Modern, Bucklesbury House commercial development, Aldgate Union mixed use development, Commercial Road residential development, East India Dock and Mill Lane residential developments and many others. Will also provides ecological advice to members of the URS team and regularly attends meetings and leads discussions with the Environment Agency and Natural England. In addition to the Ecological Impact Assessment work outlined above will has also completed and managed the ecological element of numerous Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM assessments, including work for the Tate Modern, East Road, Mill harbour Quarter, Wharf Road and 10 Trinity Square.

A selection of Previous Work 2000-2004 Dunlaw Windfarm, Borders- Will reviewed a number of ES chapters within the Environmental Statement to ensure technical compliance with current impact assessment guidance and legal precedent. Particular focus was given to the ecology chapter and the consideration of cumulative impacts.

William Miles
Senior Ecological Consultant Environmental Assessment Team

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Green Arc Biodiversity Audit and Objective Setting Exercise- Project Manager for a study looking at collating and prioritising the various Species, Habitat and Natural Area Targets found within the Green Arc, in order to produce a suite of Biodiversity Targets to inform the Green Arc project plan.

ODPM Study into EIA Scoping- This project is was carried out by LUC and the

University of Manchesters EIA Centre. Its aim was to look into the use of scoping and scoping opinions in the UK and to assess whether the introduction of scoping has benefited EIA and the UKs environment, and to ask whether or not the process should become mandatory. SSSI PSA Delivery Plan for the East of England- Project Manager for a study that produced a delivery plan so that DEFRA could meet its Public Service Agreement (PSA) of bringing 95% of all SSSIs into favourable condition by 2010. This study was led by English Nature and involved the cooperation of a number of public bodies. The study built on the work already completed by various EN teams in the East of England and looked to solve and highlight key issues for the areas SSSIs, whilst bringing together various public bodies to meet the targets challenge. London Borough of Harrow Green Belt Management Strategy- This project looked to improve the Harrow Green Belt area for the local people and the wildlife that lives there. The strategy aimed to improve access, biodiversity, and recreation whilst improving the economics of the area through farm diversification. The study also provided new funding options and management structures for Harrows Green Belt. Yorkshire and Humber RSS SEA Baseline Study- Will helped complete a study to balance the stipulations of the SEA Regulations and the Sustainability Appraisal guidelines to provide a report that could meet both sets of requirements. Information was collected from a variety of public and private sources and presented in a concise and succinct report which accurately illustrated the diverse baseline condition of the Yorkshire and Humberside Region.

Professional Environmental Planner for Land Use Consultants, 2004-2005 History Ecologist for Terence ORourke, 2000 & 2003 Affiliations Associate Member of the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management
(IEMA) Associate Member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)

Publications Going Going Gone? The Cumulative Impact of Land Development on Biodiversity in
England, English Nature, 2005 Bringing the Big Outdoors Closer to People- A Biodiversity Audit and Objective Setting Exercise for the Green Arc, English Nature, 2005 The Problems with In Combination Effects, Oxford Brookes University, 2003. Also referenced within the SEA and Biodiversity Guidance produced in 2004 by English Nature, RSPB, CCW and SNH.

Gemma Russell
Ecological Consultant

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Areas of Ecological Impact Assessment Expertise Ecological field survey work and research
Planning and management of ecological mitigation and enhancement Environmental Impact Assessment

Education Anglia Polytechnic University: 2002 2005


BSc Combined Honours Animal Behaviour and Wildlife Biology 1 (First Class)

Career Gemma has gained experience working in a variety of fields within the environmental Summary sector since gradating in 2005. She undertook field research at the Hawk Conservancy
Trust near Andover and then went on to work as a Voluntary Officer for BTCV, where she led volunteers on practical conservation projects. She also delivered an environmental education programme at an Environmental Action Camp in 2006.

She started working in Environmental Consultancy for URS Corporation in March 2007. Working within the Environmental Assessment Team (EAT), she provides support for the team in the production of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and other reports, by providing research and professional consulting services. She primarily deals with ecology and nature conservation issues arising from developments and has specific experience carrying out Ecological Impact Assessments (EcIAs), from baseline surveys and research to impact assessment and mitigation.

Career Ecological Consultant Detail URS Corporation Ltd, London: March 2007 Present
Gemma has worked on a number of EIAs and other projects in both rural and urban environments as well as providing more detailed expertise on ecological planning, management and impact assessment. Earls Court Road Link, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Gemma completed an Ecology chapter for an EIA and planning application in August 2008, for the development of brownfield land designated as part of a Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (SBINC). She undertook an Ecological Walkover and then commissioned and managed protected species surveys, namely reptile, terrestrial macroinvertebrate and bat activity surveys. She also provided guidance on creating a Landscaping Strategy within a buffer strip to mitigate potential impacts. Westhill Court Care Home, Surrey Gemma completed an extended Phase 1 habitat survey and desktop review in July 2008, for a complicated site in Surrey close to the Metropolitan Green Belt. The work involved sourcing background ecological records and completing the habitat survey, before reporting these findings to inform the design of the proposed redevelopment. A number of protected species surveys are also planned for the site. Girvan Community Hospital, South Ayrshire Gemma completed an Ecology chapter, forming part of an Environmental Statement (ES), for an EIA and planning application. This involved assimilating baseline ecological information, reviewing legislation and planning policy and an EcIA. This paved the way for ecological mitigation that was incorporated into the design, including the proposed landscaping and lighting strategies. Jewish Community Secondary School, London Borough of Barnet Gemma produced the Ecology chapter for the EIA, which was submitted for full planning approval in June 2007. The proposed development brought a variety of challenges, being immediately adjacent to two SBINCs. A number of mitigation measures were incorporated into the design, particularly with regards to the proposed access road over the adjacent Pymmes Brook SBINC.

Gemma Russell
Ecological Consultant

CU RR IC UL UM VI TA E

Thomas Tallis School, London Borough of Greenwich Revised EIAs for the redevelopment of the school were completed in September 2007 and September 2008, following revisions to the scheme. Gemma completed revised Ecology chapters for both of these schemes. The first was completed considering new information acquired through an Arboricultural Assessment and reptile, great-crested newt and bat surveys. Potential and residual impacts were re-evaluated in both cases considering changes to the Landscaping Strategy. Reading Station Redevelopment, Reading Borough URS carried out an Environmental Review of the proposed redevelopment of Reading Station in October 2007. To this aim, Gemma undertook an Ecological Walkover Survey of the site. Based on this information and a desk study, she produced a report identifying the baseline conditions on the site, the ecological opportunities and constraints with regards to the proposals and identified the requirements for further survey work.

BTCV Biodiversity Action Team South Volunteer Officer


BTCV Lambeth, Merton and Southwark: January July 2006 and September 2006 February 2007 Gemma supported the Project Officer by organising and carrying out voluntary conservation projects. A variety of tasks were undertaken, to include creating wildlife gardens in schools and hedgelaying. She carried out practical conservation work, either as a member of a team or leading a group of volunteers. She also managed projects by carrying out site visits, sourcing and pricing materials and liaising with clients.

BTCV Project Leader


Do it 4 Real Environmental Action Camp, Ivinghoe: July September 2006 Gemma delivered a programme of educational activities to teach children aged 11-17 about the environment and the practical ways it can be maintained and improved. She worked in a team alongside three other BTCV staff members and Youth Hostel Association Councillors.

Research Student
Hawk Conservancy Trust, Weyhill, Andover: July September 2005 In a small research team, she studied the post release survival and behaviour of juvenile tawny owls (Strix aluco), to allow the Trust to determine the optimum release technique, based on data collated over a number of years. She prepared the methods of study, radio tracked the owls after their release and presented the results to members of the public at the park.

Professional Ecological Consultant at URS Corporation Ltd, London: March 2007 Present History Flowering Plant Identification, May 2008 Training IEEM:
Surveying for Bats and Development, March 2008 Phase 1 Habitat Survey, September 2007

BTCV:

First Aid at Work (Four Day Course), February 2007 Path Construction, December 2006 Project Management, April 2006 Leading Conservation Day Projects (Two Days), March 2006 Water Shrew Survey Course, August 2004

Mammal Society:

Affiliations Associate Member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

9.2.

Appendix B - Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 19 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

9.3.
Native N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Appendix C - Species List


Common Name Azara Himalayan tree cotoneaster Sassafras Norway maple Maidenhair Magnolia Killarney strawberry tree Honey locust Golden rain tree Cherry, Sato-Zakura group Cheals weeping cherry Black mulberry Black locust Japanese maple American tulip tree Latin Name Azara microphylla Cotoneaster frigidus Sassafras albidum Acer platanoides Ginkgo biloba Magnolia spp. Arbutus unedo Gleditsia tricanthos Koelreuteria paniculata Prunus spp. Prunus serrulata Morus nigra Robinia pseudoacacia Acer palmatum Liriodendron tulipifera ST R R R O F F O O R R R O O R R DS SS TR AG ESP IS PH

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 20 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report


Native Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Name Hazel Ornamental plum Ivy Laburnum Holly Buckthorn Common box Canadian fleabane Common chickweed Butterfly bush American willowherb Annual meadow grass Wall lettuce Smooth sow thistle Procumbent pearlwort Broad-leaved willowherb Spear thistle Latin Name Corylus avellana Prunus spp. Hedera helix Laburnum spp. Ilex acquifolium Rhamnus cathartic Buxus sempervirens Conyza Canadensis Stellaria media Buddleia davidii Epilobium ciliatum Poa annua Mycelis muralis Sonchus oleraceus Sagina procumbens Epilobium montanum Cirsium vulgare ST O O D O R O A F R R R O R O R O R
Page 21 Revised Final

DS

SS

TR

AG

ESP

IS

PH

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report


Native Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Name Perennial rye-grass Greater plantain Daisy Annual meadow grass Common mouse-ear Oxeye daisy Latin Name Lolium perenne Plantago major Bellis perennis Poa annua Cerastium fontanum Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Lunularia cruciata Trifolium spp. Ranunculus repens Taraxacum officinale Alchemilla vulgaris Fatsia japonica Aucuba japonica Variegata Fuschia magellanica Cotoneaster horizontalis Yucca filamentosa ST DS SS TR AG D O O O LF R O ESP IS PH

Y N Y Y Y N N N N N

Crescent-cup liverwort Clover Creeping buttercup Dandelion Ladys mantle Japanese aralia Spotted laurel Fuschia Cotoneaster Adams needle

O O R O O F O R A O

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 22 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report


Native N N N N N N N N Common Name Ornamental rush Hydrangea Oregon grape Euonymous Skimmia Tree hollyhock Ornamental roses Black ornamental grass Latin Name Juncus spp. Hydrangea macrophylla Mahonia aquifolium Euonymous spp. Skimmia japonica Hibiscus syriacus Blue Bird Rosa spp. Ophiopogon Nigrascens Fagus sylvatica 1 1 3 7 7 3 0 planiscapus ST DS SS TR AG ESP IS R O O R O R LF LF PH

Common beech

D 1

Total Native Species

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 23 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

9.4.

Appendix D Photographs

Plate 1: Seething Lane Garden Facing South

Plate 2: Seething Lane Garden Facing North

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 24 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

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

Plate 4: Mature Maidenhair Trees in Seething Lane Garden

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 25 Revised Final

10 Trinity Square EcoHomes 2006 Ecology Report

9.5.

Appendix E Landscaping Strategy

Thomas Enterprises Inc\44407499 EIA for Mixed use Development\LORP0001/GR/GR 12/02/2009

Page 26 Revised Final

LANDSCAPE STRATEGY LANDSCAPE STRATEGY ADDENDUM REPORT


FEBRUARY 2009
Client
To be read in conjunction with Landscape Strategy, November 2008.

THOMAS ENTERPRISES INC.

Project Client

THOMAS ENTERPRISES 10 TRINITY SQUARE INC. LONDON


Project

10 TRINITY SQUARE LONDON

CONTEXT FOR THE LANDSCAPE STRATEGY Following the planning application submission Landscape Strategy - November 2008, this planning addendum report has been compiled in response to consultation with the City of Londons Open Spaces department. The report explains the emerging landscape masterplan for Seething Lane garden further to the re-design of the pavilions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS The landscape strategy addendum report covers the following issues: Page Wider Context - The Hotel Quarter Townscape and Green Views Access and Permeability Design Approach for the New Seething Lane Garden Sun Path Analysis Seething Lane Garden - Masterplan Interface with New Buildings Hard Landscape Materials Soft Landscape Materials 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

10 TRINITY SQUARE
October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

4643 February 2009

Legend
Crosswall

Gateway/decision points Primary pedestrian links Vehicular priority


rd Goodmans Ya

c Crut

iar r F ed

Streetscape improved/ or to be improved Pedestrian only area Open space Crossing zone

Savage

et e r t S t r a

Garden

Mariner House - City Inn

St Olaves Church
P et epys Stre

s
Hotel Novotel
Savage Ga

Tower Hill tube station

Apex City of London Hotel


Seething Lane

Coopers Row

Addendum restaurant

The area bounded by Seething Lane, Crutched Friars, Coopers Row/ Minories and Trinity Square already has three hotels with one hotel (City Inn) on site and one proposed (10 Trinity Square). It is generally accepted that the requirements and expectations for the public realm is different in an area where hotels rather than offices predominate. The area is also likely to attract a greater number of first time visitors. The opportunity exists for joined up thinking and a co-ordinated response to public realm improvements in this hotel quarter of the City. Some key issues for consideration are listed below: Gateways key approaches Railway arches/Savage Gardens (north end) Coopers Row Trinity Square Seething Lane Streets Public street design/improvements will be guided by the Citys Street Scene Manual Special areas possibly Savage Gardens (northern end); under the gateway/arches and the footway between Seething Lane garden and 10 Trinity Square may require a different approach for both practical and aesthetic reasons. Lighting Strategy Build upon the Citys existing lighting strategy, using feature lighting to reinforce the character and identity of gateways and pocket spaces across the quarter. Green Links Promote green links and visual links towards green space and tree planting. Identify potential new green pockets while protecting historic layers of townscape. Opportunities for planting street trees in Pepys Street and Seething Lane (subject to survey)

Minorie

y t i n Tri

u q S

rdens

e ar

eet Muscovy Str

Pret
Tow er H

ill

tow

er h

ill

Wider Context - The Hotel Quarter


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

One attribute of the City of Londons townscape is the appearance of greening at junctions and corners. It is a City aspiration to maintain and promote these opportunities in terms of the townscape, amenity and environmental value of urban greening.
1

View looking south from Seething Lane/Crutched Friars junction The northern garden building will complete Pepys Street at eye level. The trees on the garden edge of Seething Lane will create a green view beyond. View looking east along Pepys Street Main point of interest is St Olaves church doorway. Existing view is framed by the gardens tree canopy. Aspirational tree planting options a. Possible tree planting in Pepys Street - This is not traditional townscape in this service road but need to consider present environmental benefits amenity value (subject to survey) b. Strategic tree to create landmark link and frame doorway View looking north towards garden from pedestrianised part of Seething Lane. The impact of greening from this important approach will be retained. The southern garden building has been placed in a predominantly shady area to enable maximum impact of the gardens greenery. View looking west along Muscovy Street. A green landmark link on this approach is maintained. Possible widening of the pavement at the junction with Muscovy Street adjacent to 10 Trinity Square could improve the approach and crossing experience to Trinity Square Gardens.

3 1 View looking south from Seething Lane 2 View looking east along Pepys Street

1 2

4 3

3 View looking north towards gardens

4 View looking east along Muscovy Street

Townscape and Green Views


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

Legend
Main entrance to 10 Trinity Square Access Pedestrian movements around gardens Pedestrian zone Existing entrances to Trinity Square Gardens

Seething Lane garden is a public garden owned and managed by the City of London. Currently the gardens are enclosed with railings and unlocked from approximately 9am until 5pm from Mondays to Fridays. The City of London is concerned to discourage street drinking and other unsociable uses of public spaces. The proposal for Seething Lane garden is based on the premise that a space that is not enclosed but has a variety of access points to encourage movement in and through the space during a 24/7 period is likely to be safer than a space enclosed by railings that could be climbed over and occupied after hours. It is also anticipated that the garden will be used more extensively with the changing predominant use in the area from offices to hotels and residential. Open access for all will also add to the areas amenities for visitors to the nearby World Heritage Site (Tower of London). A 2 metre wide pedestrian City alley will run between the west side of 10 Trinity Square and Seething Lane garden.
N
Scale : NTS

The disabled access to 10 Trinity Square is via the central door to the building off the pedestrian walkway between 10 Trinity and Seething Lane garden. Drop-offs to this access will be on Muscovy Street and Pepys Street.

Access and Permeability


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

BRIEF The brief and design approach for this public garden, owned and managed by the City of London, has been undertaken in consultation with the Open Spaces Department. (Ref. Landscape Strategy in main Planning application documentation pages 11- 13) The new garden area The existing garden area is 907 square metres. The existing service road will be reduced to a 2 metre wide City pedestrian alley. The service buildings for 10 Trinity Square have been reviewed and reduced to a minimum footprint. The new garden area will be 1043 square metres an increase in the garden area of approximately 15% - with an improved proportion. The available depth for planting and drainage in the full garden area will be 2 metres. A garden square The design is intended to create a garden square to respond to the changing use of the area that retains the qualities of the existing garden in terms of providing a green oasis while achieving a balance between the needs of people, the environment/ biodiversity, heritage and townscape. The garden provides a series of choices with a variety of local conditions for both people and wildlife. Garden Buildings These buildings provide the servicing requirements of 10 Trinity Square. There footprint has been reduced to a minimum and the final designs have been integrated with both the garden and the adjacent public realm. GARDEN AREAS AND ACTIVITIES Seating This is a key requirement for open spaces within the City of London. The garden will offer a range of seating for individuals and social grouping: The pergola will offer a place to sit in summer shade or spring/autumn sun. It is an open structure to discourage rough sleeping and anti-social behaviour. Individual seats can be set out on the terrace area Timber benches against the eastern boundary hedge looking out onto the lawn. The lawn area itself for summer lounging. The wilderness area offers raised stone seating on the various walkways. These will be integrated with raised parts of the planting beds. Strolling The wilderness garden creates an opportunity for a woodland stroll away from traffic through a variety of paths with planting and installations which focus on biodiversity. Play: Opportunities will be provided for incidental play throughout the garden Heritage The pergola will have climbing red roses and the pergola and terrace area provide a stage for the Knollys Rose Ceremony. The Navy Office Blue Plaque will also be located in this area as an integrated part of the design. The Pepys Statue will be located on a key route in the Wilderness Garden. The City of London Open Spaces Department Interpretation board will be placed at a suitable pausing place within the garden. Re-use of timber from felled trees in garden and other City locations Trees in Seething Lane The City aspires to have street trees in Seething Lane. The present proposal provides for a row of street trees within the garden planting area. Any other location will require investigation and be subject to approval by other CoL departments.
Existing Size 907 sqm

Service Road

9.7m 74.5m 16.5m

Pedestrian Route

16.0m 52.1m

19.4m

Garden maintenance store/ Irrigation plant room - 22 sqm

Proposed Size 1043 sqm INCREASE IN GARDEN AREA: 14.9 %

Design Approach for the New Seething Lane Garden


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

MICROCLIMATE Microclimate particularly in terms of sun and wind has a strong influence on how garden spaces are planted and used by both people and wild life. Detailed wind studies have not been carried out on the present site but it is anticipated that existing conditions will remain. Indicative sun-path diagrams have been prepared for mid-day in Spring/Autumn, midSummer and mid-Winter. It is important to get the balance of light and shade right in a garden. This influences the choice of trees in terms of size and canopy over time as well as the percentage of tree canopy in terms of shading the lower landscape layers. The existing garden has become a little over-planted and over-grown over time and this has been to the detriment of the shrub storey and ground cover (Ref. Landscape Strategy in Planning Application). The final selection of trees will be refined in accordance with a more detailed understanding of microclimate especially sun path analysis

March / September 12 noon Sunlight at these times of year is desirable for pausing/sitting places for people. Part from mid-Summer the southern pavilion is in a triangle of garden that is in shade for the major part of the year

June 12 noon Increased sunlight promotes the need for shade through planting choices.

December 12 noon Seething Lane is a prime location for sun, particularly in Winter when, as with many northsouth routes in the City of London, it enjoys shafts of sunlight which extend from mid-day until they run the full length of the road briefly at about 1.30pm.

Sun Path Analysis - Indicative for 12 noon in Spring/Autumn, Summer and W inter
October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

TOWNSCAPE.................PEOPLE..................ENVIRONMENT

PERGOLA / TERRACE
FUNCTION Meeting Place All year use CHARACTER Paved court ELEMENTS Pergola with climbing red roses for Knollys Rose Ceremony Navy Office Blue Plaque incorporated in design Tables & chairs for public use Special effect lighting

LAWN
FUNCTION Area for summer relaxation Biodiversity (trees & hedges) Open space CHARACTER Formal garden lawn ELEMENTS Lawn Seating Low key lighting

WILDERNESS GARDEN
FUNCTION Support Biodiversity Garden for strolling and sitting CHARACTER Organic, free-flowing with natural planting ELEMENTS Planting & arboricultural interest Bird and bat boxes Green Wall Low key lighting on pathways

Log pile Bird bath Pepys Statue Seating

Seething Lane Garden - Masterplan


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

TOWNSCAPE.................PEOPLE..................ENVIRONMENT

NORTHERN END LOOKING TOWARDS SEETHING LANE (Section A-A)

Street trees on Seething Lane A row of street trees planted within the garden area along Seething Lane with intermediate hedging layer.

SOUTHERN END FROM THE CORNER OF SEETHING LANE AND MUSCOVY STREET LOOKING NORTH-EAST (Section B-B)

There will be an extended area on the garden side to protect wildlife and biodiversity on both the horizontal and vertical planes. Walkways and seating The area will have a series of walkways with seating on raised lengths of edges to the planting beds. Stands of shrubs and small or multi-stemmed trees will create summer shade and support biodiversity. This could be a healing garden in the heart of the City for people and nature.

North garden building and pergola The building at the north end of the garden is the servicing building for 10 Trinity Square. It has street faades on three sides. On the garden elevation a substantial timber pergola is proposed to reduce the impact of the building height and create a more human scale adjacent to the garden. Climbing plants planted in the ground to grow up the pergola will be encouraged over time to grow up the garden faade of the building.

A
B

South pavilion The southern pavilion has been reduced in size and its oval form reduces its impact and invites entry to the garden from Muscovy Street and Seething Lane. The positioning of the building retains views of the garden/greenery for residents on Muscovy Street. The proposal is that this building will have a continuous green wall with plants grown from ground level only providing a valuable vertical habitat as well as softening the relationship between the building and the garden.

Interface with New Buildings


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

Yorkstone paving

Granite setts

Granite paving

Bound gravel

Pergola

1.0 LANDSCAPE STRATEGY The landscape design strategy seeks to create a simple, robust and elegant garden space that will contribute positively to the surrounding streetscape and also provide an outdoor setting for relaxation, reflection and social interaction by existing residents, office workers and visitors. A hierarchy of spaces will be defined by a green framework of hedges, semi-mature trees, green walls, lawns and flowering/ berrying and fragrant plants which will be selected to maximise environmental benefits. The new garden will be created over structure. Soil depth 2.0m deep will be provided to ensure the successful establishment and development to maturity of all the planting including semi-mature trees, supported by a fully automatic irrigation system. 2.0 HARD LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 2.1. Elements Paving and hard surfaces Edges Seating Lighting Pergola Other elements including bird baths, bird feeders, bird boxes, log piles, heritage items. 2.2. Selection Paving: The City of Londons Street Scene Manual. York stone with granite kerbs for public pavement enhancement areas. York stone for pergola and terrace area.

Granite for pedestrian walkway/ alley between 10 Trinity Square and Seething Lane garden for performance and maintenance in a shady area.

The pedestrian walkway between the garden and 10 Trinity Square will be lit by the existing lights on the building.

Paths through the woodland walk: Sealed/bound gravel to specification agreed with the CoL Open Spaces Department. Edges and seating walls: Wide-top stone edging to protect and contain planted areas and lawn with dropkerb detail to provide wheelchair access onto lawn. Beds in woodland walk will have areas of raised stone edges (approximately 450mm high) and deep enough (350-400mm) for sitting spaces allowing seating individually or in groups. Edges will be designed to deter skateboarders. Other seating: City of London wooden benches and seats alongside eastern boundary hedge. Individual seats and free caf tables and chairs on terrace and under pergola. Pergola: Oak pergola

2.4. Other items Bird boxes and bird feeders Stone bird bath to design approved by the CoL. Log piles using logs from the felled garden trees. Pepys Statue will be reinstated at a focal point on the woodland walk. Navy Office Blue plaque will be integrated with the northern pavilion and pergola. 2.5. Integration of drainage Drainage of hard finished will be integrated elegantly by a combination of gentle falls to slot and channel drains. 2.6. Service Covers All covers to all access/inspection chambers or other features shall be recessed to take the adjacent paving finish. All covers will be aligned to co-ordinate with the paving orientation. 2.7. Specification Paving materials These will be selected for optimum performance for density and strength. All finishes will be capable of supporting the appropriate level of necessary loading. Other Materials will be chosen, wherever possible, to satisfy agreed environmental/ sustainability performance criteria.

2.3. Lighting Wherever possible, light units will be integrated within the fabric of buildings/walls and other structures to minimise clutter. The lighting focus will be on: Walkways through the garden. This will be subdued, low energy lighting in sympathy with biodiversity approach. Terrace and pergola can have additional/special effects lighting in keeping with use particularly during late summer evenings.

Service cover

Discrete slot drain and tactile paving

Seating edge with anti-skateboard treatment

Low level lighting

Pepys Statue

Hard Landscape Materials


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

10

Seasonal variation

Multi-stem tree - Amelanchier


-

Parrotia persica

Woodland understorey

Hornbeam hedge
snow-drops, crocuses and daffodils. This would then be cut for summer use by people. The grass mix selected should be robust and suitable for both full sun and semishady conditions.

3.0 SOFT LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 3.1. Overview The selection of soft landscape elements will be guided by the following: Climate change adaptation. Local microclimate conditions within the garden. Satisfactory performance for level of usage and maintenance programme. Promoting biodiversity through a flora-for-fauna approach to species selection. A garden for all seasons. Variety of local conditions for both people and nature. Reflecting species choice in existing garden. 3.2. Species Selection The final soft landscape design will be agreed with the City of Londons Open Spaces Department and will be a condition of any permission granted for 10 Trinity Square either through the Planning & Transportation Committee or the Open Spaces Committee. 3.3. Green Walls & Pergola The proposed green walling system will use stainless steel wire or grill backing rather than a bio-wall approach. All climbing plants will be planted at ground level and encouraged to envelope the walls as far as possible over time. The north facing green wall on the southern pavilion will be in shade for much of the year and the suggested species to consider could include: Hedera helix (for evergreen cover) Parthenocissus henryana (Chinese Virginia Creeper) Jasminum nudiflorum (Winter jasmine) The pergola and the south facing green wall on the northern pavilion will be in sunlight for a large part of the year and the suggested species choices to consider could include: Hedera helix (Ivy for evergreen cover) Parthenocissus tricuspidata (Boston Ivy) Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia Creeper)

Clematis armandii (good wildlife cover in summer) Lonicera periclymenum (Honeysuckle) Wisteria floribunda (Wisteria) Passiflora (Passion flower) Climbing or rambling red rose for the Knollys Rose ceremony Dublin Bay

3.4. Street Trees on Seething Lane These are shown planted within the garden area at this stage. Any other location will require investigation and be subject to approval by other CoL departments. Canopy cover: there are no specific requirements for this in terms of climate change adaptation strategies. A recent report by CABE and Bioregional proposes a minimum 25% canopy cover for residential areas. It is important to balance the provision of canopy cover and the lighting needs of the lower landscape layers. The approach is to consider small to medium, relatively small-leafed trees which reach approximately 10-12 metres at maturity. The smaller leaves will provide the opportunity for dappled sunlight. Possible species to consider could include: Ulmus New Horizon (Elm) Acer campestre Elegant (Field Maple) Sorbus aria Lutescens (Whitebeam) Fraxinus ornus (Flowering Ash) Sophora japonica Quercus frainetto (Hungarian Oak) 3.5. Hedging The species selection will depend on local conditions. Suggested species to consider could include: Ilex aquifolium (Holly) Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam) 3.6. Lawn area This is a principal location for people to enjoy in summer. There could be an area under the trees on Seething Lane for spring bulbs such as

3.7. Woodland walk/wilderness garden This is a part of the garden that will provide strolling and sitting opportunities for people while offering a significant habitat for wildlife. The landscape layers here could include: Multi-stemmed shrubs and trees such as: o Corylus avellana (Hazel) o Amelanchier lamarkii (Shadbow serviceberry) o Acer campestre (Field Maple) o Parrotia persica (Persian ironwood) Berry bearing trees such as Sorbus aucuparia (Mountain Ash) A range of ground covers and nectar plants using native plants as much as possible. 4.0 MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT 4.1. Overview All the proposals have been considered with maintenance in mind to ensure that the quality of the external environment does not diminish with time. Measures will include the selection of robust materials and careful detailing to facilitate cleaning, repair and where necessary, replacement of the landscape components. A maintenance store will be accommodated within the northern pavilion for tools and machinery. 4.2. Irrigation An automated irrigation system will be installed to ensure vigorous plant establishment at completion of the works and to periodically irrigate plants during the growing season. An above ground irrigation plant room will be integrated with the maintenance store in the north pavilion.

Pergola

Deciduous climber - Jasminum nudiflorum

Green wall / evergreen climber - Hedera helix

Red rose

Seating opportunities

Soft Landscape Materials


October 2007 - 4643-LP-00

10 TRINITY SQUARE

4643 February 2009

11

You might also like