Your ref: Our ref: SM/ncb DD: 01245 505071 E: [email protected] Date: 30/09/2016
Planning Policy Team Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030: Pre-submission Draft London Borough of Redbridge Freepost RSLR-JACE-HSUG Ilford IG1 1DD
Dear Sir/Madam
REDBRIDGE LOCAL PLAN 2015 - 2030: PRE-SUBMISSION DRAFT CONSULTATION
REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF BARKING, HAVERING AND REDBRIDGE (UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS) NHS TRUST REGARDING LAND AT KING GEORGE HOSPITAL
I am writing on behalf of Barking, Havering and Redbridge (University Hospitals) NHS Trust (‘BHRUT’) in response to the Council's consultation on above. Bidwells is acting on BHRUT’s behalf to promote surplus land within its control at King George Hospital, Goodmayes. These representations relate to policy LP1B and the Crossrail Corridor Investment and Growth Area (CCIGA).
BHRUT fully supports policy LP1B’s proposed removal of its surplus land at King George Hospital from the Green Belt and its proposed allocation for housing led development. BHRUT is, however, seeking to secure some amendments to draft policy LP1B, primarily to minimise risks to its deliverability and effectiveness. It is therefore submitting objections on matters of detail as set out below.
The surplus land at King George Hospital is identified in the Conceptual Masterplanning Study (CMS) accompanying these representations. The CMS has been prepared to illustrate how surplus parts of the site could come forward and test their capacity. It has taken account of the constraints of the site and estimates that circa 190 dwellings could be delivered on surplus land to the north and east of the existing Hospital buildings, which are to be retained for healthcare use for the foreseeable future. The principle constraints of the site, including the proposed designation of part of it as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), have been analysed via the submitted Ecological Appraisal and Transport Statement and taken account in the CMS. The CMS provides an initial review to support the Local Plan process and there may be potential for further development capacity when the site is fully tested as part of a planning application.
Taking account of the acute need for new housing and other forms of development that the Council is seeking to address via the emerging Local Plan, this site offers an exceptional opportunity to address housing needs whilst releasing redundant public sector land for development and raising capital for reinvestment in NHS services.
BHRUT submitted representations to the Council's consultation on its 'Core Strategy Review – Preferred Options Report' in February 2013 and ‘Preferred Options Extension – Alternative Strategies’ in December 2014. These representations identified land surplus to healthcare requirements and available
Saxon House, 27 Duke Street, Chelmsford CM1 1HT T: 01245 250998 E: [email protected] W: bidwells.co.uk
Bidwells is a trading name of Bidwells LLP, a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales with number OC344553. Registered office: Bidwell House Trumpington Road Cambridge CB2 9LD. A list of members is available for inspection at the above address. Redbridge Draft Local Plan: Preferred Options Extension – consultation on Alternative Development Strategies
for alternative forms of development. The land was also put forward to the London-wide Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 'call for sites' undertaken by the Mayor in conjunction with the London Borough's in January 2013 and June 2016.
Availability of land for development at King George Hospital
BHRUT's freehold ownership at King George Hospital extends to almost 17 hectares, a significant proportion of which is surplus to NHS requirements.
The availability of the land for non-healthcare uses was confirmed by BHRUT’s approved Estates Strategy for the period 2014 to 2019. Most of this land has been redundant for some time but could not be released for development due to current planning policy constraints.
The Estates Strategy is set in the context of the wider Health for North East London (Health4NEL) Review and BHRUT's adopted Clinical Strategy. Neither anticipate the development of any surplus land at King George Hospital for new healthcare services in the foreseeable future. Indeed, as a consequence of the changes proposed to local service provision by Health4NEL and the Clinical Strategy, which focus on the transfer of acute care and emergency services to BHRUT’s principal service centre at Queen's Hospital in Romford, a substantial reduction in services located at King George Hospital is anticipated.
Relationship with Goodmayes Hospital site
BHRUT does not own or control land at Goodmayes Hospital which lies directly to the south of King George Hospital and forms part of the joint allocation for development proposed by draft policy LP1B. North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT) owns the freehold of 18 hectares of land at Goodmayes Hospital. The extent of this land will be identified in separate representations submitted by NELFT.
Although the ownership of both sites falls under the overarching NHS ‘banner’, King George and Goodmayes Hospitals are owned by separate NHS Trusts which have separate management structures and decision making processes. Indeed, NELFT is a Foundation Trust with greater decision making freedoms than BHRUT. Our representations therefore seek to ensure that either site could come forward independently of the other, providing that a coordinated approach is taken to their development, to ensure that both sites can make a valuable contribution to housing land supply as early as possible in the Plan period.
Suitability of surplus land at King George Hospital for development
BHRUT fully supports the Council’s vision for the Crossrail Corridor Investment Area (CCIGA) and agrees that it presents a significant opportunity for the delivery of new homes, jobs and social infrastructure. The surplus land at King George and Goodmayes Hospitals is ideally placed to make an important contribution to this objective.
The Green Belt reviews commissioned by the Council to support the emerging Plan confirm that the sites occupied by King George and Goodmayes Hospitals no longer serve the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and should therefore be removed from its designation. The latest Green Belt Review undertaken by Wardell Armstrong in January 2016 notes that the site:
“does not prevent sprawl nor does it prevent the merging of local centres as it is surrounded by development at all sides. Furthermore, its physical and visual connection to…the wider Green Belt is weak due to the presence of the A12 and the urbanised nature of the hospital site. In that regard it does not safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The western and southern parts of the parcel can be considered locally important open space, particularly Fords Sports
Page 2 Redbridge Draft Local Plan: Preferred Options Extension – consultation on Alternative Development Strategies
Ground; Goodmayes Hospital Sports Ground; Seven Kings Park; and Barley Lane Allotments. These spaces also help to retain the biodiversity of the area. The hospital site is urbanised in character and does not meet any Green Belt purpose.” (p28).
BHRUT fully supports this conclusion.
It is clear from the evidence base supporting the emerging Plan that there are acute planning challenges facing the Borough, primarily as a consequence of the considerable rise in population that is projected to continue and an undersupply of new housing over recent years. The Council is to be commended for facing up to this challenge and seeking to plan positively for the needs of the Borough. It is clear that there are no easy answers to the challenges arising, but it will be essential to grasp the opportunities presented by the potential development of sites in the CCIGA that no longer serve the purposes of the Green Belt to seek to address the Borough’s objectively assessed housing and development needs.
King George Hospital is in a sustainable location close to existing services, employment, schools and public transport connections, as explained in detail in the accompanying Transport Strategy. Furthermore, there is significant potential for the sustainability of the site to be enhanced by the impending arrival of Crossrail services in 2019. Nevertheless, it already has a PTAL rating of 2 where the London Plan’s Density Matrix suggests that development at between 45-170 dwellings per hectare (dph) is appropriate for 'urban' locations. BHRUT would urge the Council to maximise the opportunity presented by the site to address objectively assessed housing and development needs and commends the parts of draft policy LP1B which seek to achieve this.
BHRUT has commissioned the submitted Conceptual Masterplanning Study and supporting Ecological Assessment and Transport Strategy to analyse the constraints of the King George Hospital site, test its minimum capacity and demonstrate its deliverability. The CMS has been prepared in consultation with NELFT, which has prepared its own capacity study to support its separate representations. The CMS concludes that the development of around 190 dwellings to the north and east of the existing hospital buildings is feasible as a minimum, with further potential available through intensification of residential and healthcare uses and development of other parcels of land to the west. NELFT’s estimate of capacity at Goodmayes Hospital is at least 500 dwellings. It is therefore clear that the sites have capacity to achieve the amount of development anticipated by draft policy LP1B and potentially to significantly exceed it.
Changes required to policy LP1B to make the Plan sound
Whilst BHRUT supports the overarching objectives of the proposals for the CCIGA and policy LP1B, it is raising objections to certain elements of it, as follows:
● The policy requires “around” 500 dwellings to be developed across the two sites, but the capacity studies undertaken by BHRUT and NELFT suggest that they may have potential for significantly more development. The policy requirement for “around” 500 dwellings may artificially restrict the contribution that the sites can make to housing delivery. Given that the Council is unable to meet its objectively assessed housing need, even with the Green Belt releases proposed across the Borough, placing an artificial cap on the contribution of sites is unjustified and fails to plan positively for the needs of the Borough. It is therefore unsound. To provide more flexibility and to ensure that the full potential of the sites can be realised following their release from the Green Belt, we contend that the policy should be changed to require “at least” 500 dwellings to be delivered across the two sites. ● As explained above, the King George and Goodmayes sites are owned and controlled by separate parties yet a single policy relates to their development and it requires a single masterplan to be prepared, potentially in some detail, for the two separate sites. Whilst BHRUT has no objection to a coordinated approach being taken to the principles of the development of the two sites in
Page 3 Redbridge Draft Local Plan: Preferred Options Extension – consultation on Alternative Development Strategies
consultation with NELFT, it cannot support a policy which requires a single detailed masterplan or for limitations to be applied which would make the development of one site reliant on the other. The CMS demonstrates that at least c.190 dwellings can be delivered on the King George Hospital site entirely independently of the Goodmayes proposals. Indeed, taking account of the separate accesses serving both sites, the physical separation provided by the retained Hospital buildings and the distinct changes in character across the wider area, the physical relationship between future development on the two sites will limited. Perhaps the main physical link between the two sites is the river corridor on the western boundary, which is likely to serve as the principle pedestrian and cycle link between the schemes. BHRUT would suggest that there is no need for a single detailed masterplan to relate to the two sites as proposed by draft policy LP1B. Indeed, doing so is likely to delay the delivery of the sites beyond Phase 1 of the Plan (2015-2020) as anticipated by the phasing schedule at Appendix 1, compromising its effectiveness and soundness. To ensure that the principles of the development of the two sites are coordinated effectively, BHRUT would support a requirement for a high-level Planning Brief prepared jointly by the Council, NELFT and BHRUT to address main issues, such as the approach to development in key areas, pedestrian and cycle connectivity and infrastructure provision. This would be in line with the approach proposed for the other opportunity sites in the CCIGA and would help to ensure prompt and coordinated delivery of the sites. Indeed, it is clear that infrastructure provision requires further consideration and the preparation of a Planning Brief would provide the opportunity for this to be addressed more thoroughly. At present, policy LP1B requires delivery of a new primary and secondary school on the King George and Goodmayes sites. This is inconsistent with the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan which suggests that only a secondary school is required – the policy is therefore unjustified and unsound. Notwithstanding this. there is limited information available justifying the IDP’s proposals and it is clear that more consideration of funding requirements, delivery mechanisms or viability impacts of the education infrastructure across the CCIGA is required. BHRUT would welcome further engagement on this issue with the Council and NELFT prior to submission of the Plan for Examination. At this stage BHRUT is objecting to the requirement for a new primary and secondary school to be provided as part of policy LP1B and would suggest that it and wider infrastructure issues are explored further through the Planning Briefs to be prepared. ● BHRUT also objects to policy LP1B’s requirement for the provision of decentralised energy network. This requirement has not been imposed on any other sites in the CCIGA and it is unclear why it has been applied to King George and Goodmayes Hospitals only. Indeed, many of the other opportunity sites identified in the Plan propose larger scale development on sites with single ownerships and fewer constraints where a more consolidated layout approach will be possible, suggesting that they may be better placed to explore decentralised energy opportunities than King George and Goodmayes. BHRUT considers this part of the policy to be unjustified and unsound and it should be removed. The London Plan and the Local Plan’s other policies on low carbon and renewable energy would obviously still need to be taken into account when the sites come forward for development.
BHRUT has prepared the following changes to the Council's draft policy to incorporate the objectives explained above and ensure that the Plan is sound. These changes have been agreed with NELFT. strikethrough = text to be deleted italics = text to be added
Page 4 Redbridge Draft Local Plan: Preferred Options Extension – consultation on Alternative Development Strategies
King George and Goodmayes Hospitals The Council expects a comprehensive coordinated housing led mixed use developments to come forward at King George and Goodmayes Hospitals in accordance with the following criteria:
Land in and around King George and Goodmayes Hospitals will be developed to provide around at least 500 high quality new homes (including affordable); Maximising densities compatible with local context, sustainable design principles and public transport capacity, in line with the Density Matrix of the London Plan;
On site provision for a new primary and secondary school; A pPermeable design – a walkable neighbourhoods with routes and spaces defined by buildings and landscape; Improved east-west pedestrian and cycle routes to link the new neighbourhoods together; Development to be of the highest quality design, respecting the nature and character of the area; At Goodmayes development should maximise the opportunity to create a centerpiece for the new neighbourhood with opportunities to enhance the setting of the former mental health asylum; The provision for decentralised energy networks, subject to feasibility. Any provision that is secured on this site must comply with policy LP29 in order to limit impacts on residential amenity; Development of this site should also comply with all other relevant policy requirements of this plan; and Development of this site should be considered in the context of a Masterplan for the site as a whole. A Planning Brief will be prepared in consultation with the owners of the two sites to ensure that a coordinated approach is taken to their development and the provision of education and other infrastructure.
We would welcome further engagement with the Council on the issues raised in these representations prior to submission of the Plan. Due to the importance of the development of the site to the soundness of the Plan and the complexity of the issues raised, I wish to participate in the hearing sessions of the Examination in Public on BHRUT’s behalf once the Plan has been submitted.
BHRUT wishes to reemphasise its support for the Plan’s overarching approach to growth in the CCIGA and looks forward to working closely with the Council to bring forward its surplus land to address local needs once these matters have been addressed.
Yours faithfully
Sam Metson Senior Planning Associate
Enclosures Conceptual Masterplanning Study Transport Strategy Ecological Assessment
Copy Barking, Havering and Redbridge (University Hospitals) NHS Trust
Page 5 URBAN DESIGN STUDIO KING GEORGE HOSPITAL CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY
SEPTEMBER 2016 2 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY RUNNING ORDER
01 INTRODUCTION 06 CONSULTANTS ANALYSIS Presentation Introduction 7 Transport and Access 40 Ecology 41 02 SITE CONTEXT Aerial Photograph Location Plan 10 07 MASTER PLAN STRATEGY Local Amenities Plan 11 Strategy Plan 44 Master Plan Strategy - Aims and Objectives 45 Option 1 Concept Plan 46 03 PLANNING BACKGROUND Option 2 Concept Plan 47 Planning Context 14 Option Comparison 48 Preferred Option Zoning Plan 49 04 MAPPING STUDY Site Location Plan 18 08 PREFERRED MASTER PLAN OPTION Local Landscape Character Map 19 Illustrative Master Plan 52 Designations Map 20 Preferred Option Housing Figures 53 Green Belt Release 21 Preferred Option Northern Parcel Master Plan 54 Significan Vegetation Map 22 Preferred Option Southern Parcel Master Plan 55 Flood Zone Map 23 Building Heights 56 Topographical Map 24 Open Space and Circulation Plan 57 Historical Mapping Chronology 25 Option 1 Contextual Master Plan 58 Conclusion and Benefit of the Proposal 59 05 VISUAL AND TOWNSCAPE STUDY Zone of Theoretical Visibility 28 APPENDICES Wider Context | Housing Styles 29 Appendix 1 - List of Figures Existing Site Characteristics 30 Opportunities and Constraints Plan 36
3 4 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY 01 INTRODUCTION
5 N
Figure 1: Aerial of proposed application site, with indicative red line boundary.
6 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY 01 | INTRODUCTION
This document is a site assessment and master planning study for land at King George Hospital, in the Goodmayes area of the London Borough of Redbridge.
The document has been prepared on behalf of the Barking, Havering and Redbridge (University Hospitals) NHS Trust (‘BHRUT’) to demonstrate the development potential of the King George Hospital site. The site is located in the north east of Greater London, and immediately north of Goodmayes. The site boundaries are diverse, with King George Hospital directly to the south, the northern edge bounded by the A12 (Eastern Avenue), the Seven Kings Water corridor to the west and the Little Heath Conservation Area in the east.
This Conceptual Master Planning Study (‘CMS’) has been prepared in support of representations in relation to the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 Pre-Submission Draft Consultation. The study has been undertaken to illustrate how surplus portions of the site can be bought forward for development, testing the sites capacity.
The master plan has resulted from a process of assessment and evaluation to establish site opportunities and constraints, informing a master plan strategy, subsequent illustrative master plan and development mix.
The master plan proposal is then illustrated and explained in more detail.
7 8 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY 02 SITE CONTEXT
9 02 | SITE CONTEXT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION PLAN N
To Hainault
A12 - Eastern Road
Northern Parcel To Romford 10.38ha
Redbridge College
Southern Parcel 0.30ha A12 - Eastern Road Seven King’s Water
To Newbury Park
Ford’s Sports Newbridge Ground School
Goodmayes To Goodmayes Station Hospital Sports and High Street Ground Christie Gardens Seven King’s Park Park Figure 2: Aerial of proposed application site, with surrounding services
10 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY LOCAL AMENITIES PLAN N
Schools
Healthcare Facilities
Places of Worship
Public Transport
Note: Please refer to the Transport Strategy prepared by Vectos for full information including Local Bus Routes, stops and travel times Figure 3: Site location plan, with surrounding services + amenities
11 12 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY 03 PLANNING CONTEXT
13 03 | PLANNING BACKGROUND PLANNING CONTEXT
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice • LP23 Cycle and Car Parking Guidance (PPG) sets the context for national planning guidance. • LP26 Promoting High Quality Design
The subject site is located within the Green Belt, however the Green Belt Review • LP29 Amenity and Internal Space Standards prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP identifie that the site does not still meet the • LP32 Sustainable Design and Construction purposes of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF (parcels GB16b), and has been recommended for release. Please refer to Chapter 4 of this document • LP35 Protecting and Enhancing Open Space for further information on the Draft Green Belt Review of January 2016. At a local • LP37 Green Infrastructure and Blue Ribbon Network level The Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 Pre-submission Draft dated July 2016 identifie the subject site as a development opportunity within of the Crossrail • LP39 Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Corridor Investment and Growth Area. • Appendix 7 Car and Cycle Parking Standards
The King George Hospital site is one of three sites which have been identified which also include the Ford Sports Ground and Land at Billet Road. Taken together these provide the opportunity to provide approximately 4, 700 high quality new homes (Policies LP2 - Delivering Housing Growth, LP3 - Affordable Housing and LP5 - Dwelling Mix).
The King George and Goodmayes Hospital site, of which this Master Planning study forms part, is targeted to provide approximately 500 high quality new homes as part of the Crossrail Investment and Growth Area.
Please refer to the Representations regarding the Redbridge Local Plan 2015 - 2030: Pre-Submission Draft Consultation submitted on behalf of Barking, Havering and Redbridge (University Hospitals) NHS trust regarding Land at King George Hospital for further information and commentaries.
The subsequent proposals take into account the following policies:
• LP1B Crossrail Corridor Investment and Growth Area • LP2 Delivering Housing Growth • LP3 Affordable Housing • LP5 Dwelling Mix
14 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY Section 3 | Promoting and Managing Growth Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030: Pre-Submission Draft, July 2016
FIGURE 8: Crossrail Corridor Investment and Growth Area Section 3 | Promoting and Managing Growth Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030: Pre-Submission Draft, July 2016
FIGURE 8: Crossrail Corridor Investment and Growth Area
Section 3 | Promoting and Managing Growth Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030: Pre-Submission Draft, July 2016
N FIGURE 8: Crossrail Corridor Investment and Growth Area
Site Location 3.4.7 There are a number of key Opportunity 3.4.8 The Council’s ambitions for these sites are Sites (Appendix 1) located within the set out below. Further details on how the Crossrail Corridor which provide the Council will see these sites come forward opportunity to build approximately 4,700 will be subject to a masterplanning exercise 3.4.7 There are a number of key Opportunity 3.4.8 The Council’s ambitions for these sites are Sites (Appendix 1) located withinhigh the quality new homesset out (Policies below. LP2, Further LP3 details onresponding how the to the existing character and Crossrail Corridor which provideand the LP5). The CouncilCouncil has identified will see thesethree sites comeurban forward grain, ensuring new places and opportunity to build approximatelystrategic 4,700 sites to the northwill be of subject the Corridor to a masterplanning neighbourhoods exercise retain and enhance their high quality new homes (Policiesthat LP2, are LP3 capable of accommodatingresponding to the existing characterlocal distinctiveness. and and LP5). The Council has identifiedhousing three led mixed useurban development grain, ensuring during new places and strategic sites to the north of thethe Corridor plan period. Theseneighbourhoods are: retain and enhance their that are capable of accommodating• Land in and aroundlocal King distinctiveness. George and housing led mixed use developmentGoodmayes during Hospitals; the plan period. These are: • The Ford Sports Ground; and • Land in and around King George and Goodmayes Hospitals; • Land at Billet Road. • The Ford Sports Ground; and 27 • Land at Billet Road. Figure 4: Crossrail Corridor Investment and Growth Area extracted from the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 Pre-submission Draft, July 2016
27
15
3.4.7 There are a number of key Opportunity 3.4.8 The Council’s ambitions for these sites are Sites (Appendix 1) located within the set out below. Further details on how the Crossrail Corridor which provide the Council will see these sites come forward opportunity to build approximately 4,700 will be subject to a masterplanning exercise high quality new homes (Policies LP2, LP3 responding to the existing character and and LP5). The Council has identified three urban grain, ensuring new places and strategic sites to the north of the Corridor neighbourhoods retain and enhance their that are capable of accommodating local distinctiveness. housing led mixed use development during the plan period. These are: • Land in and around King George and Goodmayes Hospitals; • The Ford Sports Ground; and • Land at Billet Road.
27 16 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY 04 MAPPING STUDY
17 04 | MAPPING STUDY SITE LOCATION PLAN
N
SUMMARY POINTS
• The total site area is 10.68ha, split over the larger northern portion of the site (10.38ha) and the smaller southern portion of the site (0.30ha). • The northern portion of the site can be accessed via the A12, Eastern Avenue.
Figure 5: Site Location Plan
18 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY LOCAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER MAP
N
SUMMARY POINTS
The Redbridge Characterisation Study identifie the site as falling wholly within the Goodmayes Character Area. This study identifies
• Goodmayes was largely undeveloped until the late nineteenth century. The area grew rapidly with the introduction of the railway in the late 1890s. • Goodmayes Hospital is an important heritage asset but has a limited presence in the area due to the vegetation and new buildings which obstruct the view into the site. • Residential typologies include Urban Terrace, Suburban or Garden City, Suburban Terrace, Grand Villas, Residential Estates and Flats. • Goodmayes suffers from a lack of distinctiveness, to the point of having unclear neighbourhood/ character area boundaries. • Goodmayes differs from Seven Kings in that the area feels less intact with more, later infillin apparent. This infillin has often been insensitive to earlier phases of development.
Figure 6: Local Landscape Character
19 04 | MAPPING STUDY DESIGNATIONS MAP
N
SUMMARY POINTS
• The site lies immediately adjacent to the Little Heath Conservation Area. • The site is located within the Crossrail Corridor Investment and Growth Area. • The Goodmayes Hospital and its peripheral buildings are locally listed. • The site is located within the Green Belt, which is recommended for release in the Draft Green Belt Review of January 2016. Please refer to ‘Green Belt Release’ adjacent for further information.
Figure 7: Landscape Designations Map
20 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY GREEN BELT RELEASE
Draft Green Belt Review (January 2016) • The western and southern parts of the parcel can be considered locally important open space, particularly Fords Sports Ground; Goodmayes Hospital Sports Ground; Seven Kings Park; and Barley Lane Allotments. These spaces also help The London Borough of Redbridge in collaboration with Wardell Armstrong undertook to retain the biodiversity of the area. a Green Belt review, published in January 2016 which divided the Borough’s Green Belt into 16 parcels for individual assessment. King George and Goodmayes • The hospital site is urbanised in character and does not meet any Green Belt Hospitals were assessed together under Parcel Ref No: GB16. The review concluded purpose. However, it should be noted that, if the hospital site was released the that GB16 could be released in full from the Green Belt. This conclusion was remainder of the Green Belt land to the west would be isolated from GB14 and extended from the 2010 Green Belt review. therefore any recommendations must be inclusive of the site as a whole. • The finding of the 2010 Green Belt review remain valid. It is recommended that Para 3.17 - GB16: King George / Goodmayes Hospitals the parcel be released from the Green Belt.
The 2010 Green Belt review recommended that GB16 be removed from the Green Belt as the parcel was considered to have an urban character and be isolated from the wider Green Belt.
The review find that GB16 is :
• Generally fla and slopes downwards towards the southern boundary of a tree lined playing field • The parcel can be split into two distinct parts, the hospital site to the east and Seven Kings Park and Fords Sports Ground to west. These areas are dissected by a tree lined river extending north to south. • The parcel is physically and visually disconnected from the wider Green Belt parcel of GB14 due to the presence of the A12 dual carriageway. The site is surrounded by housing on all sides and the hospital site is relatively urbanised. • A large part of the parcel is designated a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). • GB16 does not prevent sprawl nor does it prevent the merging of local centres as it is surrounded by development at all sides. Furthermore, its physical and visual connection to GB14 and the wider Green Belt is weak due to the presence of the A12 and the urbanised nature of the hospital site. In that regard it does not safeguard the countryside from encroachment.
Figure 8: Site GB16B, extracted from the Redbridge Green Belt Review
21 04 | MAPPING STUDY SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION MAP
N
SUMMARY POINTS
• The site is bordered to the west by a band of significan vegetation which is located along the eastern bank of Seven Kings Water. • This band of vegetation connects to the north, creating a woodland verge either side of the A12, Eastern Avenue.
Figure 9: Significant egetation Map Figure 10: Aerial indicating existing vegetation
22 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY FLOOD ZONE MAP
N
SUMMARY POINTS
• A floo zone runs north-south to the west of the site, associated with Seven Kings Water. • This floo zone meets but does not encroach within the site’s red line boundary as much of the floo zone is located along lower ground to the west of the watercourse.
Figure 11: Environment Agency Flood Risk Map
23 04 | MAPPING STUDY TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP
N
SUMMARY POINTS
• The site is located within the 10-30m AOD (Above Ordinance Datum) bands. • Immediately to the west and south of the site ground levels fall away to the 10-20m AOD level, associated with Seven Kings Water and surrounding sports field adjacent.
Figure 12 Topographical Map
24 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY HISTORICAL MAPPING CHRONOLOGY
N N N
1875-1881 1921 1951 • The application site, and the surrounding area is • The site is directly to the north of the West Ham • The site is noted as a part of the hospital predominantly within agricultural use. Borough Lunatic Asylum. complex, however the land surrounding the facility has undergone a marked increase in • The village of Little Heath is evident in the east, • To the south east of the site an Isolation Hospital density. with Little Heath House evident to the north. is in evidence. • Suburbia is creeping into the agricultural zone • Some residential properties have been developed surrounding the site. associated with these two healthcare facilities. • The parklands and sporting grounds which • The village of Little Heath is showing signs of now surround the hospital are beginning to growth, with additional residences, schools and consolidate. churches apparent. • The A12 highway has been constructed along the northern boundary of the site. Figure 13, 1875 - 1951 Historical Maps
25 26 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY 05 VISUAL AND TOWNSCAPE STUDY
27 05 | VISUAL AND TOWNSCAPE STUDY ZONE OF THEORETICAL VISIBILITY
N
SUMMARYLegend POINTS 1.5 km Distance from Site 1500 m Negligible visibility ZoneLow of Visibility Theoretical Visibility is generatedMedium visibilty using ‘OS Terrain 5’ (digitalHigh visibility terrain data at 5 m resolution), assumingZTV Perameters the following heights: Zone of Theoretical Visibility is generated using 'OS Terrain 5' (digital terrain data at •5 m resolution),2 Story assuming thebuilding following height : 9 m 1000 m heights:
2 Story building height : 9 m • 2.5 Story2.5 building Story height building : 11.5 m height : 11.5 m 3 Story building height : 12.4 m
•The heights3 ofStory existing vegetation/ building height : 12.4 m structures are estimated, using a combination of online imagery and field Theobservations. heights of existing vegetation/ Visual barriers less than 4 m high have structuresnot been modeled. are estimated, using a
combinationThe ZTV identifies those areas of from online imagery and 500 m which the development would be fieltheoretically observations. visible. Due to the frequency of hedgerows and low-level vegetation the actual visibility should be significantly Vlessisual extensive thanbarriers the drawing indicates. less than 4 m high have not been modeled. The ZTV identifie those areas from which the development would be theoretically visible. Due to the frequency of hedgerows and low- level vegetation the actual visibility should be significantl less extensive than the drawing indicates. Given the urban area to the south - - - Rev.west Dateand Detailssouth east visibility of GENERAL Do not scale from this drawing. Allthe dimensions proposed to be checked on site. development is Legend This plan is to be read with all accompanying documentation. ©concentrated Bidwells 2016 to the north of the site, 1.5 km Distance from Site 1500 m with high visibility concentrated on - Negligible visibility the site and it’s immediate surrounds.
Low Visibility M:\Urban Design Studio\02 DESIGN & DELIVERY\01 IMAGE LIBRARY\03 LOGOS\Bidwells_Logo_POS_RGB.jpg Urban Design studio Bidwell House, Trumpington Road, Cambridge CB2 9LD Medium visibilty King George Hospital, Ilford High visibility ZONE OF THEORETICAL Figure 14: Zone of Theoretical Visibility Map VISIBILITY (ZTV) ZTV Perameters Job Code: OS License Number: 28 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY Zone of Theoretical Visibility is generated- 100017734 Drawing Scale: Date: Drawn By: Checked By: using 'OS Terrain 5' (digital terrain -data at 30.09.16 NR JC
5 m resolution), assuming the followingDrawing Number: Revision: 1000 m heights: - -
2 Story building height : 9 m 2.5 Story building height : 11.5 m 3 Story building height : 12.4 m
The heights of existing vegetation/ structures are estimated, using a combination of online imagery and field observations.
Visual barriers less than 4 m high have not been modeled.
The ZTV identifies those areas from 500 m which the development would be theoretically visible. Due to the frequency of hedgerows and low-level vegetation the actual visibility should be significantly less extensive than the drawing indicates.
- - -
Rev. Date Details
GENERAL Do not scale from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site. This plan is to be read with all accompanying documentation. © Bidwells 2016
-
M:\Urban Design Studio\02 DESIGN & DELIVERY\01 IMAGE LIBRARY\03 LOGOS\Bidwells_Logo_POS_RGB.jpg Urban Design studio Bidwell House, Trumpington Road, Cambridge CB2 9LD
King George Hospital, Ilford
ZONE OF THEORETICAL VISIBILITY (ZTV)
Job Code: OS License Number: - 100017734
Drawing Scale: Date: Drawn By: Checked By: - 30.09.16 NR JC
Drawing Number: Revision: - - WIDER CONTEXT | HOUSING STYLES
Figure 15: Early 20th Century Semi-detached Housing along Barley Lane Figure 17, Recent development undertaken in the 2000s at Medici Close Figure 18, Recent 1990s development at Heathfield Park Driv
Figure 19: Post-era terraced Housing on Priestly Gardens
Figure 16: Semi-detached post-war era dwellings along Barley Lane, fronting onto The Green, within the Little Heath Conservation Area Figure 20 Poor quality 1980s terrace development at Millhaven Close
29 05 | VISUAL AND TOWNSCAPE STUDY EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
1. 1.
2. 3.
2.
Figure 22, Views 1-3 Map
1. View from the north of the site, looking towards the west towards the pedestrian footbridge across the A12, Eastern Avenue. The boundary on the right of the picture is the subject site boundary.
2. View from the existing pedestrian access in the north of the site looking south towards the healthcare facilities.
3. View from the north of the site, looking west towards the boundary with existing dwellings, 3. located within the adjacent conservation area. Figure 21, Views 1-3 of existing site conditions
30 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
4.
5. 6.
4.
5.
Figure 24: Views 4-6 Map
4. View of the car park looking west towards the car park to the north of the hospital facility.
5. View looking south west from the carpark of the north eastern corner of the hospital, immediately outside the red line boundary.
6. 6. View looking south east from the carpark located on looking towards residences. Figure 23: Views 4-6 of existing site conditions
31 05 | VISUAL AND TOWNSCAPE STUDY EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
7.
9.
8. 8. 7.
Figure 26: Views 7-9 Map
7. View of the exit onto Barley Lane, from the access road.
8. View of the staff entrance to the King George Hospital.
9. View taken from behind the boundary fence line looking in a northerly direction along Barley 9. Lane, showing local amenities. Figure 25: Views 7-9 of existing site conditions
32 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
10
10
11 12
11
Figure 28: Views 10-12 Map 10. View looking west towards the eastern elevation of the Meadow Court Care Home.
11. View looking west towards a portion of the eastern elevation of the Victorian Goodmayes Hospital building.
12. North East Trust Head Offic to the south of the site, with car parking in the foreground.
12 Figure 27: Views 10-12 of existing site conditions
33 05 | VISUAL AND TOWNSCAPE STUDY EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
13.
15
14 13.
14
Figure 30: Views 13-15 Map
13. View looking south into a portion of the existing Goodmayes Hospital Car Park.
14. View looking east of the hospital complex, currently undergoing residential conversion.
15. View looking west from the hospital perimeter road over open grassland towards the 15 vegetated Seven Kings Water Corridor. Figure 29: Views 13-15 of existing site conditions
34 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
16
18
17 16
17
Figure 31: Views 16-18 Map
16. View looking south east across the grounds of the former hospital complex.
17. View looking east towards the Victorian hospital tower, with existing car parking in the foreground.
18. View looking south towards the interface of the Victorian Hospital complex, where it interfaces 18 with the existing car parking, part of which can be seen in the foreground. Figure 30: Views 16-18 of existing site conditions
35 05 | VISUAL AND TOWNSCAPE STUDY OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS PLAN
N
The opportunities and constraints plan (left) summarises the pertinent issues relating to the site and its context, as determined through the site assessment, visual study and baseline mapping exercise. The key points relating to opportunities and Primary constraints of the site are listed (right). Access A12 B
B Legend B Site Boundary
Existing Vegetation King Barley Lane George Hospital Mounded Grassland Area
Pedestrian Route B Vehicular Route
Conservation Area
Existing Surface Parking Space
Flood Zones 2 + 3 B Informal Overflo Carparking
Figure 32: Opportunities and Constraints Diagram
36 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE INCLUDE:
• A GRADUAL GRADIENT EXISTS FROM HIGHER HOWEVER IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR RELEASE GROUND IN THE EAST TO LOWER GROUND IN AS A PART OF SITE GB16B. THE WEST OF THE SITE, ASSOCIATED WITH SEVEN KINGS WATER. • THERE ARE NO PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OR BRIDLEWAYS RUNNING THROUGH THE • THE SITE’S WESTERN BOUNDARY IS PROTECTED SITE, HOWEVER THE SEVEN KINGS CYCLE BY A BAND OF EXISTING SIGNIFICANT ROUTE RUNS TO THE WEST OF THE SITE. VEGETATION, PROTECTING VIEWS INTO THE SITE FROM THE A12. THIS TRANSITIONS TO A • PRIMARY ACCESS FOR THE SITE CAN BE MOUNDED LANDSCAPE IN THE NORTH. PROVIDED DIRECTLY OFF THE A12, EASTERN ROAD. • THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE IS SHARED WITH HOSPITAL FACILITIES. • POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR A SECONDARY OR A SENSITIVELY DETAILED INTERFACE EMERGENCY ACCESS IN THE SOUTH FROM WITH THE HOSPITAL IS REQUIRED. BARLEY LANE.
• THE EASTERN BOUNDARY IS OVERLOOKED BY • POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE EXISTING DWELLINGS ALONG BARLEY LANE. LINKS INTO THE EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN ALTHOUGH THESE BOUNDARIES ARE HEAVILY SPACE TO THE WEST CAN BE CREATED IN THE VEGETATED, OVERLOOKING MUST BE DEVELOPMENT, CONNECTING INTO THE RIVER CONSIDERED. THESE DWELLINGS ARE WITHIN CORRIDOR. THE LITTLE HEATH CONSERVATION AREA, • GOODMAYES HOSPITAL AND IT’S PERIPHERAL WHICH MUST BE RESPECTED IN THE EMERGING BUILDINGS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE PROPOSALS. ARE LOCALLY LISTED (NO.157), AND MUST • THE SITE LIES WITHIN THE GREEN BELT, THEREFORE BE RESPECTED. 37 38 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY 06 CONSULTANTS ANALYSIS
39 06 | CONSULTANTS ANALYSIS TRANSPORT AND ACCESS
A Transport Strategy has been undertaken for the site by Stratford, Romford within 30 minutes. These locations provide key Vectos during September 2016. This strategy found that employment and retail destinations. overall the potential development is considered feasible • On a site level, vehicular access can be provided from both the A12 and from a transport perspective, supporting the London / or Barley Lane. The exact design and locations of these junctions would Borough of Redbridge’s vision and strategic objectives. require coordination with the highways authority, but preliminary compliant designs have been prepared for each. Specificall , Vectos found that:
• The site is close to a number of local facilities, within a walking or cycling distance of the proposed development. These facilities include schools, shops, community facilities and recreation areas.
• Both Goodmayes Railway Station and Newbury Park Underground Station are accessible from the site, offering direct access into Central London.
• Rail services will be increased with the arrival of Crossrail, which will connect into Seven Kings, Goodmayes and Chadwell Heath Stations, which will increase the connectivity of the area.
• An opportunity exists to provide new footway links within the site to improve permeability as well as connectivity to the wider context.
• The area surrounding the site already acts as a hub for bus services for the area with numerous services serving the hospital, linking with the future Crossrail stations. TFL has reviewed bus operations into the site, resulting in suggested improvements which would allow additional buses to pass through the site, rather than along the A12). Bus frequencies in the area have increased recently, and further improvements may follow.
• The site has good strategic vehicular connections, linking to Brentwood,
Figure 33: Local Bus Routes surrounding King George Hospital, extracted from the Transport Strategy 40 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY ECOLOGY
Buses from King George Hospital A preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been undertaken by Southern Ecological Solutions (SES) during September 2016. 362 Grange Hill Brocket Hainault Hainault Forest Manford Way Way The Lowe Golf Club Romford Road Whalebone Lane North Specificall , SES found that: HAINAULT Route finder Marks Gate The City Pavilion Bus route Towards Bus stops Leytonstone ○C Billet Road • The larger land parcel to the north of King George Hospital is a mixture 66 Furze Farm Close Romford ○D of habitats of low ecological value surrounding the hospital buildings, with 173 Beckton ○A ○E Billet Road Kingston Hill Avenue 296 Ilford ○C The yellow tinted area includes every the semi-natural broad leaved woodland and semi-improved grassland in Romford ○D bus stop up to one-and-a-half miles Billet Road from King George Hospital. Hainault House Rose Lane 362 Grange Hill ○A ○E Main stops are shown in the white Billet Road Billet Road Billet Road area outside. the west and north of the site providing the highest ecological value at the 387 Barking Riverside ○A ○B ○E ○K ○L Hainault Road Padnall Road 396 Ilford ○ ○B ○C Rose Lane Lawn Farm Grove site. The proposed development and associated infrastructure will occupy
Leytonstone 66 Bus Station Rose Lane Sports Whalebone Lane North (296) or up to c. 25% of the site. A portion of the ‘Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Ground Padnall Road (362) Leytonstone D Romford Green Man Eastern Avenue North Street Gants Newbury Eastern Avenue Padnall Road Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital’ Site of Importance for Nature Key Roundabout VENUE EASTE Wanstead Hill Park Grenfell Gardens A RN AVENUE TERN EAS C Eastern Avenue Eastern Avenue Eastern Avenue East Ø— New Redbridge Somerville Road Whalebone Lane North Mawney Road Connections with London Underground Wanstead CHA E Conservation (SINC) falls within the northern parcel. Eastern Avenue Eastern Avenue Eastern Avenue DW B E Romford Market u Connections with London Overground Ley Street Aldborough Road South Bawdsey Avenue Little LL King George Heath H EA u Connections with TfL Rail Hospital T Cranbrook Road H ROMFORD J L R Connections with National Rail Valentine’s Park A A . Chadwell Heath Lane Whalebone Lane North Romford Î Connections with DLR Haywards Close Geneva Gardens • The smaller land parcel is dominated by tall ruderal vegetation with X 66 College Operates daily with 24-hour service Friday and Ilford AA 296 Sch Saturday nights E scattered broad leaved and coniferous trees and buildings. N ATHFIE ILFORD A E L Sch Chadwell Heath Lane Tube station with 24-hour service Friday and L D Whalebone Lane North H E Ø— Q IV Goodmayes R Grove Road Mill Lane D Ilford Roden Street PARK Saturday nights when Night Tube services operate Hospital
396 Y 296 E L K R A Grove Road • Further ecological surveys and assessment works have been B Chadwell Heath Lane N GRESH AM DRIVE Hawkridge Close High Road Whalebone Lane Hail & Ride recommended for a number of species including badger, bat, nesting L section Sports Grounds High Road Ways to pay Chadwell Heath Barley Lane Lane birds, an Invertebrate Walkover Survey, Reptiles and any notable mammal Use your contactless debit or credit card. It’s the Priestley Gardens High Road High Road Grove Road Reynolds High Road same fare as Oyster and there is no need to top up. Avenue St. Chad’s Road records found in any of the above surveys. Barley Lane Chadwell Heath Eccleston Crescent Station Road/ Herbert Gardens Top up your Oyster pay as you go credit or buy Whalebone Lane South Barley Lane Chadwell Heath High Road Travelcards and bus & tram passes at around Goodmayes High Road 4,000 shops across London. CHADWELL • A summary of likely impacts, mitigation and enhancement measures and Goodmayes HEATH Sign up for an online account to top up online and GOODMAYES Whalebone Lane South residual impacts can be found in Table 5 of the Ecological appraisal. see your travel history and spending Goodmayes Lane Stanley Avenue Green Lane
Goodmayes Lane BECONTREE Meldrum Road • Overall the appraisal has found that should all outlined precautionary Becontree Heath HEATH Barking Wood Lane/Morris Road Barking Bus Garage/ Town Centre Fair Cross Goodmayes Lane methods be undertaken it is considered that ‘...all significant impacts Levett Gardens Barking Longbridge Movers Lane Road Dagenham Heathway Greatfields Park upon biodiversity; including any potential adverse impacts upon specific
Alfreds Way BARKING DAGENHAM North Beckton Newham Way Movers Lane/ protected species, habitats and designated sites will likely be able to 173 Woolwich Manor Way North Circular Road River Road Dagenham Chequers Lane/Merrielands Retail Park Beckton Beckton Triangle Alfreds Way Ripple Road Goresbrook Dagenham Bus Station Retail Park River Road Lodge Lane/ Castle Green/ Leisure Centre Leisure Park be wholly mitigated in line with relevant wildlife legislation, chapter 11: Newham Way Waverley Gardens Thatched House Rippleside Commercial Estate River Road BECKTON Business Park Thames Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, of the NPPF (DfCLG, Road Long Reach Road Creek Road 2012 and Strategic Policy 2: Green Environment with Redbridge Borough 387 Barking Riverside Rivergate Centre Council’s Local Development Core Strategy (2008).’ Information correct from 19 August 2016 © Transport for London TFL30383.06.16 (F) Figure 34: Local Bus stops and route locations surrounding King George Hospital, extracted from the Transport Strategy 41 42 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY 07 MASTER PLAN STRATEGY
43 07 | MASTER PLAN STRATEGY STRATEGY PLAN
N
The strategy plan and points opposite defin the strategic ‘big moves’ for the subsequent master planning design exercise.
Primary Legend Access A12 Site Boundary
Structural Planting
Developable Area
Potential Future Developable Area
Existing Vegetation
Barley Lane Pedestrian Route
Vehicular Route
Secondary Potential future Deck Car Access Park
Existing Car Park to be retained
Conservation Area
Flood Zones 2 + 3
Existing Hospital Frontage
Figure 35: Landscape Strategy Diagram
44 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY MASTER PLAN STRATEGY - AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
FOLLOWING AN APPRAISAL OF THE SITE, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SHOULD SEEK TO:
1. ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF THE NATURE AREA TO THE NORTH WEST OF THE SITE, BUFFERING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FROM THE A12.
2. CREATE NEW PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR PRIMARY ACCESS INTO THE SITE VIA A12 IN THE NORTH.
3. PRESERVE THE DIRECT NORTH-SOUTH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS THROUGH THE SITE, WHILST IMPROVING THE SOUTH-WEST PEDESTRIAN PERMEABILITY, CONNECTING OPEN SPACE, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
4. CREATE A STRONG LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE TO MINIMISE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON SURROUNDING RESIDENTS, WHILST CREATING A PLEASANT, LANDSCAPE LED RESIDENTIAL MASTER PLAN.
5. PROPOSED DEVELOPABLE AREA IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE, WITH CHARACTER INSPIRATION FROM ADJACENT CONSERVATION ZONE.
6. A SENSITIVELY LANDSCAPED INTERFACE WITH KING GEORGE HOSPITAL IN THE SOUTH.
45 07 | MASTER PLAN STRATEGY OPTION 1 CONCEPT PLAN
N
THE BOULEVARD
The concept plan define the strategic ‘big moves’ for the subsequent master planning design exercise.
The Boulevard Concept is define by the north-south landscaped boulevard Seven Kings Water which will form the main site entry, A12 which will be used to create a legible hierarchy through the master plan, linking a proposed green to the boulevard. A pedestrian network will feed into the surrounding amenities.
Legend
Developable area
Barley Lane Redbridge College Public Open Green Space
Buffer Planting King George Hospital Boulevard
Road
Potential Vehicular Link
Pedestrian Route
Site Access
Figure 36: Option 1 Concept Plan Diagram
46 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY OPTION 2 CONCEPT PLAN
N
THE LOOP
The concept plan define the strategic ‘big moves’ for the subsequent master planning design exercise.
The Loop concept creates a feature loop within the central portion of Seven Kings Water the northern site, beginning at the A12 main site entrance and picking up on a proposed green, and leading residents around the site in a circular fashion.
Legend
Developable area
Barley Lane Redbridge College Public Open Green Space
Buffer Planting King George Hospital Boulevard
Road
Potential Vehicular Link
Pedestrian Route
Site Access
Figure 37: Option 2 Concept Plan Diagram
47 07 | MASTER PLAN STRATEGY OPTION COMPARISON
BOTH MASTER PLAN STRATEGY OPTIONS EXPLORE TRANSPORT ROUTES AND THE PEDESTRIAN THE WAYS IN WHICH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BRIDGE ENABLING ACCESS TO THE GREEN BELT TO CAN RELATE TO IT’S CONTEXT. AS A RESULT OF THIS THE NORTH. EACH OF THE STRATEGIES SHARE A RESPECT FOR • EACH OPTION PROPOSES A DEVELOPABLE AREA THEIR BOUNDARIES, AND A DESIRE TO IMPROVE THE CONCENTRATED IN THE WEST OF THE SITE, PERMEABILITY OF THE SITE. THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED RESPECTING THE HIGHER QUALITY AREAS OF THE THROUGH: SINC. • EACH OPTION ALLOWS ACCESS TO THE VEGETATED • STRONG LANDSCAPE BUFFERS PROPOSED CORRIDOR WHICH IS CO-LOCATED WITH THE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT SITE AND HOSPITAL, SEVEN KINGS WATER COURSE. TO ENSURE THIS SENSITIVE BOUNDARY IS MANAGED WITH CARE AND DETAIL. OPTION ONE HAS BEEN SELECTED AS THE • THE ADJACENT CONSERVATION AREA IS SHOWN PREFERRED STRATEGY OPTION DUE TO IT’S STRONG RESPECT THROUGH THE INSERTION OF STRATEGIC NORTH SOUTH BOULEVARD WHICH WILL VISUALLY LANDSCAPE BUFFERS SURROUNDING THE EDGE CONTINUE THE STRONG AXIAL DESIGN OF THE OF THE SITE, THROUGH WHICH PEDESTRIAN HOSPITAL SITE. THIS STRONG BOULEVARD WILL CONNECTIONS WILL BE INSERTED TO PROVIDE ENABLE A LEGIBLE HIERARCHY OF STREETS WITHIN ACCESS TO THE EXISTING SERVICES AND PUBLIC THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVING WAY FINDING CUES TRANSPORT ALONG BARLEY LANE. AND LINKING THE PROPOSED VILLAGE GREEN WITH • STRONG PEDESTRIAN PERMEABILITY TO THE A12 THE PRIMARY SITE ENTRANCE. IN THE NORTH, ALLOWING ACCESS TO PUBLIC
48 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY PREFERRED OPTION ZONING PLAN
N
The Zoning Plan demonstrates the proposed layout of development across the site, informed by the structure of open space and circulation routes. Using this method we aim to create development which is open space led, driven by the established opportunities and constraints and strategy for the site. Legend
Developable Area with Frontage
Apartment Developable Area with Frontage
Public Open Space
Existing / Potential Hospital Garden
Surface Car Park
Potential Overspill Car Park
Potential Future Multi-Storey Car Park
Vehicular Circulation
Pedestrian Circulation
Structural Planting
Boulevard Planting Figure 38: Preferred Option Zoning Diagram
49 50 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY 08 PREFERRED MASTER PLAN OPTION
51 08 | PREFERRED MASTER PLAN OPTION ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN
N
The Illustrative Master Plan demonstrates a potential layout of development across the site area, illustrating the resultant relationship between existing and proposed built form and open space. A12 The Contextual Master Plan demonstrates how the master plan may fi within its wider context. The proposals indicate 187 housing units within 2-3 storey dwellings, with 1 storey garages.
Barley Lane
Legend Seven Kings Water
King George Proposed Strategic Planting Hospital Proposed Public Open Space
Residential Properties
Barley Lane Proposed Vehicle Access
Proposed Shared Zone
Proposed Apartment Buildings
Proposed Grassland Mound Figure 39: Illustrative Master Plan
52 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY PREFERRED OPTION HOUSING FIGURESHOUSING SCHEDULE | KING GEORGE HOSPITAL
In the development of the master plan, options may be explored which examine SITE WIDE FIGURES HECTARES the relationship between the development Total Site Area (hectares) 10.68ha and the SINC in the north western corner, Northern Portion of Site (hectares) 10.38ha which provides a positive interaction Southern Portion of Site (hectares) 0.30ha between the existing open space and the DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS NORTHERN PARCEL SOUTHERN PARCEL proposed village green. Infrastructure (hectares) 0.90ha 0.11ha Public Open Space (hectares) 5.39ha 0.11ha Total Built Plot Area (hectares) 1.84ha 0.08ha Area retained for hospital functions 2.25ha 0ha (no-build) Total No. Units 173 14 Gross Density (ex. areas in hospital use) 21.27 dwellings per hectare 46.66 dwellings per hectare NET Density (excluding areas in hospital 94 dwellings per hectare 175 dwellings per hectare use, infrastructure and open space) 5-Bed (No.) 3 0 4-Bed (No.) 10 0 3-Bed (No.) 21 0 2-Bed (No.) 19 0 Flats (1-Bed) 60 7 Legend Flats (2-Bed) 60 7 Figure x: Housing Schedule Proposed Strategic Planting The site wide figure are listed first followed by an analysis of each specifi parcel. The density figure for housing Proposed Public Open Space are given as four distinct calculations: Northern Parcel 1. of development within both Land Parcels, including open space and infrastructure. Residential Properties Gross Density 2. NET Density of development within both Land Parcels, excluding open space and infrastructure. Proposed Vehicle Access 3. Gross Density of development within the Total Redline Site Area, including open space and infrastructure. Proposed Shared Zone Page 1 of 1 4. NET Density of development within the Total Redline Site Area, excluding open space and infrastructure. Proposed Apartment Buildings Southern Proposed Grassland Mound Parcel Figure 40: Parcel Key Plan
53 08 | PREFERRED MASTER PLAN OPTION PREFERRED OPTION NORTHERN PARCEL MASTER PLAN
N
A12
Barley Lane
King George Hospital
Figure 41: Preferred Option Northern Parcel Master Plan
54 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY PREFERRED OPTION SOUTHERN PARCEL MASTER PLAN
N
King George Hospital
Busy Bees at Illford Day Care
Barley Lane
Meadow Court Care Home
Barley Court Pre-Assessment Clinic
Figure 42: Preferred Option Northern Parcel Master Plan
55 08 | PREFERRED MASTER PLAN OPTION BUILDING HEIGHTS
N
The proposed Building Heights Plan indicates the potential spread of building heights from 1 to 3 stories A12 across the site area.
The proposed heights respond to the surrounding site uses, with lower heights proposed adjacent to the Little Heath Conservation Area. Densities increase with proximity to the existing hospital and the A12.
Barley Lane
King George Hospital
Legend
1 Storey
2 Storey
2.5 Storey
3 Storey Figure 43: Building Heights Master Plan
56 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY OPEN SPACE AND CIRCULATION PLAN
N
The proposed Open Space and Circulation proposals for the proposed development are driven largely by the desire to retain the open grassland and vegetated river corridor running along seven kings water. The vehicular circulation is confine largely to the eastern portion of the site, with a Boulevard providing the main access to and from the site. All roads will be sided by pedestrian pathways, and additional pathways will create a permeable landscape. Additional and separate vehicular access for existing facilities will be maintained. Legend
Land to remain in existing use
Proposed Public Open Space
Proposed Boulevard
Proposed Vehicular Street
Proposed Pedestrian Connection
Proposed Strategic Planting
Proposed Play Area
Proposed Hospital Vehicle Circulation Figure 44: Open Space and Circulation Diagram
57 08 | PREFERRED MASTER PLAN OPTION OPTION 1 CONTEXTUAL MASTER PLAN
N
Figure 45: Contextual Illustrative Master Plan
58 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY CONCLUSION AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL
• Primary vehicular access is via the A12 in the north, with strong pedestrian and A comprehensive review of the site cycle permeability throughout the proposed plan. A secondary junction has been constraints has been undertaken, which designed for Barley Lane, however this has been excluded from this master plan in the interests of eliminating a potential short-cut route avoiding the A12, Barley has informed opportunities for the site, and Lane intersection. it’s context. This review has informed the • Meets the Redbridge Car and Cycle Parking Standards. master plan proposal for the site, guiding • Supports the strategy for new investment in homes and social infrastructure the proposed development as part of the identifie for the Crossrail Corridor Investment and Growth Area.
Crossrail Investment and Growth Area. This Conceptual Study proves the site’s appropriateness and quantum of development which can be brought forward. In addition to proposing 187 new The site as part of a wider parcel has been recommended for release from the Green dwellings, adding to the vibrancy of the area, improvements in access to and Belt, to enable the delivery of high quality new homes. permeability of public open space will improve the local areas recreational infrastructure. The built form has been carefully considered, and placed in the west of the site to minimise potential conflic with the SINC in the west. This furnishes an opportunity to This master plan concept provides a preliminary example of how the surplus land at consolidate the residential development surrounding the Little Heath Conservation King George Hospital could be developed into a high quality new neighbourhood and Area, improving the pedestrian permeability of the area, and providing the opportunity what its minimum capacity may be. It will be subject to further testing once the local to link into the existing public transport network on both the A12 and Barley Lane. plan process is complete, prior to a planning application being submitted.
In summary the proposed Conceptual Master Plan:
• Proposes 187 new dwellings, with 173 in the northern parcel, and 14 in the southern parcel. These proposed dwellings are a mixture of types, from flat through to detached houses.
• Proposes new public open space and play area at the heart of the development.
• Provides meaningful connections into the existing SINC and pedestrian and cycle network surrounding Seven Kings Water.
• Has strong pedestrian connections to the existing public transport stops.
59 60 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY APPENDICES
61 APPENDIX 1 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Aerial of proposed application site, with indicative red line boundary. Figure 16: Semi-detached post-war era dwellings along Barley Lane, fronting onto The Green, within the Little Heath Conservation Area Figure 2: Aerial of proposed application site, with surrounding services Figure 17: Recent development undertaken in the 2000s at Medici Close Figure 3: Site location plan, with surrounding services + amenities Figure 18: Recent 1990s development at Heathfiel Park Drive Figure 4: Crossrail Corridor Investment and Growth Area extracted from the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 Pre-submission Draft, July 2016 Figure 19: Post-era terraced Housing on Priestly Gardens
Figure 5: Site Location Plan Figure 20: Poor quality 1980s terrace development at Millhaven Close
Figure 6: Local Landscape Character Figure 21: Views 1-3 of existing site conditions
Figure 7: Landscape Designations Map Figure 22, Views 1-3 Map
Figure 8: Site GB16B, extracted from the Redbridge Green Belt Review Figure 23: Views 4-6 of existing site conditions
Figure 9: Significan Vegetation Map Figure 24: Views 4-6 Map
Figure 10: Aerial indicating existing vegetation Figure 25: Views 7-9 of existing site conditions
Figure 11: Environment Agency Flood Risk Map Figure 26: Views 7-9 Map
Figure 12: Topographical Map Figure 27: Views 10-12 of existing site conditions
Figure 13: 1875 - 1951 Historical Maps Figure 28: Views 10-12 Map
Figure 14: Zone of Theoretical Visibility Map Figure 29: Views 13-15 of existing site conditions
Figure 15: Early 20th Century Semi-detached Housing along Barley Lane Figure 30: Views 13-15 Map
62 KING GEORGE HOSPITAL | CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLANNING STUDY Figure 31: Views 16-18 Map Figure 45: Contextual Illustrative Master Plan
Figure 32: Opportunities and Constraints Diagram
Figure 33: Local Bus Routes surrounding King George Hospital, extracted from the Transport Strategy
Figure 34: Local Bus stops and route locations surrounding King George Hospital, extracted from the Transport Strategy
Figure 35: Landscape Strategy Diagram
Figure 36: Option 1 Concept Plan Diagram
Figure 37: Option 2 Concept Plan Diagram
Figure 38: Preferred Option Zoning Diagram
Figure 39: Illustrative Master Plan
Figure 40: Parcel Key Plan
Figure 41: Preferred Option Northern Parcel Master Plan
Figure 42: Preferred Option Northern Parcel Master Plan
Figure 43: Building Heights Master Plan
Figure 44: Open Space and Circulation Diagram
63 Bidwells LLP
25 Old Burlington Street London W1S 3AN
Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust
King George Hospital, Goodmayes
Transport Strategy
September 2016
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Policy Context ...... 1 Objective 1: Promoting and Managing Growth ...... 2 Objective 2: Promoting a Green Environment ...... 2
2 LOCATION AND CONNECTIONS ...... 3
Proximity to Key Destinations ...... 3 Accessibility ...... 3 Walking and Cycling ...... 3 Rail ...... 6 Bus ...... 7 Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) ...... 8 Vehicle Access - Local and Strategic Connections ...... 8 Travel Plan ...... 9
3 VEHICLE ACCESS STRATEGY ...... 10
Vehicular Access ...... 10 Pedestrian Accessibility ...... 11 Parking ...... 11
4 SUMMARY ...... 12
Conclusion ...... 13
Figures
Figure 1 - Strategic Site Location Figure 2 - Local Site Location Figure 3 - Connectivity to Local Facilities Figure 4 - Bus Stops and Routes
Appendices
Appendix A - Masterplan Appendix B - Proposed Crossrail Route Appendix C - Bus Spider Map Appendix D - PTAL Time Mapping Appendix E - A12 Site Access Drawings Appendix F - Barley Lane Site Access Drawings
i
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Vectos have been appointed by Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust to provide advice on the traffic and transportation issues associated with the potential development of land within King George Hospital (“the Site”). The Site, in combination within the adjoining Goodmayes Hospital, has been identified as a key opportunity site for the delivery of housing growth within the Pre-Submission draft of the Redbridge Local Plan (July 2016) referred to as the “Local Plan”.
1.2 The Local Plan has provisionally outlined the delivery of approximately 500 residential units between the two hospital sites. It is envisaged that the King George Hospital site could deliver in the region of 200 units and the Goodmayes Hospital site could deliver in the region of 300 units.
1.3 The Site is located within King George Hospital, to the north of Goodmayes Hospital and to the west of Barley Lane. The Site is within the “Crossrail Corridor” Investment and Growth area identified in the Local Plan. The proposed development site is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
1.4 This Transport Strategy has been prepared to set out how the site could be developed and considers the high level strategic transport effects of the proposed developments on the surrounding highway network.
1.5 This document also sets out how potential development at the site would be consistent with the overall objectives within the Local Plan.
Policy Context
1.6 The Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan sets out the London Borough of Redbridge’s (LBR) overall vision and objectives. A key component of the vision involves directing growth to LBR’s Investment and Growth Areas (including the Crossrail Corridor).
1.7 A particular focus is the imminent arrival of Crossrail in 2019. LBR is keen to ensure that thus enhanced level of connectivity to Central London will prove a catalyst for investment and intensification within the borough.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 1 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
1.8 The above is reflected in the Strategic Objectives listed in the Local Plan. The relevant strategic objectives (in terms of transport) are:
Objective 1: Promoting and Managing Growth
To harness growth and help achieve sustainable patterns of development by
focusing new development in the borough’s Investment and Growth Areas of
Ilford, Barkingside, Crossrail Corridor, Gants Hill and South Woodford;
Objective 2: Promoting a Green Environment
Capitalise on enhanced connectivity between Ilford and Central London with the
arrival of Crossrail in 2019;
• Encourage sustainable patterns of transport by improving walking and cycling
routes;
1.9 The report is set out as follows:
Section 2 - A brief description of the surrounding highway network and local
facilities;
Section 3 – Sets out proposed development proposals;
Section 4 – Provides a summary and conclusion to the report.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 2 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
2 LOCATION AND CONNECTIONS
Proximity to Key Destinations
2.1 There are numerous facilities and amenities located within easy reach of the Site. Figure 3 shows the location of local facilities.
2.2 Table 2.1 set out the local facilities in Goodmayes, alongside the distances from the proposed Site and walk/cycling journey times.
Table 2.1: Travel Time from Site to Local Facilities *Distance from *Walking Time *Cycle Time Facility Site (mins) (mins) Grove Primary School 900m 11 4 Redbridge College 450m 6 2 Silver News Post office 900m 11 8 Tesco Extra Supermarket 1.9km 23 6 Bus Stop (Chadwell Heath Barley Lane) 350m 5 2 Recreation Area (Ford’s Sports Ground) 1.5km 18 6 Goodmayes Station 1.9km 23 7 Newbury Park Station 2.2km 27 7 * Assumed walking speed of 80m per minute and cycling speed of 18kph.
2.3 The presence of these facilities within easy walking / cycling distance will encourage residents to travel by non-car modes and is consistent with LBR’s strategic objective to “achieve sustainable patterns of development”. In particular, the site is conveniently located to take advantage of the enhanced connections into Central London that will be provided through Crossrail.
2.4 The rest of this section describes the connectivity of the site to these local facilities. The data summarised above shows that all of the facilities within Goodmayes are within an acceptable walking/cycling distance of the site.
Accessibility
Walking and Cycling
2.5 A plan of local walking and cycling routes are shown in Figure 3.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 3 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
2.6 One of the main factors demonstrating the suitability of a development site is its accessibility by non-car modes of transport. This helps to reduce the reliance on the use of the private car as well as promoting the aims of sustainable travel choices.
2.7 For short journeys, it is considered that other factors in addition to distance, such as journey purpose and the pedestrian environment (including legibility, safety and gradient) can be significant in influencing people decision to walk/cycle. It is considered that a good pedestrian environment, which provides a safe and legible route, will encourage sustainable accessibility to local services.
2.8 It is commonly accepted that walking is the most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly those under 2km.
2.9 The site currently contains a series of footways and there is ample opportunity to ensure good permeability through the site and good connectivity to the external pedestrian / cycle network. A potential masterplan of the site is included in Appendix A and shows a network of potential internal routes.
2.10 A new footway will connect the site with King George Hospital to the south. Two additional footway/cycleways will be proposed that will connect the site with Barley Lane to the east and south east.
2.11 The proposed footway would provide a continuous links to key facilities and amenities to the south of the Site including the bus stop, primary school and foodstore, which are all within walking distance of the Site (Table 2.1).
2.12 Walking and cycling routes across the Site linking to the surrounding area will be enhanced and upgraded to a high standard so that there will be a choice of routes available for residents of the Site.
2.13 The existing footway/cycleway, which extends through the site linking the A12 to the residential areas to the south of the site will also be improved. These improvements will seek to enhance the route making it more attractive as a leisure route and for accessing local facilities.
2.14 Clear opportunities exist to walk between and through the Site to nearby local facilities and the rail stations. Footways are provided on both sides of Barley Lane within the vicinity of the
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 4 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
site, which link the site to the surrounding residential area. A number of designated pedestrian crossings are also provided over Barley Lane to the south of the site providing a safe and convenient location for pedestrians to cross.
2.15 A pedestrian footbridge is provided over the A12 immediately to the north of the site, providing a safe and convenient route for pedestrians seeking to access the school or leisure facilities to the north of the A12. The A12/Barley Lane signalised junction also provides at- grade signalised pedestrian crossings.
2.16 A shared footway/cycleway is provided through the site, which links to the footway adjacent to the A12 and the pedestrian footbridge. This route continues southwards to the west of the Hospital adjacent to Seven Kings Water linking to the Ford’s Sports Ground and the residential areas to the south of the site.
2.17 LBR together with TfL and Crossrail is proposing to improve the area around Seven Kings and Goodmayes stations. These improvements will include public realm enhancements that will make the area more attractive for pedestrians and cyclists. The consultation period on the improvements finished in July 2016 and funding has already been secured with a view to start the works later in 2016.Cycling has the potential to substitute short car trips, particularly those under 5km, and to form part of a longer journey by public transport. Within the vicinity of the Site on-road cycle lanes are located along both sides of the Barley Lane. Paired with this, the relatively moderate traffic flows that have been observed in the area mean that cyclists should feel comfortable on much of the surrounding highway network.
2.18 Figure 3 shows the network of cycle routes linking the site to the wider area. This includes a shared cycleway/footway running north from King George Hospital through the centre of the site extending south to residential roads located to the south of the site (this is also referred to as the Seven Kings Greenway). Chadwell Heath Lane, which is located to the north-east of the site and can be accessed from Barley Lane, is designated a ‘quiet route’. This route extends north over the A12 and south to High Road. This route links to an extensive network of local cycle routes, which link to Romford and south-west into Central London.
2.19 Barley Lane includes sections of on—road cycle lanes along its entire length from the A12 to High Road. Figure 3 shows that there are already direct cycle routes from the Site to the nearby Crossrail stations as well as the main shopping area on High Road. In addition, the
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 5 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
public realm improvements mentioned above will include cycle parking at both Goodmayes and Seven King stations.
2.20 Other off-site improvements to the walking and cycling network would be discussed with LBR and TfL as necessary during the planning application process.
Rail
2.21 The closest station to the proposed Site is Goodmayes Station, which is approximately 1.9km to the south. Goodmayes station operates services linking to Shenfield and London Liverpool Street.
2.22 Goodmayes station is served by 12 trains per hour to Shenfield and London Liverpool Street during peak periods.
2.23 Newbury Park Underground Station is located approximately 2.2km west of the site. The station operates Central Line services to Hainault, West Ruislip and Ealing Broadway. During peak periods 21 trains per hour operate from this station.
2.24 As noted previously, the proposed site lies within the Crossrail Investment Area, which will see significant housing development within the coming years. The eastern section of the Elizabeth line route runs on the existing rail network between Stratford and Shenfield in Essex. A number of major upgrades are being carried out by Network Rail on this section of the route in preparation for the arrival of the new services from 2017. The Crossrail project will provide new trains, better stations and quicker, easier, more reliable journeys for passengers in east London and Essex.
2.25 At peak times 12 Elizabeth line trains an hour will run between Shenfield and central London, calling at all stations. The four platforms at Goodmayes will be extended from their current length of 184 metres to accommodate the Crossrail trains which will be over 200 metres long. New lifts, signage, help points, customer information screens and CCTV will be installed in preparation for the opening of Crossrail.
2.26 A plan of the proposed Crossrail route can be viewed at Appendix B.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 6 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
Bus
2.27 The King George Hospital site is already a key bus hub in the area. This is highlighted by the TfL spider map, which is centred on the site (included in Appendix C), which shows the multitude of connections to the local area from the site. The nearest bus stops are located in the site and other stops are located on Barley Lane to the east and on the A12 to the north of the site. These bus stops and bus routes are shown on Figure 4.
2.28 Table 2.3 below summarises the route and service frequencies from bus stops within walking distance of the site.
Table 2.3: Bus Services within walking distance of the site Frequency (minutes) No. Route Monday - Saturday Sunday Friday Romford Station-Newbury Park 66 Station-Gants Hill Station-Leytonstone 10-14 10-14 21-22 Station Romford Station-Illford Station-Gants 128 Hill Station-Mossford Lane-Claybury 10-13 10-14 20-22 Broadway Becontree Health Leisure Centre-Illford 150 Station-Gants Hill Station-Hainault 10-13 10-12 20-22 Station-Lambourne Road Beckton Bus Station-Jenkins Lane- 173 Dagenham Heath Station-King George 7-13 8-12 16-17 Hospital Romford Station-Newbury Park 296 Station-Gants Hill Station-Illford 18-19 19-20 30-31 Station-Roden Street Manor Road-Harbourer Road-King 362 29-30 31-32 30-31 George Hospital Hainault Street-Illford Station- 364 Goodmayes Station-Dagenham East 6-10 9-11 15-16 Station-Ballards Road Chadwell Heath-Goodmayes Station- 387 10-13 11-13 20-31 Barking Station-Rivergate Centre King George Hospital-Newbury Park 396 21 21-22 20-28 Station-Ilford Station-Roden Street
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 7 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
2.29 In particular, there are a number of bus routes serving the site, which provide access to the Crossrail (Seven Kings, Goodmayes and Chadwell Heath) and Newbury Park station. As part of TfL’s review of improving services in the area, the frequency of Route 173 (serving the site and Chadwell Heath Station) has recently been increased and proposals to increase the frequency of Route 387 (to Goodmayes Station) is currently out to consultation.
2.30 TfL has also recently prepared a report (dated July 2016) reviewing bus operations for two BHRUT sites (including the King George Hospital Site). The report acknowledges that LBR is proposing to allocate land adjacent to KGH for residential purposes, which also includes the neighbouring Ford Sports Ground.
2.31 The TfL report suggests a series of improvements to bus connectivity including a potential new road link between Barley Lane and Aldborough Road South, which could then “create the opportunity to amend bus routeings e.g. the 66, 296 and/or 396”.
2.32 Figure 4 shows how the site is currently connected by public transport to the wider area as well as potential / imminent improvements.
Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL)
2.33 Whilst the PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) of the site is relatively low, this only one measure of accessibility and in this case is not considered to offer a true reflection of the accessibility of the Site as there are railway stations within walking distance but outside the arbitrary threshold set by TfL in their PTAL methodology.
2.34 A more appropriate measure is to consider the areas that can be accessed by residents of the site within a reasonable journey time. This can be measured using Tfl’s “Time Mapping” tool. The Time Mapping (Appendix D) shows journey isochrones using public transport from the Site in 2021 (i.e. when Crossrail is operational). It demonstrates that residents would be able to access Central London within a 45-60 minute journey time. This level of accessibility would encourage sustainable patterns of development.
Vehicle Access - Local and Strategic Connections
2.35 The location of the site with respect to the highway network is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 8 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
2.36 The site is formed of a parcel of land located to the north of King George Hospital. The eastern border of the site is Barley Lane whilst the A12 forms its northern boundary. King George Hospital is located immediately to the south of the site, whilst Seven Kings Water forms the western boundary.
2.37 To the north east the site is the Barely Lane/A12 junction. The A12 extends westwards providing a direct route into Central London. The A12 also provides excellent connections to the Northern Circular and the M11 to the west of the site, which provide access to the M25. The A12 also links to M25 Junction 28 and Junction 29 via the A127 to the east of the site.
2.38 Barley Lane extends south linking to Goodmayes. Goodmayes operates as a local centre providing a train station and a number of other key local facilities including a foodstore, bank and leisure facilities.
Travel Plan
2.39 A Travel Plan would be prepared to support a planning application for the Site to encourage travel by sustainable modes. The primary objective of a Travel Plan will be to set out a long term strategy to facilitate and encourage modes of travel to the Site other than by private car.
2.40 The developer will appoint a Travel Plan Co-ordinator (TPC) to manage the Travel Plan as well as overseeing its development, implementation, monitoring and review. A number of targets will be set, based on reducing single occupancy vehicle trips to/from the Site and encouraging the use of sustainable modes. In order to achieve these targets, a number of initiatives and measures will be implemented.
2.41 These will be a mixture of hard and soft measures. Hard measures will include the provision of facilities such as safe and secure cycle parking, whilst soft measures include initiatives such as providing information on public transport services. This can be achieved through the provision of information as part of a Welcome Pack given to new residents.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 9 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
3 VEHICLE ACCESS STRATEGY
Vehicular Access
3.1 Access to the site is envisaged via a new left-in/left-out junction with the A12 to the north of the site. A plan of the proposed access can be viewed at Appendix E.
3.2 The proposed access has been designed in accordance with the standards outlined within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). The A12 is subject to a 50mph speed limit within the vicinity of the site. Based on this speed, a visibility splay of 2.4mx160m is required to satisfy DMRB standards. However, a speed survey along the A12 has shown that 85th percentile speeds are 40 mph, i.e. significantly below the 50mph limit. For this speed, a visibility splay of 2.4m x 101m would be sufficient to comply with standards.
3.3 The access will only serve the new residential units adjacent to King George Hospital and will not provide access to the hospital car parks. Given this and the lower speeds along the A12, it is not considered necessary to provide merge and diverge tapers. However, two options (both included in Appendix E) have been drawn up to demonstrate that there is flexibility in the design of the access off the A12. The potential access has been positioned to the east of the existing bund within the site.
3.4 If deemed necessary, there is scope to provide an alternative, secondary or emergency access from Barley Lane to the south east of the site. It is envisaged that the junction would be a simple priority junction, which is consistent with other junctions along Barley Lane. The layout of the potential junction can be viewed at Appendix F.
3.5 Barley Lane is subject to a 30mph speed limit along its full extent. In line with guidance outlined within Manual for Streets 2 for 30mph roads, a SSD of 43m should be provided. This is from a set back from the main road of 2.4m. The position of the junction has taken account of the existing loading bay on Barley Lane.
3.6 To retain an element of separation between the existing health facilities and potential residential elements, the accesses described above would not lead directly to the King George Hospital.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 10 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
3.7 Whilst the exact design and positioning of the vehicular accesses will be subject to discussion with LBR and TfL, it has been demonstrated that vehicular access to the site from either the A12 or Barley Lane can be achieved.
3.8 The potential development is likely to generate approximately 80 two-way vehicle trips during the AM and PM peaks. Given the likely volume of traffic generated by the proposed development, it is considered that the impact on the highway network immediately adjacent to the site would be minor. Furthermore, once these vehicle trips are distributed through the wider highway network the impact of traffic generated by the development is likely to be negligible.
Pedestrian Accessibility
3.9 The quality of the links is important in offering an attractive alternative to using vehicles, especially for short journeys. It is proposed to provide high quality, user friendly and direct links to key facilities. It is proposed that new walking and cycling links will be provided to tie in with existing facilities.
Parking
3.10 Parking will be provided to ensure that it is well located to the houses that it serves to ensure that on-street parking does not occur to any significant degree. This means that access to all parts of the Site will be maintained at all times for larger vehicles (refuse lorries and delivery vehicles) and for the emergency services.
3.11 This approach recognises the need to provide sufficient parking spaces to avoid parking that would adversely affect the operation of surrounding streets, but not providing parking to a level that would encourage car usage. This is a balanced approach that is consistent with local and national planning policies.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 11 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
4 SUMMARY
4.1 Vectos have been appointed by Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust to provide advice on the traffic and transportation issues associated with the potential development of the proposed site to the north of King George Hospital, in the context of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 Pre-Submission Draft in which the site is allocated.
4.2 The Site is formed of a parcel of land located to the west of Barley Lane, to the north of King George Hospital and to the south of the A12. Barley Lane travels north to the south, which forms the eastern boundary of Site.
4.3 The development proposals for the site are to provide in the region of 200 dwellings. The adjoining Goodmayes Hospital site is expected to deliver in the region of 300 dwellings.
4.4 The Site is located close to a number of local facilities, which are within a walking and cycling distance of the Sites including various primary schools, a superstore / shopping area, community facilities and numerous recreation areas.
4.5 Goodmayes Railway Station and Newbury Park Underground Station are accessible from the site, providing multiple services per hour during peak periods into Central London. The imminent arrival of Crossrail to Seven Kings, Goodmayes and Chadwell Heath stations will result in a substantial increase in connectivity to the area.
4.6 There is already an excellent network of pedestrian and cycle facilities linking the site to local facilities and public transport nodes. Furthermore, the Site will be within easy commuting distance to Central London.
4.7 There is also the opportunity to provide a new footway links within the Site improve permeability as well as connectivity to the wider area. Further off-site improvements can be discussed with the highway authorities at the planning application stage.
4.8 The Site is already acts as a key bus hub for the area, with numerous routes serving the hospital. These routes provide excellent links to the Crossrail stations providing onward journeys into Central London and beyond. TfL has recently reviewed bus operations to the Site and has suggested potential improvements that would allow additional buses to pass through the site (rather than along the A12). It is also acknowledged that bus frequencies have increased recently and further improvements may follow.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 12 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
4.9 In summary, the site is in a highly accessible area, with excellent links to public transport including the Crossrail stations. This is consistent with LBR’s objectives to promote sustainable patterns of development.
4.10 The site has good strategic connections to Brentwood, Stratford, Romford and the A12 within 30 minutes by car, which provides key employment and retail destinations.
4.11 Vehicular access can be provided from the A12 and /or Barley Lane. The exact form of the access junctions can be discussed with the highway authorities but preliminary designs that are compliant with current design standards have been prepared.
4.12 The Transport Assessment will identify any off-site transport mitigation measures associated with the development proposals when a planning application is submitted.
Conclusion
4.13 In conclusion, the potential development assessed within this appraisal are considered to be feasible and would be compliant with LBR’s vision and strategic objectives. The supporting Transport Feasibility Appraisal s therefore supports the allocation of the Site within the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030.
Transport Feasibility Appraisal, King George Hospital 13 R01-HJ-Transport Strategy Final Issue September 2016
FIGURES
Key
Site Location
Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust
King George Hospital
Chadwell Heath Station Strategic Site Location Goodmayes Station SCALES: NTS DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISION: D.S. A.W. 23/09/2016 . Seven Kings Station
Network Building, 97 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TP Tel: 020 7580 7373 Email: [email protected] www.vectos.co.uk
DRAWING REFERENCE: Figure 1 Key
Site Location
Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust
King George Hospital
Local Site Location
SCALES: NTS DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISION: D.S. A.W. 23/09/2016 .
Network Building, 97 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TP Tel: 020 7580 7373 Email: [email protected] www.vectos.co.uk
DRAWING REFERENCE: Figure 2 Key
Newbury Park Underground Station
Future Crossrail Stations
Cycle Routes
Cycle Routes Connecting with Train Newbury Park Stations Station High Street & Shopping Area Local Schools & Nurseries Recreational Areas
Community Centre
Post Office
Convenience Store
Barking, Havering and Chadwell Redbridge NHS Trust Heath Station
Goodmayes King George Hospital Station
Cycle Connectivity to Seven Kings Station Local Facilities
SCALES: NTS DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISION: D.S. A.W. 23/09/2016 .
Network Building, 97 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TP Tel: 020 7580 7373 Email: [email protected] www.vectos.co.uk
DRAWING REFERENCE: Figure 3 Key
Site
Towards Local Bus Stops Newbury Park Newbury Park Underground Station
Future Crossrail Stations Towards Chadwell Potential New Bus Link Heath Newbury Route 66 Park Station Potential future Route 128 bus link road Route 150 Route 173 Route 296
Towards Route 362 Goodmayes Route 364
Route 387 Route 396
Barking, Havering and Chadwell Redbridge NHS Trust Heath Station
Goodmayes King George Hospital Station
Seven Kings Station Local Bus Routes
SCALES: NTS DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISION: D.S. A.W. 23/09/2016 .
Network Building, 97 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TP Tel: 020 7580 7373 Email: [email protected] www.vectos.co.uk
DRAWING REFERENCE: Figure 4
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Elizabeth line
Ë Reading Ë Shenfield Twyford Ë Step-free from Step-free from Brentwood train to street platform to street Maidenhead Ë Harold Wood Gidea Park
Taplow Romford Ë Burnham Overground
Ë Slough Chadwell Heath Goodmayes Langley West Ë Hayes & Ealing Bond Tottenham Liverpool Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Seven Kings Iver Drayton Harlington Hanwell Broadway Paddington Street Court Road Farringdon Street Whitechapel Stratford Forest Gate Ilford Southall Ë West Central Acton Bakerloo Central Central Circle Central District Central Maryland Overground Manor Ealing District Main Line Circle Jubilee Northern Hammersmith Circle Hammersmith Jubilee Wanstead Park Park District & City Hammersmith & City DLR Metropolitan Hammersmith & City Overground Overground & City Trains to Metropolitan Trains to Gatwick Northern Southend Trains to Overground Luton Trains to Southend Terminals 2 & 3 Trains to Canary Wharf Stansted Heathrow Airport Piccadilly Jubilee Trains to DLR Terminal 5 Custom House DLR
Terminal 4 Ë Woolwich Piccadilly DLR Woolwich Arsenal Ë DRAFT March 2016 Abbey Wood
APPENDIX C
Buses from King George Hospital
362 Grange Hill Brocket Hainault Hainault Forest Manford Way Way The Lowe Golf Club Romford Road HAINAULT Whalebone Lane North Route finder Marks Gate The City Pavilion Bus route Towards Bus stops Leytonstone ○C Billet Road 66 Furze Farm Close Romford ○D
173 Beckton ○A ○E Billet Road Kingston Hill Avenue 296 Ilford ○C The yellow tinted area includes every Romford ○D bus stop up to one-and-a-half miles Billet Road from King George Hospital. Hainault House Rose Lane 362 Grange Hill ○A ○E Main stops are shown in the white Billet Road Billet Road Billet Road area outside. 387 Barking Riverside ○A ○B ○E ○K ○L Hainault Road Padnall Road 396 Ilford ○ ○B ○C Rose Lane Lawn Farm Grove
Leytonstone 66 Bus Station Rose Lane Sports Whalebone Lane North (296) or Ground Padnall Road (362) Leytonstone D Romford Green Man Eastern Avenue North Street Gants Newbury Eastern Avenue Padnall Road Key Roundabout VENUE EASTE Wanstead Hill Park Grenfell Gardens A RN AVENUE TERN EAS C Eastern Avenue Eastern Avenue Eastern Avenue East Ø— New Redbridge Somerville Road Whalebone Lane North Mawney Road Connections with London Underground Wanstead CHA E Eastern Avenue Eastern Avenue Eastern Avenue DW B E Romford Market u Connections with London Overground Ley Street Aldborough Road South Bawdsey Avenue Little LL King George Heath H EA u Connections with TfL Rail Hospital T Cranbrook Road H ROMFORD J L R Connections with National Rail Valentine’s Park A A . Chadwell Heath Lane Whalebone Lane North Romford Î Connections with DLR Haywards Close Geneva Gardens X 66 College Operates daily with 24-hour service Friday and Ilford AA 296 Sch Saturday nights E N ATHFIE ILFORD A E L Sch Chadwell Heath Lane Tube station with 24-hour service Friday and L D Whalebone Lane North H E Ø— Q IV Goodmayes R Grove Road Mill Lane D Ilford Roden Street PARK Saturday nights when Night Tube services operate Hospital
396 Y 296 E L K R A Grove Road B Chadwell Heath Lane N GRESH AM DRIVE Hawkridge Close High Road Whalebone Lane Hail & Ride L section Sports Grounds High Road Ways to pay Chadwell Heath Barley Lane Lane Use your contactless debit or credit card. It’s the Priestley Gardens High Road High Road Grove Road Reynolds High Road same fare as Oyster and there is no need to top up. Avenue St. Chad’s Road Barley Lane Chadwell Heath Eccleston Crescent Station Road/ Herbert Gardens Top up your Oyster pay as you go credit or buy Whalebone Lane South Barley Lane Chadwell Heath High Road Travelcards and bus & tram passes at around Goodmayes High Road 4,000 shops across London. CHADWELL Goodmayes HEATH Sign up for an online account to top up online and GOODMAYES Whalebone Lane South see your travel history and spending Goodmayes Lane Stanley Avenue Green Lane
Goodmayes Lane BECONTREE Meldrum Road Becontree Heath HEATH Barking Wood Lane/Morris Road Barking Bus Garage/ Town Centre Fair Cross Goodmayes Lane Levett Gardens Barking Longbridge Movers Lane Road Dagenham Heathway Greatfields Park
Alfreds Way BARKING DAGENHAM North Beckton Newham Way Movers Lane/ 173 Woolwich Manor Way North Circular Road River Road Dagenham Chequers Lane/Merrielands Retail Park Beckton Beckton Triangle Alfreds Way Ripple Road Goresbrook Dagenham Bus Station Retail Park River Road Lodge Lane/ Castle Green/ Leisure Centre Leisure Park Newham Way Waverley Gardens Thatched House Rippleside Commercial Estate River Road BECKTON Business Park Thames Road Long Reach Road Creek Road 387 Barking Riverside Rivergate Centre
Information correct from 19 August 2016 © Transport for London TFL30383.06.16 (F)
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
Notes: 1.purposes constructionanotdrawingonly. Thisis illustrative intendedand foris 2.only. indicative is White lining
Existing bus lay-by and shelter. Shelter to be relocated behind visibility splay.
.. .. .
2.4m x160m visibility splay, REV. DETAILS DRAWN CHECKED DATE in accordance with DMRB guidance at 50mph. CLIENT: Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust
PROJECT: King George Hospital
DRAWING TITLE:
Potential Access off A12
SCALES: 1:1250 at A3
DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: TF KH 06.09.2016
transport planning specialists
Network Building, 97 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TP t: 020 7580 7373 e: [email protected]
DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION: © . NOTE: THE PROPERTY OF THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN IS VESTED IN VECTOS (SOUTH) LTD. IT MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THEIR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 151947/A/01 Notes: 1.purposes constructionanotdrawingonly. Thisis illustrative intendedand foris 2.only. indicative is White lining
.. .. .
REV. DETAILS DRAWN CHECKED DATE
CLIENT: Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust
PROJECT: King George Hospital
DRAWING TITLE:
Potential Access off A12 Merge / Diverge Tapers
SCALES: 1:1250 at A3
DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: TF KH 09.09.2016
transport planning specialists
Network Building, 97 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TP t: 020 7580 7373 e: [email protected]
DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION: © . NOTE: THE PROPERTY OF THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN IS VESTED IN VECTOS (SOUTH) LTD. IT MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THEIR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 151947/A/03
APPENDIX F
Notes: 1.purposes constructionanotdrawingonly. Thisis illustrative intendedand foris 2.only. indicative is White lining
Existing loading bay (indicative only).
. . .. .
REV. DETAILS DRAWN CHECKED DATE
2.4m x 43m visibility splay, 2.4m x 43m visibility splay, CLIENT: in accordance with MFS in accordance with MFS guidance at 30mph. guidance at 30mph. Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust
PROJECT: King George Hospital
DRAWING TITLE:
Potential Access Barley Lane
SCALES: 1:1250 at A3
DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: TF KH 20.09.2016
transport planning specialists
Network Building, 97 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TP t: 020 7580 7373 e: [email protected]
DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION: © . NOTE: THE PROPERTY OF THIS DRAWING AND DESIGN IS VESTED IN VECTOS (SOUTH) LTD. IT MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THEIR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 151947/A/02
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
King George Hospital, Barley Lane
On Behalf Of:
Barking, Havering and Redbridge (University Hospitals) NHS Trust
September 2016
© SES 2016 www.ses-eco.co.uk
Author Nathan Jenkinson MSc BSc (Hons) GradCIEEM Technical Review Andrew Pankhurst BA (Hons) ACIEEM Report Status Final Date of Issue 30.09.16
Contents:
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Methods ...... 2 3.0 Results ...... 4 4.0 Preliminary Prediction of Impacts and Recommended Mitigation and Enhancement Measures...... 14 5.0 Conclusions ...... 19 6.0 References ...... 21
Tables:
Table 1: Statutory Designated Sites within 7km of the Site ...... 4 Table 2: Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within 2km of the Site ...... 5 Table 3: Summary of data search records from GiGL within 2km of the Site ...... 10 Table 4: Summary Evaluation of Features ...... 13 Table 5: Summary of Likely Impacts, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures and Residual Impacts ...... 19
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Site Masterplan Appendix 2: Phase 1 Habitat Map Appendix 3: Species List and Relative Abundance Appendix 4: Plates Appendix 5: Plan of Trees with Bat Roost Potential Appendix 6: Plan of Water Bodies within 500m of the Site Boundary Appendix 7: Approximate Area of SINC within Site Boundary Appendix 8: Assessment of Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital SINC Appendix 9: Plant Species of Known Benefit to Bats
1.0 Introduction
Aims of Study
1.1 The following preliminary ecological appraisal follows guidance and methods as prescribed by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Appraisal (2013) and the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (2016). Following these methods, a baseline of rare and/or noted ecological features (species and habitats) was established and valued. Predicted significant impacts upon these receptors have been identified and constraints and opportunities identified. This step-wise assessment process has informed likely mitigation and enhancement measures. Recommended phase 2 ecological surveys have been identified as well as a timetable for implementation. These surveys will inform the predicted impacts of the scheme in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DfCLG, 2012), local planning policy and relevant wildlife legislation.
The Site
1.2 The proposed development is 10.68ha of land at King George Hospital, Barley Lane, Ilford, London (the site). The site in comprised of two distinct land parcels, the first located to the north of King George Hospital and measuring 10.38ha in size. The second land parcel is a small disused garden located to the east of the King George Hospital buildings, directly adjacent to Barley Lane and measuring 0.30ha in size. The site is located within the London Borough of Redbridge.
1.3 The site masterplan showing the location of the site is provided in Appendix 1.
1.4 The objectives of this Preliminary Ecological Appraisal were to:
Map the main ecological features within the site and compile a plant species list for each habitat type; Make an initial assessment of the presence or likely absence of species of conservation concern; Identify any legal and planning policy constraints relevant to nature conservation which may affect the development; Determine any potential further ecological issues; Determine the need for further surveys and mitigation; and Make recommendations for minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity, where possible, in accordance with Chapter 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, of the NPPF (DfCLG,2012), and local planning policies.
1.5 Additionally, an area of the ‘Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital’ Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC; Site Reference ReB107; Borough Grade I) falls within the site boundary. As such, the SINC was examined against the current description and designation characteristics for the SINC (prepared in 2007) to determine the ecological value of areas within the SINC, and therefore shape the site masterplan and mitigation proposals. It should be noted that the current site masterplan (Appendix 1) is illustrative, however this assessment considers the constraints present against this masterplan.
1.6 The survey was carried out by suitably qualified ecologist Nathan Jenkinson MSc BSc (Hons) GradCIEEM on the 16th and 26th September 2016. 1
2.0 Methods
Desk Study
2.1 SES commissioned a data search from Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) the results of which were received on 16th September 2016, detailing records of non-statutory designated sites and protected and notable species for an area within 2km of the site boundary. The centre of the large land parcel is located at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TQ465891, with the smaller land parcel located at TQ466887.
2.2 The online spatial mapping tool, the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC; www.magic.gov.uk), was utilised to determine the location of statutory designated sites. The search radii were as follows: 7km for European Designated sites; and 5km for National Designated sites.
2.3 Records of hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius within the 10-km square (SP91) were checked on the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) gateway (https://data.nbn.org.uk/).
2.4 The relevant national policies relating to nature conservation with specific reference to the National Policy Planning Framework (DfLCG 2012) and local planning policies of Redbridge Borough Council were reviewed.
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
2.5 The field survey comprised an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the proposed development site. This is a standard technique for obtaining baseline ecological information whereby incidental records of fauna are also made during the survey, and the habitats identified are evaluated for their potential to support legally protected species and other species of conservation concern. The method follows published guidance (CIEEM, 2013).
2.6 The habitat survey was conducted according to the methodology as described in Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010), with all habitats within the site mapped and dominant species noted. The dominant and readily identifiable higher plant species identified in each of the various habitat parcels were recorded and their abundance was assessed on the DAFOR scale:
D Dominant; A Abundant; F Frequent; O Occasional; and R Rare.
2.7 These scores represent the abundance within the defined area only and do not reflect national or regional abundances. Plant species nomenclature follows Stace (2010).
Bat Roost Inspection Survey (ground level)
2.8 Trees within and adjacent the site, where accessible, were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. The inspection was undertaken following methodologies as prescribed within the Bat
2
Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines (Collins, 2016), with features such as woodpecker holes, cracks, fissures, raised bark, cavities all recorded and rated and field signs such as droppings, dead bats, staining and scratch marks around potential entrances noted. This survey was undertaken from ground level using binoculars.
Assessment of Nature Conservation Value
2.9 CIEEM guidelines for Ecological Assessment in the United Kingdom (2016) have been adopted to assess the impacts upon habitats within the zone of influence of the site. CIEEM suggest that it is best to use the geographical scale (i.e. international, national, regional etc.) at which a feature (i.e. a habitat, species or other ecological resource) may or may not be important as the appropriate measure of value. It is presently not possible to assign a value to species due to the preliminary nature of the survey. As such habitats and the desktop data search have been assessed and the likely occurrence of protected and notable species/species groups has been made. This has allowed predictions of impacts to be made along with recommendations for mitigation, compensation and enhancement; further targeted survey will determine geographical status and refine mitigation proposals.
2.10 The following geographical scale categories are appropriate:
i. International; ii. National (England); iii. Regional (South East); iv. County (London); v. District (Redbridge); vi. Local or Parish (Goodmayes); and vii. Within Site or zone of influence only.
Constraints
2.11 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was constrained by the extensive area of scrub within the east of the site, which meant that not all parts of this area of the site could be reached. Hence not all trees were inspected for potential bat roosts and coverage for species such as badger was not comprehensive. In addition, the presence of invasive species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 within this area could not be scoped out. However, the principal features of the site were checked and the constraints on the overall evaluation of the site were not considered significant.
3
3.0 Results
Local Planning Policy
3.1 Redbridge Borough Council is developing a new plan: The Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030. This remains a draft and Strategic Policy 2: Green Environment, relating to nature conservation within Redbridge Borough Council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy and published in March 2008 (accessed online at http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/) remains relevant.
Statutory Designated Sites
3.2 There is one European Designated site within 7km of the site, the Epping Forest SAC. The SAC is located 6.7km west of the site, and is designated for its Atlantic acidophilous beech forests, as well as its diversity of fungi and dead-wood invertebrates. Summary details are provided in Table 1.
3.3 All European designated sites are considered to be of value at the International level.
3.4 Summary details of one nationally designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and five nationally designated Local Nature Reserves within 5km of the site are also provided in Table 1. The nearest of these sites is Hainault Lodge LNR, located 2.8km north of the site and designated for its old wood pasture and bat hibernaculum. The SSSI is considered to be of value at the National level, with the LNRs considered to be of value at the Regional level.
Table 1: Statutory Designated Sites within 7km of the Site
Distance and Site Name Designation Area (ha) Reason for Designation Direction from Site What remains of Hainault Forest today is a fine example of old wood pasture: pasture-woodland. The disused 2.8km, Hainault Lodge LNR 5.6 boiler room has been converted into a bat north hibernaculum. The old orchard still contains a number of fruit trees including quince. The wood is a remnant of Hainault Forest and its history can be traced back well into the 17th century. For many Chigwell Row 3.5km, LNR 14.1 centuries the trees were 'worked' for fuel giving us the Wood north numerous pollards. Over 800 species of invertebrate are present at the site. Hainault Forest is part of the ancient wood-pasture Forest of Havering. It lies on a ridge rising to 90m, 3.7km, formed of London Clay overlain by Claygate Beds, Glacial Hainault Forest SSSI 135.3 north Gravels and Boulder Clay. The woodland and scrub areas support a diverse flora and fauna, including a diverse breeding bird community. A largely neutral site with small pockets of acid grassland Parsloe’s Park 4.0km, LNR 4.3 with historic hedgerows. Trees and shrubs are present Squatts south over most of the park. A nature reserve with a newly restored river landscape. The southern section of the park features Mayesbrook Park, 4.5km, LNR 7.6 two large lakes which are rich in wildlife. Habitats South south include adjacent recently planted woodland and rough grassland.
4
Distance and Site Name Designation Area (ha) Reason for Designation Direction from Site The landfill at the site was capped with a layer of impermeable clay and topsoil; large scale seeding was East Brookend 4.6km, LNR 67.4 undertaken using wild flower grassland mixes that are Country Park south-east particularly suited to poor soils and more than 50,000 small trees (whips) were planted across the 84ha site. Epping Forest SAC is primarily designated for its Atlantic acidophilous beech forests. The site remains important for a range of rare species, including the 6.7km, Epping Forest SAC 1628.9 moss Zygodon forsteri. The long history of pollarding, west and resultant large number of veteran trees, ensures that the site is also rich in fungi and dead-wood invertebrates.
Non-Statutory Designated Sites
3.5 A total of 12 SINC were identified by GiGL within the 2km search area. Of these SINC, Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital is located closest to the site as it falls within the site boundary.
3.6 The SINC within 2km of the site boundary are valued at various levels of importance, from Borough Grade I to Borough Grade II and Local. The SINC of Borough importance are considered to be of value at the District level, with those listed as SINC of Local importance considered to be of value at the Local level.
Table 2: Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within 2km of the Site
Distance and Area Site Name Designation Direction Reason for Designation (ha) from Site Hargreaves Scout Camp contains areas of grassland, parts of which are damp through winter flooding of the Hargreaves Scout Seven Kings Water. On the western edge of the site, the Camp, Seven Seven Kings Water flows southwards. The river has a Kings Water and Bor I 20.5 On Site reasonable diversity of aquatic vegetation. Tall Goodmayes herbaceous vegetation and a small orchard to the north Hospital and west of the hospital buildings add to the suite of habitats. This site is important for its birds of wetlands and extensive open country, Parts are still under active Fairlop Plain and Bor I 593.9 0.1km, north gravel extraction, and support nesting sand martin and Fairlop Water little ringed plover. The lakes support waterfowl including substantial numbers of diving ducks in winter. The only substantial area of productive farmland in Barking and Dagenham, this represents a relic of a 1.0km, north- landscape which would have covered most of the Furze House Farm Bor I 51.6 east borough in the past. The hedgerows are somewhat patchy but contain a good range of shrubs, and narrow grassy strips support locally scarce plants. The park contains a good number and range of mature St Chad’s Park Loc 14.2 1.1km, east trees, along with hedges and shrubbery. Ilford to Chadwell The railsides have a mosaic of scrub, rough grassland Bor II 17.2 1.2km, south Heath railsides and tall herbs.
5
Distance and Area Site Name Designation Direction Reason for Designation (ha) from Site The main nature conservation interest of this small park West Wood is the lake, which is actually part of the Seven Kings Recreation Loc 3.4 1.2km, south Water. This has a little marginal vegetation and provides Ground habitat for various species of wildfowl. Central Line The railside land has areas of scrub and developing railsides in Bor II 19.3 1.5km, west woodland. Redbridge Romford Line The Liverpool Street to Shenfield line forms an Railsides in 1.6km, south- important green corridor leading into London from the Bor II 5.2 Barking & east Havering countryside. The banks are covered in a Dagenham mosaic of bramble, rough grassland and sycamore. This mature park has a large number of specimen trees, with many berry-bearing species to provide food for Goodmayes Park Bor II 17.7 1.8km, south birds and other animals. A good range of common breeding birds occurs. The lake is large and supports breeding waterfowl. Newbury Park 1.9km, south- This tiny park beside Eastern Avenue provides a grassed War Memorial Loc 0.7 west area with benches, fringed by lime trees. Garden The site includes the remnants of the ancient ‘Marks Marks Hedge and Hedge’. This begins along the northern fringe of Warren Hainault Road Bor I 0.6 2.0km, east Fields and can be followed in a north-eastern direction Allotments Wood into the allotment site. Here it widens to the only ancient woodland in the borough. This site consists of two fields, periodically grazed by 2.0km, north- horses, along with hedges and a pond. The fields White’s Farm Bor II 2.6 east contain moderately diverse grassland, with typical meadow flowers. Bor I = Borough Grade I; Bor II = Borough Grade II; Loc = Local
Habitats
Extended Phase 1 Survey
3.7 The phase 1 habitat plan of the site is shown within Appendix 2 and the plant species recorded in each habitat type are shown in Appendix 3.
3.8 The site is located to the north of Goodmayes and comprises of two units: a larger area located immediately to the north and west of King George Hospital comprised of hardstanding, broadleaved woodland, various grassland types, scrub and ruderal vegetation; and a small walled garden containing a disused greenhouse and garages, tall ruderal vegetation and scattered broadleaved and coniferous trees.
3.9 Fourteen different Phase 1 habitat types were identified within the site boundaries:
Amenity grassland; Bare ground; Buildings; Continuous scrub; Defunct species-poor hedgerow; Intact species-poor hedgerow; 6
Intact species-poor hedgerow with trees; Scattered broadleaved trees; Scattered coniferous trees; Scattered scrub; Semi-improved grassland; Semi-natural broadleaved woodland; Species-poor semi-improved grassland; and Tall ruderal.
Amenity Grassland
3.10 The grassland areas surrounding the existing hospital buildings and areas of hardstanding (such as car parks) are largely made up of amenity grassland (Appendix 4, Plate 1). These areas of grassland are heavily managed and have a low diversity of forbs present within the sward, containing common species such as perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne, common daisy Bellis perennis, ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris and common dandelion Taraxacum officinale.
Bare Ground
3.11 Within the site, a majority of the bare ground present is manifested as hardstanding tarmac (Appendix 4, Plate 2), forming the car parks, footpaths and roads found throughout the site. In the south-west of site, a small rounded parcel of bare ground is present, immediately north of the area of species-poor semi-improved grassland. This small parcel of bare ground is not manifested as hardstanding tarmac, but is present within the area of grassland due to the use of the area as an overflow car park. As such, vegetation in the area has been worn away, leaving bare earth.
Buildings
3.12 Within the large land parcel, one building is present in the south of the site. The building is a single storey flat roofed building of brick construction. The building appears to house a gas meter.
3.13 The smaller land parcel contains four buildings, one small greenhouse of metal frame and glass construction, with the three remaining buildings all of concrete panel construction with flat roofs and with one storey (Appendix 4, Plate 3). The three buildings of concrete construction appear to be storage garages.
Continuous and Scattered Scrub
3.14 Several areas of continuous scrub area present within the site. In the south of the site abutting the southern site boundary is a small area of continuous bramble Rubus fruticosus scrub, with some elder Sambucus nigra present. Abutting the footpath separating the broadleaved woodland from the amenity grassland in the south of site is a small linear patch of continuous bramble scrub.
3.15 In the east of site, south of the area of tall ruderal vegetation, is a block of continuous scrub comprised of various woody species (Appendix 4, Plate 4) including hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, dog-rose Rosa canina, hazel Corylus avellana, field maple Acer campestre, lime Tilia sp., ash Fraxinus excelsior and silver birch Betula pendula. This area falls within the Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital SINC. 7
3.16 A small linear patch of scrub is present to the north of the most northerly car park. The scrub is made up of bramble, hawthorn and apple Malus sp.
3.17 In the area of semi-improved grassland in the north of the site are two distinct areas of scrub. The larger, more linear area of scrub (Appendix 4, Plate 5) is made up of various planted woody species including field maple, blackthorn, bramble, ash, dog-rose, cherry Prunus sp. and pedunculate oak Quercus robur. The smaller patch of scrub within the semi-improved grassland has a similar species composition.
3.18 Within the area of tall ruderal vegetation in the north-east of site are several small areas of scattered bramble scrub, interspersed between the continuous ruderal vegetation.
Defunct Species-poor Hedgerow
3.19 Forming the southern boundary of the northern car park is a defunct species-poor hedgerow. The hedgerow is comprised of ornamental species. Given the low species diversity of this hedgerow, it is not considered to be a NERC Act Habitat ‘Hedgerow’ or an ‘important’ hedgerow under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997).
Intact Species-poor Hedgerow
3.20 Two lengths of hedgerow in the south of site and a single length of hedgerow in the east of site are considered to be intact species-poor hedgerow. The hedgerows in the south of site are made up of ornamental species (Appendix 4, Plate 6), with scattered sapling ash and field maple. The hedgerow in the east of site is also comprised of ornamental species. Given the low species diversity of these hedgerows, they are not considered to be a NERC Act Habitat ‘Hedgerow’ or ‘important’ hedgerows under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997).
Intact Species-poor Hedgerow with Trees
3.21 Several hedgerows on site are considered to be intact species-poor hedgerow with trees. Forming a small section of the eastern border of the site is an elm Ulmus sp. hedge, containing several semi- mature elm trees along with two mature horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum. Bisecting the northern area of hardstanding forming a car park are two footpaths, bordered on either side by ornamental hedgerows with young pedunculate oak planted within them at regular intervals. Given the low species diversity of these hedgerows, they are not considered to be a NERC Act Habitat ‘Hedgerow’ or ‘important’ hedgerows under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997).
Scattered Broadleaved and Coniferous Trees
3.22 A majority of the trees on site are broadleaved trees, predominantly planted for ornamental purposes and are either at a young or semi-mature growth stage. In the south of the large land parcel, young scattered broadleaved trees are present throughout the areas of amenity grassland, and include species such as cherry, field maple and hawthorn. In the northern area of the large land parcel, two scattered young pedunculate oak are present within the hardstanding car park. In the east of this land parcel are a cluster of four scattered semi-mature willow Salix sp., along with an area of scattered young field maple situated within the area of amenity grassland, south of the
8
patch of continuous scrub. Along the northern boundary within the semi-improved grassland is a continuous line of young and semi-mature pedunculate oak, ash and field maple forming a barrier between the A12 and the area of semi-improved grassland.
3.23 Within the smaller land parcel are numerous scattered trees, including semi-mature silver birch and lime, with several mature pedunculate oak around the periphery of the land parcel. In the north of the smaller land parcel is an area of scattered young hawthorn, along with five cedar Cedrus sp. trees.
Semi-improved Grassland
3.24 In the north of the large land parcel is a large embankment, separating the hospital car park and buildings from the A12. This embankment is partially covered with continuous scrub, however a majority of the embankment is open semi-improved grassland (Appendix 4, Plate 7). This grassland is evidently well established due to the presence of numerous ant hills, with a diversity of grass and forb species including Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne, cock’s foot grass Dactylis glomerata, red fescue Festuca rubra, false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius, meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis, white clover Trifolium repens, red clover Trifolium pratense, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, ragwort and broadleaved dock Rumex obtusifolius. This area falls within the Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital SINC, and appears to be suffering from early successional scrub encroachment.
Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland
3.25 The woodland forming a linear corridor along the western boundary of the large land parcel falls within the Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital SINC, and is considered to be semi-natural broadleaved woodland. The woodland is made up of a diversity of tree species, including willow, silver birch, ash, pedunculate oak, lime, poplar Populus sp., field maple and cherry. The woodland understorey is well developed and dense, made up of several woody species including hawthorn, blackthorn and bramble, with some ruderal species present including common nettle and willowherb.
Species-poor Semi-improved Grassland
3.26 A small patch of grassland in the south-west of site is considered to be species-poor semi-improved grassland, as although the grassland is managed by mowing and falls alongside an extensive area of amenity grassland, the density of a few forb species such as ribwort plantain, yarrow Achillea millefolium, ragwort, broadleaved dock and common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum within the grassland indicates that the grassland should fall within the semi-improved grassland habitat classification.
Tall Ruderal
3.27 In the east of the large land parcel is a large continuous area of tall ruderal vegetation, along with a small island of tall ruderal within the area of continuous scrub within the east of site. The large continuous area of tall ruderal contains low density vegetation, made up of species typical of this habitat type including willowherb, teasel Dipsacus fullonum, mullein Verbascum sp., common
9
nettle, scattered bramble and buddleja Buddleja davidii with ground flora including ragwort and common dandelion present.
3.28 The area of tall ruderal within the patch of continuous scrub in the east of the site is largely comprised of tall stands of continuous common nettle, with some willowherb and bramble present.
3.29 The small land parcel comprising the disused garden is largely made up of tall ruderal vegetation, including common nettle, bramble, buddleja and common ivy.
Summary
3.30 The semi-natural broadleaved woodland is considered to potentially be of value at the County level because of its status as a habitat of Principal Importance under the NERC Act (2006) and also because it falls within the Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital SINC Borough Grade I. The semi-improved grassland is assessed as being of value at the District level and the remaining habitats at the Site level.
Protected and Notable Species Records
3.31 The desk study provided 3013 records of a range of taxa including 81 records of bats, 2562 records of bird species and 190 records of amphibians and reptiles. These are discussed below.
Table 3: Summary of data search records from GiGL within 2km of the Site
Group Count of taxon Amphibians and reptiles 192 Birds 2562 Insects: ants, bees, wasps 1 Insects: Aranae: spiders 2 Insects: beetles 47 Insects: Lepidoptera: butterflies 3 Insects: Lepidoptera: moths 1 Insects: Odonata: dragonflies and damselflies 2 Mammals: bats 81 Mammals: other 113 Plants 11 Total 3013
Flora
Rare Flora
3.32 There were 11 records of rare and notable flora. No species were listed on the Schedule 8 of the WCA (1981, as amended) or Section 41 of the NERC Act (2006) but classified as nationally scarce, a local species of conservation concern and/or a BAP species for London. The flora within the site are considered to be of value at the Site level but due to the time of year during which the survey was undertaken, confidence in this assessment is moderate.
10
Invasive Plant Species
3.33 There are no records of invasive plant species on or adjacent to the site, and no invasive species were recorded on site during the site walkover. Notwithstanding absence could not be confirmed across all areas of the site due to access/areas of impassable scrub.
Fauna
Badger
3.34 There are no records of badger within 2km of the site. The habitats in the north and west of the site appeared suitable to support foraging badger but the presence of a sett could not be confirmed because much of the site was inaccessible. However, there was limited undulating ground within the site and hence the presence of a badger sett was considered unlikely. It should be noted that the site may be utilised by badger for foraging and dispersal. As such, the site is valued at the Site level for badgers. Confidence in this assessment is moderate.
Bats
3.35 Species recorded within 2km of the site include noctule Nyctalus noctula, Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii, common pipestrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus.
3.36 A majority of the trees on site appeared to provide no potential roosting sites for bats due to the young growth stage of the trees. One pedunculate oak located on the eastern border of the small land parcel was noted as having an east facing knot hole, and as such has ‘low’ potential to support roosting bats, as defined by best practice guidance (Collins, 2016). The location of this tree is shown in Appendix 5.
3.37 The site appeared to offer moderate value foraging and commuting habitats for bats with a range of potential prey species likely to be present in the woodland, scrub and semi-improved grassland mosaic. However, the value of the site for foraging and commuting bats may be lessened by the likely light pollution caused by the active hospital buildings and associated infrastructure bordering the both the southern boundary of the large land parcel and the eastern, southern and northern boundaries of the smaller land parcel, along with the light and noise pollution associated with the A12 abutting the north of the large land parcel.
3.38 The site is valued at the Local level for foraging, commuting and roosting bats, with the confidence in this assessment considered to be moderate.
Birds
3.39 In total, there were 2562 records of notable bird species within 2km of the site boundary.
11
3.40 The site may have the potential to support a range of nesting bird species, however due to the current land use at the site and the abutting A12 the site is valued at the Site level for nesting birds but confidence in this assessment is moderate.
Great Crested Newt
3.41 There are 30 records of great crested newt (GCN) Triturus cristatus within the search area, with the nearest record c. 800m from the site boundary.
3.42 There were no ponds within the site boundary, with one drainage ditch located c. 75m west of the site on the opposite side of the Seven Kings Water river, which is considered to be a significant dispersal barrier. This drain is located along the boundary of an amenity sports field within an urban matrix of houses and roads. Four other drainage ditches are located within 500m of the proposed development site, however on the north side of the A12 that is also considered to be a significant dispersal barrier. During the site walkover, none of the surrounding drains were assessed for their suitability for GCN due to lack of access permissions. A plan of the location of these drains is shown in Appendix 6.
3.43 Due to the potentially suitable drains surrounding the site being separated from the site by significant dispersal barriers (Seven Kings Water river and A12), it is considered highly unlikely that GCN are present within the site. As such, GCN are not considered present within the site as so are not considered further within this assessment.
Hazel Dormouse
3.44 There were no records of hazel dormouse from the data search and no records within SP91 10-km square in which the site is located on the NBN gateway. The scrub habitats within the woodland understorey are suitable for hazel dormouse but the wider landscape is considered poor with few woodlands and a limited network of hedgerows. Hence, hazel dormouse is not considered present within the site and not considered further in this assessment.
Invertebrates
3.45 Records from GiGL include a wide range of invertebrates, with the closest record being of a stag beetle Lucanus cervus c. 305m from the site boundary.
3.46 The site appeared to offer good potential for a wide range of invertebrates including ant, beetle, butterfly and moth species associated with scrub and grassland habitats.
3.47 The site is valued at the Local level for invertebrates but confidence in this assessment is currently low/moderate.
Other Protected and Notable Species
3.48 There were no records of species associated with running water such as otter Lutra lutra and white- clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. Nine records of water vole Arvicola amphibious were found within 2km of the site, the closest record being c. 1.2km from the site boundary. Due to the
12
negative data search results for otter and white-clawed crayfish, the distance of the nearest water vole record from the site, and that no suitable running water is present within the site boundary, these species are considered to be absent from the site and are not considered further within this assessment.
3.49 There were three records of brown hare Lepus europaeus and 90 records of European hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus. The habitats appeared unsuitable for brown hare but of high potential for hedgehog.
3.50 The site is valued at the Site level of importance for hedgehog. Confidence in this assessment is currently high.
Reptiles
3.51 Records of common reptile species within 2km of the site were comprised of two records of adder Vipera berus, 19 records of common lizard Zootoca vulgaris, 12 records of grass snake Natrix natrix and two records slow-worm Anguis fragilis within 2km of the site. Of these records, the closest record was that of a grass snake c. 568m from the site boundary.
3.52 The semi-improved grassland, scrub and ruderal habitats are considered to provide suitable habitat for common reptile species especially common lizard and slow worm, and perhaps grass snake. Adder are considered less likely to occur.
3.53 The site is valued at the Local/ District level for common reptiles but confidence in this assessment is currently low/moderate.
Summary
3.54 Table 4 below sets out the summary evaluation of features located within the site based on the geographical value scale criteria outlined in ‘Methods’ (Section 2.9). Note that the current confidence in the prediction reflects the lack of survey work for most features with the exception of the adjacent protected sites and habitats within the site.
Table 4: Summary Evaluation of Features
Feature Summary Description Value Confidence
SAC Epping Forest International High
SSSI Hainault Forest National High
Hainault Lodge Chigwell Row Wood LNR Parsloe’s Park Squatts Regional High Mayesbrook Park, South East Brookend Country Park Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital SINC (Borough Fairlop Plain and Fairlop Water District High Grades I & II) Furze House Farm Ilford to Chadwell Heath railsides
13
Feature Summary Description Value Confidence
Central Line railsides in Redbridge Romford Line Railsides in Barking & Dagenham Goodmayes Park Marks Hedge and Hainault Road Allotments Wood White’s Farm St Chad’s Park SINC (Local) West Wood Recreation Ground Local High Newbury Park War Memorial Garden Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland County Habitats Semi-improved Grassland District High Remaining habitats Site
Flora Higher and lower plant species Site Moderate
Setts are unlikely to be present but potentially good foraging Badger Site Moderate and dispersal habitats Moderate value as foraging and commuting habitat but lesser Bats Local Moderate value as roosting habitat Likely common species breeding and wintering within the Birds Site Moderate habitats
Invertebrates A potentially rich assemblage of beetles, butterflies and moths Local Low/Moderate
Notable Good potential habitat for breeding and foraging hedgehog Site Moderate mammals Local/ Reptiles Common reptile species are possibly present Low/Moderate district
4.0 Preliminary Prediction of Impacts and Recommended Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Development Description
4.1 The east of the site is to be developed for residential housing with associated infrastructure.
Designated Sites
4.2 There are unlikely to be impacts arising from the proposed development on the European or national designated sites given the distance of the site from these protected areas. The SSSI Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) on the MAGIC online spatial data resource indicated there was no likely effect on SSSI.
4.3 Given the distance of the site from the Epping Forest SAC and the Hainault Forest SSSI that are more than 3.5km from the site, it is considered there are no likely direct or indirect effects arising from the proposed development, and hence statutory designated sites are not considered further in this assessment.
4.4 Part of the proposed development site is located within the Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital SINC (Appendix 7). Section C of Strategic Policy 2: Green Environment in the Redbridge Local Plan Core Strategy (2008) states that:
14
Nature conservation, protection and enhancement of open space and mitigation of climate change will be achieved by:
(c) Not permitting development on sites of Metropolitan, Borough or Local Importance as shown on the Proposals Map, unless it can be demonstrated that such development will not adversely affect the nature conservation values of the site.
4.5 During the assessment of the site, the SINC was assessed to determine how closely it meets the criteria listed within the SINC designation, and which areas of the SINC are likely to be most ecologically valuable. This assessment can be found in Appendix 8. The current site masterplan avoids a majority of the areas of high ecological value within the SINC (semi-natural broadleaved woodland and a large proportion of the semi-improved grassland), with the only area of the SINC to be lost entirely considered to be of limited ecological value (scrub and tall ruderal).
4.6 Although the current site masterplan avoids a majority of areas of high ecological value within the SINC, without mitigation there could be an adverse effect upon this designation from development of the site. Pollution prevention following industry best practice should be appropriated and a sensitive lighting scheme implemented to avoid unnecessarily illuminating the eastern boundary of the SINC, to mitigate for indirect effects. In addition, the SINC should be buffered from development as much as possible through retention of semi-improved grassland on site adjacent to the western edge of the proposed development. Access directly to this adjacent SINC should be restricted during the construction phase of the proposed development and controlled during the operational phase of the proposed development. During the operational phase the implementation of mown footpaths, signage to minimise impacts (for example keeping dogs on leads within the SINC), and the provision of dog bins to minimise nutrient enrichment within the site will act to minimise disturbance within the semi-improved grassland. A management plan for the retained areas of semi-improved grassland should be implemented to offer an enhancement, as the area of grassland appears to currently be largely unmanaged and threatened by scrub encroachment.
4.7 To minimise loss of scrub within the semi-improved grassland within the SINC, the proposed footpath should be constructed alongside the existing patch of scrub, and should be a mown rather than hardstanding path if possible.
4.8 If the above recommendations are followed, it is considered that there are unlikely to be any adverse impacts on the nature conservation value of the SINC, and that the development presents an opportunity to manage, maintain and enhance the more ecologically valuable habitats within the SINC, namely the semi-improved grassland. Hence, the development will adhere to Section C of Strategic Policy 2: Green Environment of the Redbridge Local Plan Core Strategy (2008).
4.9 Fairlop Plain and Fairlop Water SINC is located 0.1km north of the proposed development, on the opposite side of the A12. Although the SINC is located within a close proximity to the site, it is considered that the Fairlop Plain and Fairlop Water SINC has the on-site infrastructure to cope with a potential minor increase in foot traffic, given its current use as a country park, outdoor activity centre and golf course, amongst other leisure activities.
4.10 The remaining SINCs within 2km of the proposed development are considered unlikely to be significantly negatively impacted upon directly or indirectly by the proposed development, due to the scale of the proposed development but also due to the distances involved.
15
Habitats
4.11 The proposed development will lead to the loss of the scrub and tall ruderal habitats in the east of the site, with a small area of semi-improved grassland (c. 20%) to also be lost along the eastern periphery of the area of the existing semi-improved grassland. The scrub and tall ruderal habitats to be lost are valued at the Site level and are therefore likely to be non-significant, however the loss of some areas of the semi-improved grassland, which is valued at the District level, may be significant without appropriate mitigation. It should be noted that the remaining semi-improved grassland on site currently suffers from a lack of management, which is leading to the establishment successional habitats which will eventually lead to deterioration of the semi-improved grassland habitats on site. As discussed above (Section 4.6), the grassland should be managed to offer an enhancement within the retained semi-improved grassland.
Flora
Higher and Lower Plants
4.12 The higher flora is not considered to be species rich or comprise rare or notable species. However, the semi-improved grassland on site is of good quality and should be retained, buffered and enhanced wherever possible. As the flora at the site is considered to be of site value, no further survey is recommended.
Invasive Plant Species
4.13 There were no signs of invasive plant species on or adjacent to the site. However, given the time of year the survey was undertaken and that the dense scrub and tall ruderal in the east of site was inaccessible in areas during the site walkover, a pre-construction invasive species survey is recommended to confirm that no invasive plant species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) are present within the proposed development area.
Fauna
Badger
4.14 Badger are legally protected under The Protection of Badgers Act (1992); it is an offence to disturb a badger whilst utilising a sett, or destroy or damage a sett.
4.15 Badger may utilise the site for foraging but it is highly unlikely to support a main or outlier sett. As such, no further survey for badger is recommended.
4.16 General precautionary techniques sympathetic to badgers (applicable to most sites) are recommended due to the potential foraging habitat (i.e. semi-improved grassland and semi-natural broadleaved woodland) present within the study area:
Covering trenches at night or leaving a plank of wood leant against the side to ensure they can escape if they were to accidentally fall in; and Covering chemicals overnight.
16
Bats
4.17 All bat species are legally protected under section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) (1981) (as amended) and regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010).
4.18 The quality of the predominantly woodland and grassland habitats indicates that roosting, foraging and commuting bats could occur across the site. The pedunculate oak on the eastern border of the small parcel of land is considered to have low potential to support roosting bats, and as such should be retained if possible. Under the current site masterplan it appears that the tree is to be removed. If this is the case, the tree should be soft felled.
4.19 Given that a majority of the habitats of value to foraging and commuting bats (woodland and grassland) is to be retained, and that the land abutting the site is already used as an active hospital building with associated infrastructure, activity surveys to determine the use of the site by bats are not considered necessary. The site may be enhanced for bats through the erection of bat boxes within the proposed development, alongside the planting of plant species known to benefit bats (Appendix 9).
4.20 Bat sensitive lighting should be used to minimise disturbance to foraging and commuting bats during construction works and post-development by ensuring lighting is kept to a minimum. Lights should be placed to avoid directly illuminating habitats of value to bats, and security lighting should be operated on timers. Lighting during the operational phase should also be kept to a minimum. The following mitigation strategy has been taken from Bat Conservation Trust Landscape and Urban Design for Bats and Biodiversity (Gunnell, Grant & Williams, 2012), along with other referenced sources:
Minimise light spill by eliminating any bare bulbs and upward pointing light fixtures. The spread of light should be kept near to or below the horizontal plane, by using as steep a downward angle as possible and/or shield hood; Use light sources that emit minimal ultra-violet light (van Langevelde et al., 2011) and avoid the white and blue wavelengths of the light spectrum, so as to avoid attracting insects and therefore potentially reducing numbers in adjacent areas, which bats may use for foraging; Limit the height of lighting columns to eight metres and increase the spacing of lighting columns (Fure, 2006) to reduce the spill of light into unwanted areas; Avoid using reflective surfaces under lights or light reflecting off windows (e.g. onto bat flight lines); Use only the minimum amount of light needed for safety and access, or turn off lights when the site is not in use; Artificial lighting proposals should not directly illuminate tree lines and grassland, which may be of value to foraging or commuting bats; and Lighting that is required for security reasons should use a lamp of no greater than 2000 lumes (150 Watts) and be PIR sensor activated, to ensure that the lights are on only when required (Jones, 2000; Hundt, 2012).
17
Birds
4.21 Given that a majority of the habitats on site likely of value to breeding and wintering birds (woodland, grassland and scrub within the semi-improved grassland) are to be retained, breeding and wintering bird surveys are not considered necessary.
4.22 All breeding birds and their active nests are protected from destruction under the WCA 1981 (as amended). Therefore, if any nesting bird habitat is to be lost or disturbed through construction (scrub, trees and ruderal in the east of site), then this should be cleared outside of the nesting season (which is generally March to August) or if this is unavoidable, after an ecologist has confirmed active nests are not present.
Invertebrates
4.23 The site may have the potential to support invertebrates particularly beetles, butterflies and moths and other invertebrate species such as spiders that utilise grassland and scrub habitats. An invertebrate walkover survey is required to determine whether the site has the potential to support rare or notable invertebrates, and therefore inform the management plan for high value habitats, namely the semi-improved grassland.
4.24 There will be a requirement to retain sufficient habitat to maintain the invertebrate assemblage or compensate for this potential loss through creation/enhancement of suitable habitat. Planting of boundary habitats with native tree and shrub species as well as a nectar rich planting in the gardens around the buildings will provide post development habitat for invertebrate species.
Notable Mammal Species
4.25 The presence of notable mammals, namely hedgehog, can be assessed through records obtained through the above further surveys. No specific mitigation other than habitat retention and raising of garden fence panels to ensure permeability is likely to be required.
Reptiles
4.26 Common reptile species are protected under the WCA 1981 (as amended) from killing and injuring. This includes slow-worm, common lizard, grass snake and adder and all species may be present on site although common lizard and slow worm are the most likely to be present.
4.27 Given the records from the data search and the suitability of habitats on the site, it is recommended that a presence/likely absence reptile survey is undertaken throughout the site to assess potential impacts and guide any potential mitigation that may be required following methods set out in Froglife (1999) and the Herpetofauna Worker’s Manual (Gent and Gibson, 2003).
4.28 If common reptile species are observed, then all animals will be required to be protected from killing/injuring and removed from the development area. Mitigation in the form of retained areas of suitable undeveloped habitat around the edge of the site may have to be fenced during construction and maintained and enhanced through the provision of log piles. Habitats should be managed during operation to maintain any population. If retaining reptiles at the boundaries of 18
site is not possible there may be potential to translocate reptiles from site. The appropriateness of any mitigation strategy will be determined through the recommended survey.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 The site in comprised of two distinct land parcels, the first located to the north of King George Hospital and measuring 10.38ha in size. The second land parcel is a small disused garden located to the east of the King George Hospital buildings, directly adjacent to Barley Lane and measuring 0.30ha in size. The smaller land parcel is dominated by tall ruderal vegetation, with scattered broadleaved and coniferous trees and buildings. The larger land parcel is a mixture of habitats of low ecological value surrounding the existing hospital buildings, with the semi-natural broadleaved woodland and semi-improved grassland in the west and north of site providing the highest ecological value at the site.
5.2 A summary of likely impacts and mitigation is provided in Table 5.
Table 5: Summary of Likely Impacts, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures and Residual Impacts
Mitigation and Enhancement Likely Residual Feature Likely Impacts Measures Impact Pollution prevention following industry best practice, sensitive lighting scheme implemented to avoid unnecessarily illuminating the eastern boundary of the SINC. Control access SINC during Designated Site the operational phase of the (Hargreaves Scout Loss of scrub and ruderal areas of SINC proposed development through Likely Camp, Seven Kings in east of site, along with minor loss of a mown footpaths, signage to Negligible/Minor Water and Goodmayes small area of semi-improved grassland minimise impacts (for example positive located on-site) keeping dogs on leads within the SINC) and the provision of dog bins to minimise nutrient enrichment within the site. Produce a management plan for the retained areas of semi- improved grassland
Pollution prevention to industry Other Non-statutory Indirect effects- Pollution, disturbance best practice standards, sensitive Likely Negligible Designated SINCS lighting scheme
As for Designated Site Direct effects of habitat loss scrub, tall Likely (Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Habitats ruderal and semi-improved grassland Negligible/Minor Kings Water and Goodmayes within SINC positive located on-site) mitigation
As for Designated Site Higher and Lower Direct effects of habitat loss on semi- (Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Likely Negligible Plants improved grassland Kings Water and Goodmayes located on-site) mitigation
19
Mitigation and Enhancement Likely Residual Feature Likely Impacts Measures Impact Precautionary mitigation by Entrapment/injury of foraging and covering trenches and chemicals Badger Likely Negligible dispersing badger at night during construction phase Adverse impacts on foraging and Removal of pedunculate oak commuting bats from increased lighting. through soft felling and provision Bats Removal of pedunculate oak within Likely Negligible of replacement roosts sites. small land parcel with ‘low’ bat roost Sensitive lighting strategy potential Precautionary mitigation in form of nesting bird checks if scrub, Birds Destruction of active bird nests trees and ruderal vegetation to Likely Negligible be removed inside nesting bird season (March-August) As for Designated Site (Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Invertebrates Subject to invertebrate survey located on-site) mitigation. Minor Positive Additional planting of native nectar rich plant species within development
If present then subject to Likely Common reptiles Subject to reptile surveys translocation and maintenance Negligible/Minor of receptor area on site Positive
As for Designated Site (Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Notable mammals Subject to surveys Likely Negligible Kings Water and Goodmayes located on-site) mitigation
5.3 Certain protected species may be impacted by the proposed development. As such, further ecological surveys and assessment works have been recommended for the following:
Precautionary mitigation for badger during construction phase; Precautionary mitigation for bats during construction and operation phases; Precautionary mitigation for nesting birds (if clearance undertaken March-August); Invertebrate walkover survey (April-July); Reptile presence/likely absence surveys (April/May or Aug/Sep); and Notable mammal records through above surveys.
5.4 Through the above precautionary methods, further surveys, mitigation and enhancement measures it is considered that all significant impacts upon biodiversity, including any potential adverse impacts upon specific protected species, habitats and designated sites will likely be able to be wholly mitigated in line with relevant wildlife legislation, chapter 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, of the NPPF (DfCLG, 2012) and Strategic Policy 2: Green Environment within Redbridge Borough Council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008).
20
6.0 References
CIEEM. 2013. Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Winchester: CIEEM
CIEEM. 2016. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (2nd Ed.) Winchester: CIEEM
Collins, J. (ed.). 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition. London: The Bat Conservation Trust
Department for Communities and Local Government (DfCLG). 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. [online] Available at:
Froglife. 1999. Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife
Fure, A. (2006). Bats and Lighting. The London Naturalist, No. 85
Gent, A.H., & Gibson S.D. (2003). Herpetofauna workers’ manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough
Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. and Evans, J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods: A Manual of Techniques for Key UK Species. RSPB, Sandy
Gunnell, K., Grant, G. & Williams, C. 2012. Landscape and urban design for bats and biodiversity. London: Bat Conservation Trust
JNCC. 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey. A technique for environmental audit. 2nd Edition. JNCC: Peterborough.
Jones, J. 2000. Impact of Lighting on Bats. London: Bat Conservation Trust
Redbridge Borough Council. 2008. Local Development Framework: Core Strategy. [online] Available at:
Stace, C.A. 2010. New Flora of the British Isles (3rd edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
van Langevelde, F., Ettema, J.A., Donners, M., WallisDeVries., M.F. & Groenendijk., D. 2011. Effect of Spectral Composition of Artificial Light on the Attraction of Moths. Biological Conservation 144, 2274-2281
21
Appendix 1: Site Masterplan
Appendix 2. Phase 1 Habitat Map
Appendix 3: Species List and Relative Abundance
Common name Latin name
-
poor -
d Coniferous poor Semi - improved Grassland natural
- - Amenity Grassland Continuous scrub Intact Species Hedgerow with Trees Scattered Broadleaved Trees Scattere Trees Scattered Scrub Semi Semi Broadleaved Woodland Species improved Grassland RuderalTall Ash Fraxinus excelsior O R F Blackthorn Prunus spinosa F R Bramble Rubus sp. A D O O Broadleaved Dock Rumex obtusifolius R R Buddleja Buddleja davidii R Cedar Cedrus sp. D Cherry Prunus sp. R O R Cock’s Foot Dactylis glomerata F O Common Daisy Bellis perennis O Common Dandelion Taraxacum officinale O O Common Ivy Hedera helix R Common Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum R Common Nettle Urtica dioica O O Creeping Cinquefoil Potentilla reptans O Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense R Dog Rose Rosa Canina O Elder Sambucus nigra O Elm Ulmus sp. A False Oat-grass Arrenhatherum elatius O Field Maple Acer campestre O F O Hazel Corylus avellana O Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna F F O Horse Chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum R Lime Tilia sp. R O
Common name Latin name
-
poor -
d Coniferous poor Semi - improved Grassland natural
- - Amenity Grassland Continuous scrub Intact Species Hedgerow with Trees Scattered Broadleaved Trees Scattere Trees Scattered Scrub Semi Semi Broadleaved Woodland Species improved Grassland RuderalTall Meadow Foxtail Alopecurus pratensis O Mullein Verbascum sp. R Pedunculate Oak Quercus robur O O O O Perennial Ryegrass Lolium perenne A F F Poplar Populus sp. R Ragwort Senecio jacobaea O O O O Red Clover Trifolium pratense R Red Fescue Festuca rubra O Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata O O F Silver Birch Betula pendula O O O Teasel Dipsacus fullonum R White Clover Trifolium repens O Willow Salix sp. O F Willowherb Epilobium sp. R F Yarrow Achillea millefolium O O Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus F
Appendix 4: Plates
Plate 1: Amenity grassland to the north of the existing hospital buildings (View: east)
Plate 2: Hardstanding car park in north-east of site (View: south-east)
Plate 3: Disused garage buildings in the south of the small land parcel (View: east)
Plate 4: Area of continuous scrub in the east of site, with an area of tall ruderal (view: north-east)
Plate
5: Large patch of continuous scrub within semi-improved grassland in north of site (View: north)
Plate 6: Intact species-poor ornamental hedge in the south of site (View: south)
Plate 7: Semi-improved grassland embankment in the north of site (View: east)
Appendix 5: Plan of Trees with Bat Roost Potential
Appendix 6: Plan of Water Bodies within 500m of the Site Boundary
Appendix 7: Approximate Area of SINC within Site Boundary
Appendix 8: Assessment of Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital SINC Borough Grade I
The Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital SINC was assessed to determine whether the current site description held by GiGL matches the habitats found within the site boundary considered within this report. As part of the desk study carried out by SES, a description of the SINC was obtained from GiGL. The current SINC description held by GiGL (last updated in 2007) is as follows:
Site Name: Hargreaves Scout Camp, Seven Kings Water and Goodmayes Hospital
Summary: A scout camp with woodland and grassland, a river, and the grounds of a hospital
Grid ref: TQ 460 886
Area (ha): 20.46
Borough(s): Redbridge
Habitat(s): Orchard, Running water, Semi-improved neutral grassland, Tall herbs, Wet woodland/carr
Access: Free public access (part of site)
Ownership: Barking, Havering & Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust, London Borough of Redbridge and Private
Site Description:
Hargreaves Scout Camp contains areas of grassland, parts of which are damp through winter flooding of the Seven Kings Water. The camp also contains damp willow woodland with a substantial population of ragged- robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi), a scarce plant in London. This woodland supports a good assemblage of lichens, although these have not been studied in detail. Breeding birds include sparrowhawk, great spotted woodpecker and, probably, sedge warbler.
On the western edge of the site, the Seven Kings Water flows southwards. The river has a reasonable diversity of aquatic vegetation, including purple-loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), branched bur-reed (Sparganium erectum), water-plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica) and curled pondweed (Potamogeton crispus). The water supports good populations of fish and invertebrates, and kingfishers are seen regularly.
Tall herbaceous vegetation and a small orchard to the north and west of the hospital buildings add to the suite of habitats. This is the only part of the site which is publicly accessible. In particular, the area between the hospital and the A12 makes a pleasant walk in the summer.
During the site walkover by SES (September 2016), the following habitats were noted as being within the site boundary and also within the SINC:
- Semi-natural broadleaved woodland - Semi-improved grassland - Species-poor semi-improved grassland - Amenity grassland - Continuous scrub
- Tall ruderal - Hardstanding
As noted in the SINC designation description woodland, semi-improved neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation are present within the site. The semi-natural broadleaved woodland and semi-improved grassland were considered to be the most ecologically valuable habitats within the SINC. The woodland possesses a well-developed canopy and dense understorey, and the grassland shows evidence of remaining undisturbed for an extended period of time due to the presence of ant hills. Additionally, the woodland and semi- improved grassland within the site boundary form part of a wider green corridor to the west, running alongside the Seven Kings Brook that abuts the western site boundary.
The remaining habitats observed within the site boundary that form part of the SINC (species-poor semi- improved grassland, amenity grassland, continuous scrub, tall ruderal and hardstanding) are considered to be of lesser ecological value. The areas of continuous scrub and tall ruderal vegetation in the east of the site may have some minor ecological value, however due to the location of these habitat patches surrounded by a matrix of hardstanding residential properties, roads and paths, it is considered unlikely that they are of high ecological value. The areas of species-poor semi-improved grassland and amenity grassland are intensively managed through mowing and possess little species diversity, and as such are of little ecological value.
Appendix 9: Species of Known Benefit to Bats
Table A9.1: The following table is reproduced from Gunnell, K., Grant, G. and Williams, C. (2012). Landscape and Urban Design for Bats and Biodiversity, Bat Conservation Trust. This table contains a suggested species list of plants that can provide benefit for bats either by providing a food source for insects and/ or roost potential. The plants listed are predominately native to Britain. The small group of non-native plants included for their documented value for wildlife. This list has been checked by the author against Natural England's list of invasive non-native plants. Extensive Native Living Rain Hedge/ Beds/ Plant species Common name Type Benefit Soil Light green (N) walls gardens trees borders roofs Acer campestre Field maple N T/S C Any Sun/ shade Y Acer platanoides Norway maple T S Well drained/ alkaline Sun/ shade Y Acer saooharum Sugar maple T S Any Sun/ shade Y Achillea millefolium Yarrow N HP C,F Well drained Sun Y Ajuga reptans Bugle N HP C,F Any Sun/ shade Y Y Anthyllis vulneraria Kidney vetch N HP F Well drained Sun Y Aubrieta deltoidea Aubrieta H F Well drained Sun/shade Y betula pendula Sliver birch N T C Sandy/ acid Sun Y Cardamine pratensis Cuckoo- flower N HP F Moist Sun/ shade Y Y Carpinus betulus Hornbeam N T C Clay Sun Y Centaurea nigra Common knapweed N HP C,F Dry, not acid Sun Y Y Centranthus ruber Red valerian HP F Well drained Sun Y Y Clematis vitalba Old man's Beard N C F well drained/ alkaline Sun Y Corylus avellana Hazel N S C Any dry Sun/ shade Y Y Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn N S S,C Any Sun/shade Y Daucus carota Wild carrot N Bi S,C,F Any Sun Y Y Dianthus spp. Pinks N A-Bi F Well drained Sun Y Y Y Digitalis purpurea Foxglove N Bi C Well drained Shade/ partial shade Y Y Erica cinera Bell heather N S F Sandy Full sun Y Ersimum cherira Wallflower Bi-P F Well drained Sun Y Y Eupatorium Hemp agrimony N H F Moist Sun/ shade Y Y Fagus sylvatica Beech N T C, R Well drained alkaline Sun/shade Y Foeniculum vulgare Fennel H F Well drained Sun Y Fraxinus excelsior Common Ash N T C, R Any Sun/ shade Y
Extensive Native Living Rain Hedge/ Beds/ Plant species Common name Type Benefit Soil Light green (N) walls gardens trees borders roofs Hebe spp. Hebe species S F Well drained Sun /shade Y Y Hedera Helix Ivy N C F,C Any Sun/ shade Y Y Y Y Hesperis matrionalis Sweet Rocket H F Well drained/ dry Sun/ shade Y Hyacinthoides non -scripta Bluebell N B F Loam Shade/ partial shade Y Y Y llex aquailfolium Holly N T C Any Sun/ shade Y Jasmine officinale Common jasmine C F Well drained Sun Y Y Lavandula spp. Lavender species S F Well drained / sandy Sun Y Y Linaria vulgaris Toadflax N HP C Well drained/ alkaline Sun Y Y Lonicera periclymenum Honeysuckle N C F Well drained Sun Y Y Lotus corniculatus Bird's foot trefoil N HP F Well drained/ dry Sun Y Y Lunaria annua Honesty Bi F Any Sun/ partial shade Y Y Malus spp. Apple T C Any Sun Y Y Matthiola longipetala Night - scented stock A F Well drained/ moist Y Y Myosotis spp. Forget me not species N A F Any Sun Y Y Y Nicotiania alata Ornamental tobacco A F Well drained moist Sun /partial shade Y Y Oneothera spp. Evening primrose Bi F Well drained Sun Y Y Origanum vulgare Marjoram N HP F Well drained / dry Sun Y Populus alba White poplar N T C Clay loam Sun Y Primula veris Cowslip N HP F Well drained/ moist Sun/ partial shade Y Y Primula vulgaris Primrose N HP F Moist Partial shade Y Y Y Y Prunus avium Wild cherry N T C Any Sun Y Y Prunus domestica Plum T C Well drained/ moist Sun Y Y Prunus spinosa Blackthorn N S C Any Sun/ partial shade Y Querois petraea Sessile oak N T C,R Sandy loam Sun/ shade Y Quercus robur Common oak N T R Clay Loam Sun/ shade Y Rosa canina Dog rose N S C Any Sun Y Y Y Salix spp. Willow species N S S,C Moist Sun/ shade Y Y Sambucus nigra Elder N T C Clay loam Sun Y Saponaria officinalis Soapwort N HP F Any Sun Y
Extensive Native Living Rain Hedge/ Beds/ Plant species Common name Type Benefit Soil Light green (N) walls gardens trees borders roofs Saxifraga oppositifolia saxifage N HP C Well drained Sun Y Y Y Scabiosa columbaria small scabious N HP F Well drained/ alkaline Sun Y Y Sedum spectabile Ice plant HP F Well drained/ dry Sun Y Y Silene dioecia Red campion N HP F Any Shade/ partial shade Y Y Y Y Sorbus aucuparia Rowan N T C Well drained Sun Y Stachys lanata Lamb's ear HP F Well drained/ dry Sun Y Symphotrichum spp. Michalemas daisies HP F Any Sun Y Tages patula French marigold A F Well drained Sun Y Thymus serpyllum Creeping thyme N HP/S F Well drained/ dry Sun Y Y Y Tilia x europaea Common lime T C Any Sun/ shade Y Trifolium spp. Clover species N H F Any Sun Y Y Valerina spp. Valerian species N HP F Moist Sun/ partial shade Y Y Verbascum spp. Mulliens N Bi, HP C Well drained Sun Y Verbena bonariensis Verbena HP F Well drained/moist Sun Y Viburnum lantana Wayfaring tree N S C Any Sun/ shade Y Y Viburnum opulus Guelder rose N S C Moist Sun/ shade Y Y Viola tricolor Pansy N A F Well drained/ moist Y Y Y Legend
Type Benefit
HP Herbaceous perennial C Moth caterpillar food plant Bi Biennial S Sap sucking insects (e.g. whiteflies) BiP Biennial perennial F Flowers attract adult moths T Tree E Good roost potential S Shrub H Herb A Annual B Bulb C Creeper/ climber