Weddle Landscape Design LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Mews Studio, Charnwood House 8 Kenwood Bank, Sheffield S7 1NU Tel (0114) 250 1181 Fax (0114) 250 1188 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.weddles.co.uk

HIGHBURY GROVE SCHOOL 6TH FORM EXTENSION BREEAM CREDITS LE02-05 October 2018

Principal Mike Browell BA MA MCIHort MArborA FLI Founded 1957 by Professor Arnold Weddle PPLI Division of Landscape Research Office Limited Company No 2032419 Registered Office as above VAT NO 173 1366 72

www.breeam.com

Guidance Note V 1.1 April 2016 GN13: Relating ecologist’s report and BREEAM This guidance note is to be used for registered BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 and International New Construction 20161 assessments, where an ecologist has been appointed by the client and has produced an ecology report for the proposed development. The purpose of this guidance note is to help the BREEAM Assessor relate the content of the ecologist’s report to the BREEAM Land Use and Ecology section criteria (assessment issues LE 02, LE 03 (UK only), LE 04 and LE 05). The guidance within this document has been produced to support the assessment of the aforementioned BREEAM issues and should not be interpreted as criteria. If the BREEAM Assessor chooses to use the template provided within this guidance note as evidence in the assessment (use of this document is optional) the assessor or the appointed suitably qualified ecologist must complete all relevant sections.

If the assessor completes the template within this guidance note the ecologist must sign the final section and complete section B1 to confirm the contents are accurate. The completed document can then be used by the BREEAM Assessor along with all relevant project documentation to demonstrate compliance with the BREEAM criteria.

There are 6 sections (sections A-F) in this document.

1. Section A requires contact details for the ecologist and developer/client. 2. Section B1 determines whether the appointed ecologist is ‘suitably qualified’ (as defined by BREEAM); and if not, section B2 determines whether the report has been verified by an ecologist who is ‘suitably qualified’. 3. Section C determines whether the findings of the report have been based on data collected from site surveys conducted at appropriate times of the year to determine whether different species are evident. 4. If ‘no’ is recorded for either Section B or C then the contents of the ecology report cannot be used to determine compliance with the BREEAM criteria.

5. Section D provides the BREEAM Assessor with a template for extracting the necessary information to complete the assessment of issues LE 02, LE 03 (UK only), LE 04 and LE 05.

6. Section E provides details of the project specific documentation to be provided as evidence of compliance. 7. Section F requires the signature of the appointed suitably qualified ecologist. Please note: it is only the appointed qualified and licensed BREEAM Assessor who can confirm the award or otherwise of a credit for a BREEAM assessment.

1 A copy of the BREEAM New Construction manualT can be downloaded from www.breeam.com PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

Section A: Contact details

Contact details

Ecologist’s Details

Company name: Weddle Landscape Design Company address: 8 Kenwood Bank, Sheffield, S7 1NU Contact name: Mike Browell Contact telephone number: 0114 2501181 Ecology report reference: SNW - Ecological Baseline Assessment

Developer/Client Details

Company name: Borras Construction Company address: 1 Salar House, Campfield Road, St. Albans Contact name: Kevin Sutton Contact telephone number: 01727 850633

Development Details

BRE project reference number (if known): - Development name: HIGHBURY GROVE 6TH FORM EXTENSION Development address: 8 Highbury Grove, Highbury East, London N52EQ PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

Section B1: Ecologist’s qualifications 1. Do you hold a degree (or equivalent qualification, e.g. N/SVQ level 5) in ecology or a related subject? Yes No If yes, please provide details: BA (Hons) Geography, Liverpool University MA in Landscape Design, University of Sheffield See attached CV. (APPENDIX A)

Note: Depending on the ecological content (minimum 60%), the following degrees might be considered relevant: Ecology, Biological Sciences, Zoology, Botany, Countryside Management, Environmental Sciences, Marine and Freshwater Management, Earth Sciences, Agriculture, Forestry, Geography, Landscape Management.

2. Are you a practising ecologist with a minimum of 3 years relevant experience within the last 5 years? Yes No If yes, please provide details: Mike Browell has over 35 years experience of Landscape Architecture and Ecology. Ecological experience includes a full range of ecological appraisal, survey, impact assessment, mitigation design and habitat creation and management. See attached CV. (APPENDIX A)

Note: Relevant experience must clearly demonstrate a practical understanding of factors affecting ecology in relation to construction and the built environment; including, acting in an advisory capacity to provide recommendations for ecological protection, enhancement and mitigation measures. UK Only Examples of relevant experience are: ecological impact assessments; Preliminary Ecological Appraisals (PEA); Phase 2 habitat and fauna surveys; and habitat creation.

3. Are you bound by a professional code of conduct and subject to peer review (UK only)? Yes No If yes, please provide details: Mike Browell is a Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute and is bound by a professional code of conduct.

Note: A full member of one of the following organisations is considered to be bound by a professional code of conduct and subject to peer review: Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM); Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM); Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA); Landscape Institute (LI); Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES). Note: Peer review is defined as the process employed by a professional body to demonstrate that potential or current full members maintain a standard of knowledge and experience required to ensure compliance with a code of conduct and professional ethics.

If ‘no’ has been answered for any question in Section B1 then the BREEAM definition of a ‘suitably qualified ecologist’ has not been met. In such instances therefore the ecology report cannot be used to assess compliance with the BREEAM ecology issues unless it has been verified by an ecologist who does meet the definition of ‘suitably qualified’ (see section B2). PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

Section B2: Report verification

Details on verifying an ecology report for a BREEAM assessment: 1. The individual verifying the report must provide written confirmation that they comply with the definition of a ‘suitably qualified ecologist’ (as detailed in Section B1).

2. The verifier of the report must confirm in writing they have read and reviewed the report and found it to: a. represent sound industry practice b. report and recommend correctly, truthfully, and objectively c. be appropriate given the local site conditions and scope of works proposed d. avoid invalid, biased, and exaggerated statements. Written confirmation from the verifier on all the points detailed under 1 and 2 above (for section B2) must be provided in addition to all other information requested in this guidance and referenced in section E. If the appointed ecologist does not meet the definition of a ‘suitably qualified ecologist’ and the report has not been verified by an individual who does meet the definition, then the report cannot be used as evidence of compliance with the BREEAM Land Use and Ecology section issues. PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

Section C: Site survey Have the findings of the ecology report been based on data collected from a site survey(s)? Yes No If yes, please provide details to justify this (e.g. date(s) and scope of site survey(s)): An Ecological Baseline Assessment was carried out by the author of this report and provides an assessment of pre-construction on-site habitats and evidence of protected or notable species. The survey was undertaken in accordance with JNCC methodologies, and is attached (APPENDIX B)

Note: The site visit(s) and survey(s) must be conducted at appropriate times of the year when it is possible to determine the presence, or evidence of the presence, of different plant and animal species. Note: The contents of the ecology report must be representative of the site’s existing ecology prior to the commencement of initial site preparation works, i.e. before RIBA Stage 5 Construction or equivalent. In the case of LE 04, the ecologist’s survey would need to take place prior to the end of Concept Design stage (RIBA Stage 2 or equivalent) in order to facilitate and maximise potential ecological enhancement.

If ‘no’ has been answered to the question in Section C then the ecology report CANNOT be used to determine compliance with the criteria of the relevant BREEAM ecology issues. PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

Section D: Information to support the assessment of issues LE 02, LE 03 (UK only), LE 04 and LE 05

LE 02 Ecological value of land and protection of ecological features 1. Is the land within the ‘construction zone’ deemed by the ecologist to be of low ecological value? Yes No If yes, please provide a brief statement explaining how it has been deemed to be of low ecological value:

The Ecological Baseline Assessment carried out describes the construction zone as predominantly prominently hardstanding/bare ground, broadleaved scattered trees and building. There is a lesser extent of plantation woodland, amenity grassland and introduced shrub. The site is considered to be of low ecological value.

Note: The construction zone is defined as any land on the site which is being developed (and therefore disturbed) for buildings, hard standing, soft landscape, site access, plus a 3m wide zone measured outward from the boundary. It also includes any areas used for temporary site storage and buildings. If it is not known exactly where buildings, hard standing, site access and temporary storage will be located it must be assumed that the construction zone is the entire site.

2. Are there any features/areas of ecological value that fall within or surround the construction zone or site boundary area? Yes No Note: If the ecologist deems this area to be of low ecological value then there will be no features of ecological value requiring protection for BREEAM compliance purposes. However, if there is a feature(s) or area(s) of low ecological value that the ecologist advises to retain and enhance, e.g. a species-poor hedgerow to a species-rich hedgerow, then full details of the protection and enhancement advice should be entered under LE 04 Enhancing site ecology.

If yes, please provide a brief statement outlining the advice / recommendations given for protecting all existing features and areas of ecological value (for the UK, in line with BS 42020: 2013):

Retained trees are to be protected by protective fencing as detailed in Drawing SNC02 Post-Development Ecological Baseline (APPENDIX D) and Tree Survey Report produced by RGS Arboricultural Consultants (APPENDIX E).

3. Has (or will) the principal contractor constructed ecological protection measures in accordance with the ecologists recommendations prior to any preliminary site construction or preparation works (e.g. clearing of the site or erection of temporary site facilities)?

Yes No PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

LE 03 Mitigating ecological impact (UK only) 4. Is the ecologist able to provide the following information about the site for its pre-construction and post-construction state: —— Broad habitat type(s) —— An estimate of the number of floral species present per broad habitat type (based on appropriate census techniques and confirmed planting regimes)?

Yes No a. If yes, please give a brief description of the site’s landscape(s) and broad habitat type(s): The site is comprised of habitat types: A1.1 Plantation Woodland (6), A3.1 Scattered Trees (1), J1.4 Introduced Shrub (9), J1.2 Amenity Grassland (1), J4 Bare Ground/Hardstanding (0), J3.6 Building (0)

b. Please state the total site area (in m2). This will be the same before and after development: 2233 m2 PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

c. Please fill in Table 2 below with site details before and after development: Table – 2: Site details before and after development1

Broad habitat type2 Before or after Area of broad habitat Average total taxon richness per development? type (m2) broad habitat type

A1.1 Plantation Woodland Before 110 6

A3.1 Scattered Trees Before 555 1

J1.4 Introduced Shrub Before 98 9

J1.2 Amenity Grassland Before 134 1

J4 Bare Ground/Hardstanding Before 1111 0

J3.6 Building Before 225 0

A3.1 Scattered Trees After 596 2

J5 Green Roof After 13 15

J2.1 Hedge After 36 2

J1.4 Introduced Shrub After 88 9

J3.6 Building After 580 0

J4 Hardstanding After 920 0

1. Note to assessor (and ecologist where requested to carry out calculations); the information contained in these tables can be used to calculate both LE 03 Minimising impact on existing site ecology and LE 04 Enhancing site ecology issues. 2. Broad habitat types will include natural areas, e.g. various grasslands and woodlands; as well as areas of the built environment, e.g. buildings, hard landscaping. The area of each habitat type when added together must always equal the total area of the development site.

4. Has the client / developer requested that the ecologist to carry out the calculation for LE 03 Mitigating ecological impact and /or LE 04 Enhancing site ecology (where relevant)?

Yes No Note: The calculations must be carried out in accordance with the methodology provided in the current version of the BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 Technical Manual.

If yes, please complete Table 3 and Table 4 below for each broad habitat type identified: PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

Table – 3: Calculation of the Ecological Value of the Site Before Development

Broad habitat type Area of broad Average total Average total taxon habitat type taxon richness richness x Area of broad (m2) (see BREEAM habitat type issue LE 03 for definition)

A1.1 Plantation Woodland 110 x 6 = 660

A3.1 Scattered Trees 555 x 1 = 555

J1.4 Introduced Shrub 98 x 9 = 882

J1.2 Amenity Grassland 134 x 1 = 134

J4 Bare Ground/Hardstanding 1111 x 0 = 0

J3.6 Building 225 x 0 = 0

x =

(1) Total site area = 2233 m2 (2) Total = 2231

Average total taxon richness before development = 17

Average total taxon richness x area of habitat type / Total site area = (2)/(1) = 1.00 PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

Table – 4: Calculation of the Ecological Value of the Site After Development

Average total tax on Area of broad Average total taxon richness (see BREEAM Broad habitat type habitat type richness x Area of broad issue LE 03 for (m2) habitat type definition)

A3.1 Scattered Trees 596 x 2 = 1192

J5 Green Roof 13 x 13 = 169

J2.1 Hedge 36 x 2 = 72

J1.4 Introduced Shrub 91 x 9 = 819

J3.6 Building 580 x 0 = 0

J4 Hardstanding 917 x 0 = 0

x =

(1) Total site area = 2233 m2 (2) Total = 2252

Average total taxon richness after development = 26

Average total taxon richness x area of habitat type / Total site area = (2)/(1) = 1.00 PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

LE 04 Enhancing site ecology 5. Has the client / developer required the ecologist to provide advice and make recommendations for enhancing site ecology, and was the ecologist appointed to give this advice before the completion of the Preparation and Brief Stage of the project (RIBA Stage 1 or equivalent)?

Yes No If yes, please provide a brief statement outlining the advice / recommendations given on enhancing the ecological value of the site:

Weddle Landscape Design were appointed at RIBA stage 1. The Ecological Baseline Assessment (APPENDIX B) provides pre-development briefing advice and recommendations for enhancement site ecology, including provision of nest boxes for common swift and provision of bat boxes which will support local species action plans; use of diverse native shrub and trees for landscape planting, including using flowering and berrying species that are attractive to wildlife, which will support the local Biodiversity Action Plan; and if require, use of sensitive external lighting design which minimises off-site light spill in accordance with best practice.

Note: Such advice is to include, and go beyond, compliance with all current EU, local and national legislation relating to protected species and habitats.

LE 05 Long term impact on biodiversity 6. Was the ecologist appointed prior to commencement of development work activities on site? Yes No Don’t know

7. Has the client / developer given the ecologist the responsibility to confirm whether all relevant current EU, local and national legislation relating to protection and enhancement of ecology has been (or will be) complied with during the design and construction process? Yes No

If yes, please provide details: on all relevant current EU, local and national legislation that relates to the site:

All relevant EU and UK, local legislation will be adhered to. No protected species are preset on site or within the study area. Retained trees are to be protected by protective fencing as detailed in Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (APPENDIX C) and Tree Survey Report produced by RGS Arboricultural Consultants (APPENDIX E). PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

8. Has the developer / client requested that the ecologist produce an appropriate landscape and habitat management plan covering at least the first 5 years after project completion (in accordance with BS 42020:2013 for the UK)?

Yes No If yes, please provide a brief outline of the management plan: A Landscape and Management Plan in accordance with BS42020:2013 Section 11.1 has been prepared (APPENDIX C) outlining the key requirements to maintain and enhance the biodiversity of the site. The plan provides details of works for the next 5 years.

9. Has the client / developer required that the ecologist provides recommendations and advice to minimise detrimental impacts on site biodiversity (see LE 05 Additional measure 1)?

Yes No N/A If yes, or not applicable, please briefly describe the ecologist’s recommendations/advice:

Recommendations outlined in section LE04 detail the enhancements to the site. Borras Construction are tasked with construction phase recommended in the Landscape and Management Plan. To minimise the detrimental impact best practice methods are to be followed.

Note: In addition to the information provided above the BREEAM Assessor will need to seek confirmation from the principal contractor that a Biodiversity Champion has been (or will be) nominated to implement the ecologist’s advice as per the wording in LE 05. PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

10. Do the responsibilities of the ecologist to the client / developer include providing advice and recommendations for the protection of ecological features (see LE 05 Additional measure 2)?

Yes No N/A If yes, or not applicable, please briefly describe the ecologist’s recommendations/advice:

Offsite habitats are to be protected by protective fencing as detailed on Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (APPENDIX C) and Tree Survey Report produced by RGS Arboricultural Consultants (APPENDIX E).

Note: In addition to the information provided above the BREEAM Assessor will need to seek confirmation from the principal contractor that the site workforce has been (or will be) trained on the protection of ecological features in line with the ecologist’s recommendations.

11. Do the ecologist’s responsibilities to the client / developer include providing advice on the creation of a new ecologically valuable habitat, which is appropriate to the local area and is either nationally, regionally, or locally important, or supports nationally, regionally, or locally important biodiversity (see LE 05 Additional measure 4)

Yes No N/A If yes, or not applicable, please briefly describe the ecologist’s recommendations/advice:

The installation of bird and bat boxes, planting of flowering and berrying shrub species and installing green roofs will support several nationally and locally important bird and bat species noted within local Species Action Plans and aims of Islington Biodiversity Action Plan. PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

12. Do the ecologist’s responsibilities to the client / developer include providing advice and recommendations on when site works are to be avoided so as to minimise the disturbance to wildlife (see LE 05 Additional measure 5)?

Yes No N/A If yes, or not applicable, please briefly describe the ecologist’s recommendations/advice:

Best practice guidelines for the protection of nesting birds and bats have been provided in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (APPENDIX C) and Tree Survey Report produced by RGS Arboricultural Consultants (APPENDIX E).

Note: In addition to the information provided above the BREEAM Assessor will need to seek confirmation that the contractor has programmed site works in line with the advice given by the ecologist.

13. Of the ‘additional measures’ required by BREEAM, are there any which are not applicable/appropriate for the proposed site? Yes No N/A If yes, please state which ‘additional measures’ are not applicable giving reasons for the decision: PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

Section E: Evidence Evidence is required to support the above statements and confirm compliance with the BREEAM ‘Land use and ecology’ criteria. Such evidence might include:

1. The Suitably Qualified Ecologist’s (or ecologist’s where being verified by an SQE) site/project specific report 2. Written confirmation from the verifier of the ecology report (if necessary) 3. Any supplementary documentation e.g. maps, plans, drawings, letters / emails of correspondence, etc. Please record the project specific information relevant for assessing and demonstrating compliance with the BREEAM Land use and Ecology issues. Please include an appropriate reference, such as ID number or document title, for each document:

Document Description Document Reference/Title

Mike Browell Ecology CV APPENDIX A

Ecological Baseline Assessment APPENDIX B

Landscape and Habitat Management Plan APPENDIX C

Drawing HGS02 Post-Development Ecological Baseline APPENDIX D

Tree Survey Report, RGS Arboricultural Consultants APPENDIX E PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust www.breeam.com

Guidance Note

Section F: Signature of Validation I confirm the information provided in this document is truthful and accurate at the time of completion.

Name/signature of ecologist: Mike Browell

Date: 02/11/18 PN 317 -1.1 © BRE Global Ltd 2016 92800

Part of the BRE Trust APPENDIX A

Mike Browell Ecology CV October 2018

Weddle Landscape Design LETTER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Mews Studio, Charnwood House 8 Kenwood Bank, Sheffield S7 1NU Tel (0114) 250 1181 Fax (0114) 250 1188 e-mail [email protected] website www.weddles.co.uk

CURRICULUM VITAE - PRINCIPAL - MIKE F BROWELL BA MA FLI MiHORT MArborA October 2018

Education BA (Hons) Geography, Liverpool University MA in Landscape Design, University of Sheffield City & Guilds Certificate Arboriculture

Date of Birth 22 August 1952

Professional Fellow, Landscape Institute 2009 Qualifications Chartered Landscape Architect 1978 Member, Arboricultural Association 1981 Member, Institute of Horticulture 1984 Member Institute of Environmental Assessment (resigned1995) Visiting Professor, China University of Mining & Technology Xuzhou

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ARBORICULTURALIST & ECOLOGIST

Mike Browell has over thirty five years practice experience of landscape architecture, arboriculture and ecology and is Principal of Weddle Landscape Design, a practice founded by Professor A E Weddle in 1957. Weddle Landscape Design employs staff with degrees in Landscape Architecture, Environmental Science and Ecology, currently 6 staff in one UK office.

He is a ‘suitably qualified ecologist’ as defined by BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method).

His ecological experience includes work for national agencies, public and private companies, local authorities and statutory utilities, throughout Britain. He has wide experience of dealing with landscape and ecological aspects of large and small scale planning applications, and has advised on SSSIs, National and Local Nature Reserves, protected species protection, translocation and exclusion, Planning Appeals and Public Inquiries. He has extensive experience of designing ecological mitigation schemes.

Since 2004 he has worked on projects designed to meet BREEAM standards. He has been involved with over 50 BREEAM accredited schemes

Professional Publications – Ecology 2006 Heriot Watt University - An Ecological Approach to Landscape Design World Architecture Special Edition - Landscape Architecture in UK, 8pp

2008 Applying Ecological Landscape Design Principles to University Planning Journal of Green Building Fall 2008, (with Wei Deng & Zoe Wareham) 11pp

Professional Services Ecological surveys EcIA to CIEEM Methodology PEA to CIEEM Methodology Phase 1 and Phase 2 Ecological Habitat Surveys to JNCC Methodology Phase 2 Protected species surveys Tree Inspections for protected species Ecological Impact Assessment Ecological recommendations and Mitigation Schemes Ecological Management Plans Principal Professor Mike Browell BA MA FLI MI Hort MArborA Founded 1957 by Professor Arnold Weddle PPLI Division of Landscape Research Office Limited Company No 2032419 Registered Office as above VAT NO 173 1366 72

Ecological Experience – Selected Projects May 2016

BREEAM New Construction

Unite, Birmingham Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Unite Group Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, Landscape 2016-2017 and Habitat Management Plan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Unite, Tottenham Hale Village Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Unite Group Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, Landscape 2011-2014 and Habitat Management Plan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Unite, Trenchard Street, Bristol Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Unite Group Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, Landscape 2013 - 2015 and Habitat Management Plan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Unite, Greetham Street, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Southhampton Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, Landscape Client: Unite Group and Habitat Management Plan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation 2015 - Present scheme Vantage Park 2, Rotherham Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Private Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, Landscape 2015- 2016 and Habitat Management Plan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme

BREEAM Multi-Residential

Unite Housing, Clough Road Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Recommendations and Mitigation, Client: Unite Group Landscape Masterplan 2006-2008 The Priory Care Home, Pembury Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Grahamcare Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan 2006-Present Riber Castle, Matlock Review of Ecological Survey and Recommendations, design of new Client: Cross Tower Ventures habitat for GCN, exclusion fencing, Ecological enhancements and 2006-Present Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan Woodhill, Sheffield Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Redwall Developments Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan 2007-Present Kendray Apartments, Barnsley Analysis of Ecological Assessment Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Mitigation scheme. 2007 Unite, James Leicester Hall Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Unite Group Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, Landscape 2009-2012 and Habitat Management Plan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Unite, Holloway Road Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Unite Group Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, Landscape 2010-2013 and Habitat Management Plan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme

BREEAM Ecohomes

North Hykeham, Fox Covert Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Gladedale Homes Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan Ecological 2006-2007 Mitigation scheme. Ladyoak Road, Rotherham Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Mitigation scheme.. 2007 Cog Lane, Burnley Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Design Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Mitigation scheme. 2007 Woodcock Street, Hull Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Mitigation scheme.

2007 Woodend Crescent, Shipley Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Mitigation scheme. 2007 Hanley Potteries Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Mitigation scheme.. 2007 Waterworks Street, Bootle Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Mitigation scheme. 2007

Code for Sustainable Homes (Previously BREEAM Ecohomes)

Cypress Road, Barnsley Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme. 2008 Verona Rise, Darfield Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2008 The Village, Grimesthorpe Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2008 Phoenix 1, Accrington Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2008 Laurel Crescent, Barnsley Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Haslam Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2008 North Hykeham, Poppyfields Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Impact Client: Gladedale Homes Assessment, Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan 2009- 2011 Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Fieldhead Regeneration,Oldham Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Keepmoat Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2009 Leslie Road, Kendray, Barnsley Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Keepmoat Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2009 North Werneth, Manchester Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Keepmoat Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2009 Junella Fields, Hull Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Keepmoat Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2010 Woodfield Avenue, Lincoln Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Keepmoat Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2010 Coulman Road, Leicester Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Keepmoat Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2010 Earsdon Road, Newcastle Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Keepmoat Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2010 Esh Winning, Durham Analysis of Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and Client: Keepmoat Homes Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2010

BREEAM Schools

Lealands High School, Luton Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Bat Survey, Client: Luton Borough Council Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, Landscape 2010-2013 and Habitat Management Plan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Bath Road Primary School, Luton Landscape Masterplan, Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, Client: Luton Borough Council Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2011

BREEAM Higher Education

Colchester Institute, Maldon Review and Analysis of Ecological Assessment and Recommendations, Client: GSS Architecture Landscape Masterplan Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme 2009-2010 Durham Business School Landscape Masterplan Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Client: GSS Architecture 2010-2012

BREEAM Offices

Ramparts Business Park Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Impact Client: Berwick Borough Council Assessment, Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Design 2004-2006 Guide and Landscape Masterplan for BREEAM Offices Mountjoy Offices, Durham University Landscape Masterplan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation Client: GSS Architecture scheme 2008-2010

BREEAM Industrial

Aldwarke Industrial Estate Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Waddington Aldwarke Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan Ecological 2007-2008 Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Tansley Wood Mills Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Cross Tower Ventures Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan Ecological 2006-2007 Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Vantage Park, Rotherham Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Private Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, 2010- 2013 Shortwood Business Park Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Dearne Valley Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan Ecological 2013 - 2015 Enhancement and Mitigation scheme

BREEAM Bespoke

Marsh Farm Children’s Centre, Luton Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Luton Borough Council Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan, Landscape 2009-Present and Habitat Management Plan, Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation scheme Leeds International Arena Technical Advisor on Landscape and Ecology requirements Client: Leeds City Council 2010-Present

Other Significant Ecological Projects and Protected Species Surveys

Tithby Reed Bed Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Development of Sustainable Drainage Client: Severn Trent Water Proposals and Ecological Mitigation Scheme 2002-2003 River Ouse Flood Catchment Environmental Design and Clerk of Works service for wetland and river Protection, Scunthorpe corridor project. Client: Severn Trent Water 1997-1999 Drigg Low Level Waste Recycling Review of Ecological Assessment, Coastal Nature Reserve Landscape Client: British Nuclear Fuels Management, Wildlife Habitat Creation 1985 - 2009 Drax Ash Mound Ecological Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and design Client: National Power development, Wildlife Habitat Creation, Nature Study Centre. 1968-2003 Old Moor Wetland Nature Reserve, Landscape Masterplan and Design development, Wildlife Habitat Barnsley Creation, Environmental Educational, Demonstration Gardens, Visitors Client: BMBC Centre, RSBP Reserve. 1993 - 1995 Hillsborough Golf Course Phase 1 Habitat Survey, protected species survey, translocation and Client: Golf Club exclusion, Landscape Masterplan and enhancement 2002 Bonsall Moorland Farm Conservation Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Recommendations Client: Private Client and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan historic landscape in Peak 2004-2005 District National Park. Mexborough Power Station Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Client: Eastwoods Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan and Design

2005 development. Droppingwell Road Sports Field, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Impact Rotherham Assessment, Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan Client: Watkinson and Design development. 2006-2008 Holmhirst Road, Sheffield Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Phase 2 Badger Survey Client: Jaguar Estates 2008-2010 North Hykeham, Poppyfields Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Phase 2 Nesting Bird Survey Client: Gladedale Homes 2009-2010 Waterside, Dinnington Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Phase 2 Watervole Survey Client: NCI Developments 2009- 2012 Sydnope Hall Farm, Matlock Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Phase 2 Breeding Bird and Bat Client: Private Survey 2010- 2011 Firth Rixson, Sheffield Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Impact Client Firth Rixson Assessment, Recommendations and Mitigation, Landscape Masterplan 2012-2013 Tinsley Bridge Company Sheffield Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape 2012-2013 Masterplan Gorstyhill Golf Course Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Impact Assessment, Comparative Client: Haddon Properties Ecological Assessment 2012 - 2015 Bleaklow Farm Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Phase 2 Bat Survey Client: Private 2013- 2014 Hooton Lodge Caravan Park Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment. Tree Survey. Client: Private Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Landscape Masterplan, 2013 - 2015 Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, Phase 2 Bat Survey, Ecological Mitigation Plan Westbourne House Lancaster Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape Client: Private Masterplan 2013 - 2015 Sheffield Road Chesterfield Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape Client: Private Masterplan 2013 - 2016 York House Long Marston Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape Client: Private Masterplan 2013 - 2016 Mansfield Road, Killamarsh Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment and Phase 2 Bat Survey Client: Private 2014 - 2016 Hoyland Town Centre Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape Client: Private Masterplan 2014 - 2015 BHP Broomhill, Sheffield Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Client: Private Roost Assessment and Phase 2 Bat Survey 2014 - 2015 Rippon South Hykeham Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Landscape Masterplan, Phase 2 Bat Client: Rippon Homes Survey 2014 - 2015 Backdale Quarry Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Phase 2 Bat Survey, Phase 2 Client: Bleaklow Industries Breeding Bird Survey, Phase 2 Reptile Survey, Ecological Impact 2014- Present Assessment, Ecological Management Plan, Botanical Surveys Hardwick Drive, Arkwright Town Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Landscape Masterplan, Ecological Client: Private Mitigation Statement 2015-2015 Rippon Homes, Wingerworth Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment. Tree Survey. Client: Rippon Homes Landscape Masterplan, Ecological Mitigation Plan 2014 - 2015 Wagers Flat, Bleaklow Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Landscape Masterplan, Ecological Client: Bleaklow Industries Restoration Proposals, Phase 2 Botanical Surveys 2014- Present Royal London, Wilmslow Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape Client: Royal London Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment 2014- 2016 Hangram Farm Barn Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape Client: Private Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment and Phase 2 Bat

2014-2015 Survey Brincliffe Towers, Sheffield Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape Client: Private Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment and Phase 2 Bat 2014-2016 Survey Rippon Homes, Bilsthorpe Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Phase 2 Breeding Client: Rippon Homes Bird and Bat Survey 2014 - 2016 Highlands, Darley Dale Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape Client: Private Masterplan, Ecological Restoration Proposals 2014-Present Old Vicarage, Bolsterstone Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment. Tree Survey. Client: Private Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Landscape Masterplan and 2015-2016 Ecological Planting Proposals Penistone Road North, Sheffield Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Ecological Assessment Client: Jaguar Estates 2015-2016 David Lloyd – Colchester Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment and Landscape Client: David Lloyd Leisure Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment 2015 Mount Street, Derby Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment Client: Private 2015 Uffington Road, Stamford Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey. Client: Private Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment , Phase 2 2015-2016 Bat Survey, Phase 2 Badger Survey Stonebridge Camp, Wretham Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey. Client: Private Landscape Masterplan, Ecological Enhancement Proposals 2015-2016 Rippon, Greaves Lane Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey. Client: Rippon Homes Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment , Ecological 2015 - Present Enhancement Proposals Buckingham Hotel, Buxton Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey. Client: Rippon Homes Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment , Phase 2 2015 - Present Bat Survey, Phase 2 Breeding Bird Survey Firbeck Hall Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Woodland Survey, Client: Private Tree Survey. Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost 2015 - Present Assessment Phase 2 Bat Survey, Phase 2 Breeding Bird Survey Manor Farm, Laughton Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Landscape Client: Private Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment Phase 2 Bat Survey, 2015 - Present Phase 2 Breeding Bird Survey Old Boatyard, Unstone Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Preliminary Bat Roost Client: Private Assessment 2015 - Present Row Street, Crosland Moor Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, landscape Client: Private Masterplan, Ecological Enhancement Proposals, Preliminary Bat Roost 2015 - Present Assessment, Phase 2 Bat Surveys St. Johns College Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey, Client: Private Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, Ecological 2015 - Present Enhancement Proposals The Cartwheel, Brookhouse Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment Client: Private 2015 Goose Lane, Wickersley Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey, Client: Private Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, Ecological 2015 - Present Enhancement Proposals. Oriel Road, Sheffield Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey, Client: Private Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, Preliminary 2015 - Present Badger Scoping. Clarkehouse Road, Sheffield Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey, Client: Private Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, Phase 2 2015 - Present Bat Survey Clayton Hospital, Wakefield Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Ecological Assessment Client: Private 2015 - Present Twyford Road, Barrow Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey, Client: Private Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment 2016 - Present Wood End Farm, Shireoaks Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Client: Private Survey, Landscape Masterplan, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, 2016 - Present Breeding Bird Survey

Kirklington Road, Rainworth Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey, Client: Private Landscape Masterplan, Phase 2 Badger Survey and Mitigation Plan 2016 Nobel Way, Dinnington Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Client: Private Survey, Landscape Masterplan and Phase 2 Watervole Survey 2016 Simmonite Road, Rotherham Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey Client: Private 2016 Patrick Tobin Business Park Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey Client: Private 2016 Morthern Hall Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey, Client: Private Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment 2016 - Present Legge Lane, Birmingham Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Preliminary Bat Roost Client: Private Assessment and Breeding Bird Survey 2016 - Present High Low Wood Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Woodland Client: Private Survey 2016 - Present Nether House Farm Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Ecological Assessment, Preliminary Bat Roost Client: Private Assessment 2016 - Present Main Street, Ambaston Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment Client: Private 2016

APPENDIX B

Ecological Baseline Assessment October 2018

Weddle Landscape Design LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Mews Studio, Charnwood House 8 Kenwood Bank, Sheffield S7 1NU Tel (0114) 250 1181 Fax (0114) 250 1188 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.weddles.co.uk

HIGHBURY GROVE SCHOOL 6TH FORM EXTENSION Ecological Baseline Assessment October 2018

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE CONDITION 3.0 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

DRAWINGS 856 HGS01 PRE-DEVELOPMENT ECOLOGICAL BASELINE

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Ecological Baseline Assessment, October 2018 Page 1 of 9 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

BRE’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) is to be used to assess the environmental performance of the proposed extension and surrounding development at Highbury Grove & Samuel Rhodes Schools. The BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 assessment considers many areas including ‘Land use and Ecology’. Credits are awarded in each area and added together to produce a single overall score.

The proposed scheme is targeting a ‘Very Good' BREEAM rating. It is anticipated that the proposed scheme should achieve the complement of BREEAM credits under:

LE2 Ecological Value of Site and Protection of Ecological Features LE3 Mitigating Ecological Impact LE4 Enhancing Site Ecology LE5 Long Term Impact on Biodiversity

Weddle Landscape Design have been asked by Borras Construction to provide this report to confirm the ecological baseline condition of the site including the nature conservation status of the habitats and species present prior to construction. This will be used to support a BREEAM assessment of the development.

1.2 Location and Site Description

Figure 1: Site Location (Bing Maps)

The development site is approximately 0.2 hectares, within the adjacent schools of Highbury Grove and Samuel Rhodes, which are located within the London Borough of Islington, 200m north-west of Canonbury Railway Station. The development site contains an existing building of approximately 225m2, an adjacent car park to the north-east, and a school playground and surrounding landscape in the north-west of the site. Site vegetation includes shrub, grass and young trees around the playground, two mature trees on the north-east side of the car park and one mature tree on the site boundary just south of the existing building. Other mature trees are offsite on Highbury Park Road, and their canopies overhanding the south-eastern site boundary.

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Ecological Baseline Assessment, October 2018 Page 2 of 9 1.3 The Development Proposals

The proposed development requires clearance of the existing carpark, playground and surrounding vegetation including amenity grassland, shrubs, plantation broadleaved woodland. The mature scattered trees will be retained. The proposal includes construction of a new 355m² building extension, carparking and playground. New tree, shrub, hedgerow and green roof planting is proposed. Development layout is shown below:

Figure 2: Philip Cave Associates Phase 1 - Landscape GA, Drawing No. 447.04 dated May '17

1.4 Planning Status

The site is under the development control of Islington London Borough Council. The approved planning application reference is P2017/1725/FUL.

2.0 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE CONDITION

2.1 Methodology

In order to confirm the ecological baseline condition of the site including the nature conservation status of the habitats and species present a desk study and site survey was undertaken.

2.2 Desk Study

A desk study was undertaken for a 1km radius from the approximate center of the site to collate any existing ecological data for the site and its immediate surroundings.

As part of the desk process, sources of record information (including both statutory and non-statutory organisations) have been considered as follows:

• Natural England Magic website for geographic information on key environmental schemes and designations. www.magic.gov.uk, October 2018 (see Appendix A). • Islington Local Plan Proposals Map, Adopted February 2011 (see Appendix B).

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Ecological Baseline Assessment, October 2018 Page 3 of 9 2.3 Designations

There are no statutory ecological designations onsite or within a 1km radius.

There are a number of locally designated ‘Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation’ (SINC) within a 1km radius, the closest of which are the Channel Tunnel Rail Link SINC (Borough Grade 1) 120m south of the site, and Highbury Fields SINC (Local) 150m north- west of the site, as identified on Islington Local Plan Proposals Map (Appendix B).

There are several areas of Priority Habitat Inventory Deciduous Woodland and National Forest Inventory areas of ‘broadleaved woodland’ within 1km radius, the closest of which are the Channel Tunnel Rail Link 120m south of the site, and Highbury Fields 150m north- west of the site, as identified on Natural England Magic Map (Appendix A).

2.4 Walk Over Survey

The walk over survey was undertaken on 20th October 2018 to evaluate the existing habitats within the construction zone. The following habitat types were identified:

Scattered Trees There are a number of mature scattered trees on or adjacent and overhanging the site, including two trees on the north-east side of the car park, mature tree on the site boundary just south of the existing building and a line of mature street trees offsite on Highbury Park Road which overhang the south-eastern site boundary. These are all London Plane (Platanus x hispanica) and are identified on the tree survey which has been undertaken and is included in the planning submission.

Plantation Woodland These are generally young and form groups adjacent to the playground area and site fencing in the north-west of the site. Species present are Silver Birch (Betula Pendula), False Acasia (Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Frisia’), Cherry (Prunus sp.), Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Common lime (Tilia x europaea) and Field maple (Acer campestre).

Introduced Shrub Areas of introduced shrub are present around the playground area and site fencing in the north-west of the site. Most of this shrub has been heavily managed. Species include Cotoneaster Sp., Japanese spirea (Spiraea japonica), Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Privet (Ligustrum Ovalifolium), Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), Ivy (Hedera Helix), New Zealand flax (Phormium sp.) and Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis).

Amenity grassland There are areas of amenity grassland adjacent to the playground area and access to Samuel Rhodes School in the north-west of the site. Grass is of species Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and has been regularly mown and treated with broadleaf herbicide.

Bare Ground, Building and Hardstanding No species present.

There are no invasive species identified on the site.

These habitats are shown on drawing 856 HGS01 PRE-DEVELOPMENT ECOLOGICAL BASELINE as attached.

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Ecological Baseline Assessment, October 2018 Page 4 of 9 2.5 Fauna

The walk over survey included a check for fauna.

No evidence of badger was noted during the site survey. There are very limited opportunities for badgers to both forage and dig setts.

There are no watercourses on or adjacent to the site which would support Water Vole or Amphibians.

The site has very few opportunities for bat apart from limited foraging and commuting opportunities. None of the onsite tree have potential to support roosting bats.

Breeding birds are protected under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which includes protection against the damage or destruction of any nests whilst they are in use or being built. However, no nests were identified.

2.6 Summary and recommendations for future work

The conclusion of the walk-over survey and desk study is that habitat areas within the site prior to construction are of low ecological value.

During the walk-over survey no evidence of protected species was found. This report recommends that no further survey work for protected species is necessary.

2.7 Preliminary BREEAM Information

Information from this survey will be used as the baseline for the BREEAM ecological value of the site. The following plot types and assessment are to be used:

Before Development

Plot Type Species Value A1.1 Plantation Woodland 6

A3.1 Scattered Trees 1

J1.4 Introduced Shrub 9

J1.2 Amenity Grassland 1

J4 Bare Ground/ Hardstanding 0

J3.6 Building 0

2.8 Enhancement Opportunities

There is capacity and feasibility to enhance the ecological value for the site through this development by providing an enhancement to site ecology and the following recommended ecological enhancements and habitat creation:

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Ecological Baseline Assessment, October 2018 Page 5 of 9 • Installation bird boxes. 2No. 16 Schwegler Swift Boxes proposed attached to building, location to be agreed with local authority. This will support Islington Common Swift Species Action Plan. • Including bat boxes. 2No. Improved Crevice Bat Box (Double) proposed attached to building, location to be agreed with local authority. This will support Islington Bat Species Action Plan. • Use of diverse shrub and trees for landscape planting, including using flowering and berrying species, which will support the Islington Biodiversity Action Plan and provide pollen, nectar and cover for a wide range of fauna species. • External lighting is not expected to be required, but if used sensitive external lighting design which minimises off-site light spill in accordance with best practice. • Use of Green Roof to support the Islington Biodiversity Action Plan. • Invertebrate soil habitat will be improved through an initial layer of composted bark mulch

3.0 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

The pre-construction ecological baseline condition is considered to be of low ecological value.

The site is prominently hardstanding, building and amenity grassland.

No protected species have been identified on site.

The landscape proposals should aim to enhance the ecological diversity through tree and shrub planting and habitat provision.

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Ecological Baseline Assessment, October 2018 Page 6 of 9 APPENDIX A

Magic environmental schemes and designations. www.magic.gov.uk October 2018

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Ecological Baseline Assessment, October 2018 Page 7 of 9 APPENDIX B

Islington Local Plan Proposals Map, Adopted February 2011

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Ecological Baseline Assessment, October 2018 Page 8 of 9 DRAWING: 856 HGS01 PRE-DEVELOPMENT ECOLOGICAL BASELINE

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Ecological Baseline Assessment, October 2018 Page 9 of 9 32.67 Column

33.06 SFL 36.05

Brick Setts 32.86 THL 33.00 32.90 33.16

IC 32.98

P CL 33.17 33.08

Column 33.19 32.82

P 33.08

32.72 33.19 32.91 Brick Setts

P SCs 33.07 Bench

Brick

G 33.01

32.90

32.60 ER Setts 33.00 Tarmac SHELTER

32.85 32.81 32.73

32.28 33.04 33.14 32.91 P X 33.15 33.04 33.12 P ER 33.10 33.07

32.74 32.96 33.18 Y SCs

32.80

32.46 Bench

32.97 33.02 0.05 Concrete Slab Concrete 0.05 P

RTW Ht 0.50 Ht RTW 32.79 P 32.86 LP

B 32.72

32.69

32.84 CBF Ht 1.80 Ht CBF

LP 32.43

LB 32.81

B 33.03

53 32.81

32.78 IC 33.18 32.67 32.79

CL 32.86 32.06 IC

CL 32.78 32.16

32.56

B 32.71

WMF Ht 4.20

Tarmac

WMF Ht 4.20

IC 32.63 32.65

32.18 32.59 32.80 CL 31.70

32.70

32.57 B

IC 32.59

CL 31.80 33.15 Brick P

Setts

57 0.05 Concrete B Tarmac

31.74 32.45

Slab RTW

31.91 BASKETBALL COURT 2.40 Ht IRF 31.99 Ht 0.40 A Tarmac 31.75 31.93 32.74 WMF 32.01 32.08 32.48 32.63

DC ER 32.35 Ht 2.50 ER Tarmac 31.88 WMF Ht 1.80 32.00 ACU P

B Paved 31.69 31.71 31.69

Brick Setts 31.70 S12 IC G 32.43 CL 32.02 Paved 31.70 31.70 DC 31.71 31.70 31.68 31.70 32.64 32.54 IC 31.89 LP

CL 31.72 ACU 32.02

32.00 DC B THL 31.78 32.60

32.52 VP Paved

WMF Ht 2.40 LP 32.48 32.47

DC A WMF 32.50 32.04 WMF Ht1.80 31.99 Ht 2.40 31.89 32.01 32.02

Tarmac 32.48 B LP 31.90 32.85

32.00 A 31.92 32.73

31.71 WMF Ht 2.40

Bark Chippings 32.20 32.01 32.24 S11

ELCP 32.17 32.22 B Concrete 31.89 LP 32.23 32.04 P 31.96

Handrail Ht1.10 32.08 31.70

32.11 ELCP

31.95 B 32.12

CL 31.97 31.71 31.99 LP 32.09 31.72

B ISLINGTON CITY 32.36 31.69 32.15 BICYCLE SHELTER 31.90

31.90 51

THL 31.77 31.98 LEARNING CENTRE P S7 32.33 WMF Ht 2.40 ACU 31.77

32.16 WMF Ht 3.00 Ht WMF

CB IRF 31.80 Ht 2.40

LP DC 32.48 Paved

ACU Intercom Gravel/Concrete 32.34

31.92

Car 31.67

31.83 31.86 Charging 31.73 Tarmac 32.19 31.76 Point 32.18

P 32.25 31.87 32.28 31.74

31.58 32.28

32.19

Car Concrete RWP/G Charging RWP/G

31.94 Point 32.50 THL 31.79

P 32.58

32.60 32.17 31.73 31.78 31.75

31.71 ER 31.63 32.20

31.77 31.66

31.72 31.63 CR 32.14 Brick Plinth 31.55 31.54 32.25 32.19 ER

32.32 Ht 0.15 60 32.20

ER G 31.60

31.70 Tarmac G 31.69

31.68

LP Tarmac

31.75 31.77 31.73 Brick Setts LP

32.02 Paved

32.07

32.17 31.62 31.77 31.75 59

IC Ht 3.00 Ht 58 31.61 31.84 31.68 31.67 31.63 LP 31.62

31.62

WMF 31.71 Setts Brick 31.71 31.65 31.66

Gravel/Concrete 31.74 31.69 2.40 Ht WMF

31.72 31.66 31.61 P 31.79 31.85

CR 31.72 IRF Ht 1.70 on 31.55 31.64 31.55 WM 31.58 31.62 PRF Ht 0.30 31.63 0.22 Concrete 31.68

on 0.22 Wall

31.75 32.01 32.10

CATV TMH Wall Ht 0.30 32.18 Ht 0.30 Concrete

31.76 32.20 31.69 IRF Ht 2.00

31.83 0.22 Concrete 31.96 31.58 G 31.90 31.76

31.63 Wall Ht 0.20 31.83 2.40 Ht IRF Tarmac 31.87 31.65

TMH 31.75 0.22 Concrete 0.22 Wall Ht 0.30 Ht Wall 532100.000E LP

31.87 32.00 BS RS

31.80 31.99

0.23 Wall Ht 1.70 Ht Wall 0.23 CLF Ht 2.60 on 2.60 Ht CLF 31.77 Gravel/Concrete

31.44 Gravel Gravel 31.49 32.01 31.54 Gravel Tarmac

31.55 31.59 32.04 31.33 31.40 31.44 31.45 31.90 31.99 31.46

G 31.44 31.84 31.67

Gravel LP 31.96 31.93

31.56

Concrete 31.70 31.85

IRF Ht 2.00 31.75 21a 31.88 IC

0.22 Brick CL 31.83 31.67 32.01

Wall Ht 0.20 SC 31.90 31.90

31.88 31.94

31.88 LP 32.07

Gravel 31.66

31.88

TMH

31.81 31.71 IC

Tarmac 31.78 31.70 FH

SC HIGHBURY NEW PARK 31.81

IRF Ht 2.40

Gravel 31.83 IC 1.70 Ht Wall 0.23

31.79 CL 31.69

CLF Ht 1.30 on 1.30 Ht CLF 31.68

31.79 31.91

31.80

31.69 31.74 31.75

Gravel Paving Tactile

31.72

31.61

31.65 31.77 Tarmac

HIGHBURY NEW PARK 31.64

31.59 Tarmac

P Brick 31.64

31.74 Tactile

Setts 31.65

31.64 31.73

Gravel 31.62

31.73 31.58

31.62 31.52 31.63

CATV

GV 31.64

NOTES BROAD HABITAT TYPE Although this map has been produced with the J1.4 Introduced shrub intention of indicating and classifying the Site boundary 98m2 Based on layout drawing 18.051 Plans_181008 occurrence of semi-natural habitats, it is not to 2233 m2 received 24.09.18 - Borras Construction be regarded as a definitive representation of the conservation value or interest of any piece Weddle Landscape Design of land. In particular, the absence of any A1.1 Plantation woodland J4 Bare Ground/ symbol such as a colour code or target LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE symbol should not be taken as denoting a lack 110m2 Hardstanding ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING of conservation value. 1111 m2 Mews Studio, Charnwood House, Tel (0114) 250 1181 8 Kenwood Bank, Sheffield S7 1NU Fax (0114) 250 1188 A3.1 Broadleaved J3.6 Building www.weddles.co.uk [email protected] scattered trees Job 225 m2 HIGHBURY GROVE SCHOOL 555m2 Title PRE-DEVELOPMENT A J1.2 Amenity grassland 134m3 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE scale@A3 drawn date job number number revision 1:500 PM OCT 18 856 HGS 01 - APPENDIX C

Landscape and Habitat Management Plan October 2018

Weddle Landscape Design LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Mews Studio, Charnwood House 8 Kenwood Bank, Sheffield S7 1NU Tel (0114) 250 1181 Fax (0114) 250 1188 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.weddles.co.uk

HIGHBURY GROVE SCHOOL 6TH FORM EXTENSION Landscape and Habitat Management Plan October 2018

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 2

1.1 Existing Site Description 2

1.2 Development Proposals 3

1.3 Local Biodiversity Action Plan 4

1.4 Responsibility and Review 4

2.0 Vision 4

3.0 Management Aims and Strategies 5

3.1 Aims 5

3.2 Strategies 5

4.0 Implementation Plan 7

4.1 Phase 1: Construction Works 7

4.2 Phase 2: 5 Year Management Plan 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Borras Construction are proposing to construct a 6th form extension to the existing building and provide a new carpark, playground and landscape. Planning has been granted subject to conditions by Islington London Borough Council under reference P2017/1725/FUL.

The proposed scheme is targeting a ‘Very Good' BREEAM rating.

To inform the development proposals, Weddle Landscape Design carried out an Ecological Baseline Assessment in October 2018.

Weddle Landscape Design have been asked to prepare a 5 Year Landscape and Habitat Management Plan in accordance with BS42020:2013(206) for the ongoing good management of the site landscape.

As the development is also subject to a BREEAM New Construction 2014 assessment. This management plan will also support BREEAM accreditation under LE5: Long Term Impact on Biodiversity.

1.1 EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION

The development site is approximately 0.2 hectares. The development site contains an existing building of approximately 225m2, an adjacent car park to the north-east, and a school playground and surrounding landscape in the north-west of the site. Site vegetation includes shrub, grass and young trees around the playground, two mature trees on the north- east side of the car park and one mature tree on the site boundary just south of the existing building. Other mature trees are offsite on Highbury Park Road, and their canopies overhanding the south-eastern site boundary.

Figure 1: Site Location (Bing Maps)

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, October 2018 Page 2 of 8

Landscape and Habitat Features

A detailed habitat description of the site can be found in the October 2018 Ecological Baseline Assessment report prepared by Weddle Landscape Design.

The site is predominantly prominently hardstanding, broadleaved scattered trees and building. There is a lesser extent of plantation woodland, amenity grassland, introduced shrub and bare ground. The site is considered to be of low ecological value.

1.2 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

As part of the development a number of Landscape and Ecological Enhancements are proposed;

• Installation bird boxes. 2No. 16 Schwegler Swift Boxes proposed attached to building, location to be agreed with local authority. This will support Islington Common Swift Species Action Plan. • Including bat boxes. 2No. Improved Crevice Bat Box (Double) proposed attached to building, location to be agreed with local authority. This will support Islington Bat Species Action Plan. • Use of diverse shrub and trees for landscape planting, including using flowering and berrying species, which will support the Islington Biodiversity Action Plan and provide pollen, nectar and cover for a wide range of fauna species. • External lighting is not expected to be required, but if used sensitive external lighting design which minimises off-site light spill in accordance with best practice. • Use of Green Roof to support the Islington Biodiversity Action Plan. • Invertebrate soil habitat will be improved through an initial layer of composted bark mulch

1.3 LOCAL BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN

The development of the site will support the Islington Biodiversity Action Plan, specifically;

• The installation of bat boxes will directly support will directly support Species Action Plan aims. • Installation of swift boxes will directly support Species Action Plan aims. • Diverse shrub and trees for landscape planting, including pollen producing plants will directly support Biodiversity Action Plan aims.

1.4 RESPONSIBILITY AND REVIEW

After completion, responsibility to monitor, manage and maintaining the new development will transfer from the building contractor, Borras Construction to Highbury Grove School grounds maintenance team and managed as part of the wider school site. The landscaping and tree planting shall have a five-year maintenance provision to be implemented following planting, as stated in condition 12 and 14 of the approved planning application. ______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, October 2018 Page 3 of 8

2.0 VISION

The development of the site offers an opportunity to contribute to Islington Biodiversity Action Plan through tree and shrub planting; installation of green roofs and habitat creation through installation of bird and bat boxes and improved invertebrate soil habitat.

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, October 2018 Page 4 of 8

3.0 MANAGEMENT AIMS AND STRATEGIES

3.1 AIMS

A. To provide a practical framework for landscape maintenance and management of the site. B. Appropriate management of all planting for amenity and increased wildlife value. C. To ensure that site is healthy, safe and secure. D. To maintain a commercial landscape of high quality. E. Maintain landscape characteristics of the site.

3.2 STRATEGIES

A: To provide a practical framework for landscape maintenance and management of the site. • Review and audit the Landscape Management Plan. • Review efficiency and quality of work produced annually. • Amendment and adjustments to the Management Plan based on annual review. • Maintenance Schedule included as Section 4 of this Landscape Management Plan. • Regular inspections to review overall appearance and maintenance.

B: Appropriate management of all planting for amenity and increased wildlife value. • Review the Islington Biodiversity Action Plan. • Establishment and monitoring of all planting. • Establishment of planting providing pollen and nectar • Low maintenance regime for all planting

C: To ensure that site is healthy, safe and secure. • Prune shrubs back from pathways. • All access routes kept clear. • Ensure that there is adequate access for emergency and maintenance vehicles. • Maintain pathways by removing debris, leaf litter, moss, algae etc to prevent accidents. • Grit pathways when required to prevent ice. • Paving and fencing defects to be repaired as soon as possible. • Monitor and review Health and Safety Policy • Identify health and safety issues within the site by regular review and Maintenance Attendance Report submitted at least once monthly.

D: To maintain a commercial landscape of high quality. • Regularly prune and maintain the trees and shrubs to keep them tidy. • Maintain shrubs to prevent them growing too large for their locations, thin and replace as necessary, using best horticultural practices. • Prune back shrubs from all signage, lighting and paths • Ensure all weeds are removed regularly by hand/approved herbicides. • Top up of mulch annually until planting closes canopy

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, October 2018 Page 5 of 8

• Remove dead plants and replace within following planting season. • Remove leaf litter • Repair any damage that may have occurred • Maintain paths non-slippery, clear of moss, algae and loose gravel

E: Maintain landscape characteristics of the site. • Replace any dead planting which become apparent within the following planting season (November – March) • Inspect trees annually and carry out maintenance operations as required to keep trees in safe and healthy condition • Replace or repair damaged fencing • Remove litter and debris • Ensure hard paved areas are kept clean and tidy, contributing to a neat streetscape.

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, October 2018 Page 6 of 8

4.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The implementation of the strategies will be carried out over two phases. The first phase will be implemented during the construction program by the Borras Construction. The second phase will be implemented once the development has been completed and managed by Highbury Grove School.

4.1 PHASE 1: CONSTRUCTION WORKS

4.1.1 Boundary Protection

• Erect Tree Protection Fencing and maintain • Erect construction site fencing and maintain. • Remove construction site fencing on completion of all building and hard landscape works. • Remove Tree Protection Fencing on completion of all building and hard landscape works.

4.1.2 Landscape • Implement Landscape Masterplan. This shall be carried out upon substantial completion of the development and be completed not later than the first planting season after substantial completion. • Install bird and bat boxes

4.2 PHASE 2: 5 YEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN

4.2.1 Regular Tasks • Remove Litter as soon as possible. • Remove dead, seriously damaged or diseased plants. • Remove weeds from ornamental shrub beds by hand as required. • Written Maintenance Attendance Report and recommendations for necessary remedial works (include Health and Safety reports/issues).

4.2.2 Seasonal Tasks • Replace any dead, seriously damaged or diseased plants with of a similar size and species in following planting season (November – March) until canopies close. • Thin/prune plants as necessary in accordance with good horticultural practice. • Firm up any wind rocked plants • Trim path side vegetation back to prevent encroachment onto paths • Prune planting clear of all signage. • Prune planting to maintain vehicle sightlines. • Monitor site for invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan balsam, Bramble and control as necessary • Collect and remove fallen leaves hard surfacing/gravel • Grit access roads and pathways as necessary during winter • Clear snow from access and emergency routes as necessary during winter • Inspect external lighting and repair/replace as necessary

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, October 2018 Page 7 of 8

4.2.3 Annual Tasks • Inspect trees annually for health and hazards, and implement any recommended works • Inspect site furniture and repair as necessary • Inspect security fencing and gates and repair as necessary • Inspect other walls, fencing and gates and repair as necessary • Repair pathways as necessary • Top up mulch layer to shrub areas in March • Check tree ties on new tree planting - replace/loosen/remove as necessary

______WEDDLE LANDSCAPE DESIGN Highbury Grove School 6th Form Extension Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, October 2018 Page 8 of 8

APPENDIX D

Drawing HGS02 Post-Development Ecological Baseline October 2018 BROAD HABITAT TYPE NOTES J5 Green Roof Although this map has been produced with the Site boundary intention of indicating and classifying the 13 m2 Based on Philip Cave Associates layout drawing: occurrence of semi-natural habitats, it is not to 2233 m2 Phase 1 - Landscape GA, No. 447.04 dated May '17 be regarded as a definitive representation of Weddle Landscape Design the conservation value or interest of any piece A3.1 Broadleaved of land. In particular, the absence of any J3.6 Building LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE symbol such as a colour code or target scattered trees 580 m2 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING symbol should not be taken as denoting a lack 596m2 of conservation value. Mews Studio, Charnwood House, Tel (0114) 250 1181 8 Kenwood Bank, Sheffield S7 1NU Fax (0114) 250 1188 J2.1 Intact Hedge J4 Hardstanding www.weddles.co.uk [email protected] 36m2 917 m2 Job HIGHBURY GROVE SCHOOL

Scale 1:250 Title 0 2 4 6 8 10 [m] J1.4 Introduced shrub POST-DEVELOPMENT 91m2 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE scale@A3 drawn date job number number revision 1:500 PM OCT 18 856 HGS 02 - APPENDIX E

Tree Survey Report, RGS Arboricultural Consultants April 2017 Trees would be semi mature 25-30cm girth, with some multi stemmed, mostly native species.

Shrubs and ground cover would be flowering and berrying types

TREE SURVEY REPORT

PRE-DEVELOPMENT

Robert C Yates (Principal RGS)

April 2017 (Revision B)

SITE : Highbury Grove & Samuel Rhodes Schools, Islington

CLIENT: Philip Cave Associates

RGS – ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANTS Main Office : 52, MILLWAY, NORTHAMPTON NN5 6ES

Tel. 01604 581044 email: [email protected]

A pre-development advisory document, broadly in accord with British Standard 5837 : 2012 ‘Trees in relation to Design, demolition & construction - Recommendations’, designed to inform the 26 April 2017 conceptual design by highlighting the above and below ground arboricultural constraints in the context of a proposed development. Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017 Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017

1.0 Terms of Reference

1.1 We are instructed by Mr Philip Cave of Philip Cave Associates to undertake a pre- development tree survey & impact assessment on land at Highbury Grove and Samuel CONTENTS : Rhodes Schools, which is to be in line with B.S. 5837 : 2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition & Construction - Recommendations’.

1.2 All trees on or immediately adjacent the site have been inspected from ground level Page only. Should further more detailed inspection be deemed appropriate, this will be Number covered under Recommendations. Trees are dynamic living organisms, whose health and condition can be subject to rapid change, depending on a number of external and internal factors. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report relate 1.0 Terms of Reference …………………………………………………………... 3 to the trees at the time of inspection.

2.0 Survey Methodology ………………………………………………………..... 3 1.3 This survey and report has been completed by Robert C Yates, who holds the Arboricultural Association Technicians Certificate and the LANTRA Certificate in Professional Tree Inspection. He is also a professional member of the Consulting 3.0 Site Overview / Design Brief……………………..………………………...... 4 Arborist Society and member of The Arboricultural Association.

4.0 Summary of Findings & Conclusions……………………………………… 5 1.4 This report, its appendices and any subsequent revisions or additional information, will form part of any formal planning application in respect of this site, and as such 5.0 Arboricultural Impact Assessment………………………………………… 6 will be open to public scrutiny and comment.

6.0 Recommendations / Methodology……..…….…………………………….. 8 2.0 Survey Methodology

2.1 The trees have been assessed using the current recommendations, as detailed in British Standard 5837 : 2012 ‘Trees in relation to Design, Demolition & Construction – Recommendations’, in order to arrive at a Retention Category for each individual tree or group of trees. A Root Protection Area (RPA) has been assigned to each tree, based Appendices on its stem diameter and in some cases crown spread, which has then been used to 1. Key to Survey Criteria & Headings produce the Tree Constraints/Protection Plans (attached as appendix 3a/3b). For full 2. Survey Schedule details of the relevant assessment criteria and retention categories see Table 1 of B.S. 3a Tree Constraints Plan (A1) 5837 (attached as appendix 4). 3b Tree Protection Plan (A1) 2.2 All surveyed trees have been given a notional identification i.e. T1 – T13. All collected 4. Table 1 B.S.5837 survey data and work recommendations for the trees is presented in the survey schedule which forms appendix 2 to this report. For the location of all trees see appendix 3a/3b (Tree Constraints/Protection Plans).

RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 2 RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 3

Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017 Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017

3.0 Site Overview / Design brief 4.0 Summary of Findings & Conclusions

3.1 The survey area comprises a small part of the grounds of the school, namely the area 4.1 A total of 13no. individual trees have been surveyed. A breakdown of the numbers of surrounding the existing staff car park, and adjacent highway land. The majority of the trees in each retention category can be seen in the table below: relevant trees are located within the highway, although there are two mature trees located to the southeast corner of the site. Retention Individual Groups of Hedgerows Category Trees (T) Trees (G) (H) 3.2 The development proposal briefly comprises additional teaching facilities and a re-

configured car park; the latter representing the primary consideration in regards to existing trees. A 7 n/a n/a

High Quality

B 5 n/a n/a

Moderate Quality

C 1 n/a n/a T1 Low Quality

T2 U (Unsuitable 0 n/a n/a for retention)

Fig.1 Extract from proposed layout drawing No.111. Access to additional car parking area at bottom right – See also Appendix 3b – Tree Protection Plan Totals 13 0 0

4.2 All U Category trees (poor quality) should generally be removed for reasons of sound

arboricultural practice or health & safety, irrespective of any development proposals,

unless they offer particular conservation value to the site, in which case this will be

highlighted in the survey schedule along with appropriate recommendations. There

are no U category trees within the remit of the survey.

RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 4 RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 5

Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017 Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017

4.3 As regards the C category trees (low quality), it may not always be possible or even desirable to retain low quality trees within the context of a proposed development, unless in such a location that they do not represent a significant constraint on the design brief. Young trees, and those with a stem diameter of less than 150mm, will normally be placed in the C category, unless it is considered that they are of especially good form or are of a species that is particularly rare, in which case they may be upgraded. In certain cases it may be appropriate to consider re-location of young C category trees.

4.4 All A & B Category trees (high & moderate quality) will under normal circumstances be retained on development sites, and should ideally influence and inform the conceptual design, site layout, and in some cases the specific construction methods to be used – The root protection area and/or crown spread of these trees will generally form a construction exclusion zone, although under certain circumstances it may be possible to build or operate within these areas providing that appropriate measures and specifications have been formally agreed between the local planning authority, the consulting arborist and the developer/client.

5.0 Arboricultural Impact Assessment

5.1 Based upon the proposed site layout plan, partly included at Appendix 3, the following Fig.2 Trees T1 (background) & T2 (foreground) – Arrow denotes location of proposed access between trees impacts and implications have been identified and their arboricultural significance assessed.

5.1.3 Much of the proposed works will take place within the root protection zone, including removal of the existing footpath. To avoid any risk of damage to the 5.1.1 Although none of the existing mature trees on site would need to be removed roots of retained trees (most notably T1 & T2), it is important that temporary to facilitate any aspect of the development, there will be a potential conflict where the root protection areas of two trees (T1 & T2) will be compromised fencing is erected around the remaining undisturbed sections of the root protection areas, and that as far as possible the works are undertaken using by the proposed access and part of the re-configured car park; to a much hand tools – See section 6.0 for further guidance. lesser extent one off-site tree (T11) would be similarly compromised. Currently, the affected area is part planted shrubbery and part footpath, the

latter consisting of brick paving setts. The process of construction, would, if 5.1.4 With regard to the other, mainly off-site, trees, root protection areas will not be significantly compromised by the proposed buildings. Nonetheless, there conventionally undertaken (involving excavation), cause damage to the root is a potential conflict between the crowns of three trees (T5, T6 & T7) and the systems of both trees T1 & T2, although we understand that a low impact design has been proposed for this section of the car park, which should reduce proposed buildings; existing clearance between ground level and the lowest part of the crowns of all three trees is approximately 5 metres. Hence, in order any negative impact to insignificant levels. to mitigate any risk of damage to branches, some facilitation pruning of these

5.1.2 It is also understood that a 200mm increase in the level of the existing access trees will be required before construction works commence.

road to the east of the trees is proposed; this will have the effect of minimising

any disruption caused at the interface between existing and proposed hard surfacing, which will be limited to the removal of a section of the existing

concrete retaining kerb – See Fig.2

RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 6 RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 7

Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017 Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017

6.0 Recommendations / Methodology 6.4 No mobile plant or equipment is to be used in the course of removing the existing 6.1 Undertake facilitation pruning to trees T5, T6 & T7 as detailed at Appendix 2; this work footpath, existing kerb stones, or for any excavation works within the defined tree must only be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced specialist contractor, root protection zone. Where mobile plant is required for the purpose of transporting and in accordance with British Standard 3998 (2010) ‘Tree works – materials to or from the work site, it must only be operated upon existing hard recommendations’, subject to formal planning approval. surfaces i.e. the existing car park or the existing access road.

6.2 Temporary tree protection barriers/fencing will be required during the construction phase of the development, the proposed location of which is shown on the Tree Protection Plan at Appendix 3. This fencing should conform to the specification at Fig.3, shall be affixed with appropriate signage, warning that the enclosed areas are strictly off limits to contractors, and shall be erected prior to any enabling works commencing on site, and thereafter shall remain in-situ and in good repair for the

duration of the works.

Fig.3 Specification for temporary tree protection fencing

Above ground stabilising systems for use with 2m high Heras® type fencing

1. Stabiliser strut with base plate secured with ground pins 2. Stabiliser strut mounted on block tray – for use only where ground pins cannot be used e.g. on existing hard surfacing

6.3 The construction of the new access and the first section of the new car park (in total approximately 105 sq.mtrs.), as identified on the plan at Appendix 3b, shall

commence and be completed prior to any other construction works on site. Furthermore, it is recommended that the installation of the specified CellwebTRP® is supervised by the appointed arboriculturist, and that it comprises a minimum depth of 100mm, thereupon to be surfaced with up to 50mm of porous wearing material e.g. porous asphalt or resin bound gravel. At the time of the localised excavation

works to remove the existing concrete kerb, the arboriculturist will advise upon the appropriate treatment of any roots that may be exposed in the process.

RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 8 RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 9

Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017 Grey

on plan Mid blue Mid Dark Red Light green Light Identification APPENDIX 1 :

KEY TO SURVEY CRITERIA & HEADINGS:

Tree No. Notional ID given to each tree or group of trees (unless tagged)

Species Botanical name with common name in brackets

Age Class Young, semi-mature, early mature, mature or over-mature

Height Estimated in metres 3 Mainly 3 values, cultural including conservation ofTrees, or woodlands groups historical, conservation, significant commemorative (e.g. value other or trees or wood-pasture) veteran or materialTrees conservation with value cultural other or materialno Trees conservation with value cultural other Crown Spread Crown spread (North / East / South / West) measured from centre of trunk, in metres

Crown clearance Approximate height between lowest part of canopy and ground level (metres)

Stem dia. Trunk diameter (mm) measured at 1.5m above ground level, or other height as specified

Vigour Objective assessment of a tree’s vigour e.g. shoot extension growth (normal, reduced or low)

Amenity Subjective assessment of a tree’s contribution to the amenity

value of the immediate area: High to Low 2 Mainly qualities landscape ofTrees, particular or woodlands groups importance visual as arboricultural features landscape and/or Trees numbers, present in usually such as groups or woodlands, growing rating attract collective a higher that they might or trees as individuals; than they so situated but occurring as collectives to contribution makeas to visual little locality wider the Trees or woodlands, groups present in conferringthis them on without but landscape collective greater significantly or only trees offering and/or low value; benefits landscape temporary/transient

Condition Good, Fair or Poor, based on the general health and structural condition of the tree

Recommendations Remedial works in order to facilitate retention, or recommendation to remove

Ret.Cat. Based on B.S.5837 Retention categories:

A = Those of High Quality & Value

B = Those of Moderate Quality & Value (Sub-categories 1, 2, 3 for A & B categories in brackets)

C = Those of Low Quality & Value assessment quality Table for tree chart : Cascade 1 (including Criteria where subcategories appropriate) including collapse, to lossdue expected is serious,structural irremediable,early a • Treesdefect, their have such that that loss of reason, the for whatever U trees where, (e.g. after become removal of category other unviable will those that pruning) mitigated by companion be cannot shelter decline signs of immediate, overall significant, irreversible • Trees or are showing and are dead that trees quality low very or of trees nearby, other safety and/or health of the significance to pathogens • Trees infected with suppressing adjacent trees of quality better preserve; to see 4.5.7. desirable be might it which conservation value or potential NOTE Category U trees can have existing qualities 1 Mainly arboricultural good Treesare particularly that if examples species, of especially their are that those or rare or unusual; componentsessential of groups or formal or semi-formal arboricultural features dominantand/or the (e.g. avenue) an trees within principal category Trees in might that included be because of are downgraded but A, presence (e.g. of impaired condition remediable defects, though significant past unsympathetic including management storm and damage), such for to be suitable are unlikely that they trees or years; 40 for beyond retention to necessary quality lacking special the designation A merit category the Unremarkable limited merit trees of very do they that or such impaired condition in higher categories not qualify

U = Unsuitable for retention

RPA Root Protection Area, measured in metres (radius) from centre of tree, or may be expressed in m2 quality with an an with quality quality with an an with quality quality with an an with quality

RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 10 high moderate low

APPENDIX 4 APPENDIX and definitionCategory Trees unsuitable for retention Note) (see U Category they that Those such condition a in as retained be realistically cannot context of the trees in living 10 usethan forcurrent longer land years Trees to be considered for retention A Category Trees of estimated remaining expectancy life years 40 of least at B Category Trees of estimated remaining expectancy life years 20 of least at C Category Trees of estimated remaining expectancy life trees young or years, 10 of least at a stem with diameter of 150mm

APPENDIX 2 : SURVEY SCHEDULE (page 1 of 2)

crown spread Ret. Tree Species Age crown stem Cat. RPA vigour amenity Condition Comments Recommendations No. (common name) class clearance dia. (sub (m)

height N E S W cat.)

Platanus x T1 acerifolia mature 20 10 7 3.5 8 3.5 770 normal high Good/fair No comments No works required B (2) 9.3 (London Plane)

Platanus x T2 acerifolia mature 23 9 8 5.5 9 4.5 600 normal high Good/fair No comments No works required B (2) 7.2 (London Plane)

Lapsed pollard Tilia x europaea T3 mature 23 9 6 6 9 3 650 normal high Good/fair form, branches No works required B (1) 7.8 (common Lime) fouling street lamp

Platanus x T4 acerifolia mature 20 10 5 9 7 5 560 normal high Good/fair No comments No works required A (2) 6.7 (London Plane)

Reduce lateral crown Platanus x Minor upper crown spread to northwest T5 acerifolia mature 20 9 5 10 5 5 450 low high fair B (2) 5.4 die-back by 2.4m to facilitate (London Plane) construction works

Reduce lateral crown Platanus x spread to northwest T6 acerifolia mature 20 9 10 9 5 5 680 normal high Good/fair No comments A (2) 8.1 by 2.4m to facilitate (London Plane) construction works

Highbury Grove School & Samuel Rhodes School (Sixth Form Centre) : Tree Survey Report - Apr2017

crown spread Ret. Tree Species Age crown stem Cat. RPA vigour amenity Condition Comments Recommendations No. (common name) class clearance dia. (sub (m)

height N E S W cat.) Reduce lateral Platanus x branches in northwest T7 acerifolia mature 20 11 8 9 4.5 5 610 normal high Good/fair No comments quadrant of crown by A (2) 7.3 (London Plane) up to 2.5m to facilitate construction works

Platanus x Slightly reduced T8 acerifolia mature 20 10 4 8 6 5 540 normal high fair No works required B (2) 6.5 vigour (London Plane)

Platanus x T9 acerifolia mature 23 10 5 10 6 5 670 normal high good No comments No works required A (2) 8.1 (London Plane)

Platanus x T10 acerifolia mature 23 10 5 9 3 5.5 620 normal high good No comments No works required A (2) 7.5 (London Plane)

Platanus x T11 acerifolia mature 23 8 9 9 3 8 640 normal high good No comments No works required A (2) 7.7 (London Plane)

Platanus x Co-dominant T12 acerifolia mature 23 9 9 9 4 6 620 normal high good No works required A (2) 7.5 from 4m (London Plane)

Robinia pseudoacacia Semi- Remove to facilitate T13 6.5 3 3.5 3 3 0 150 normal Mod/low Good/fair No comments C (1.8) ‘Frisia’ mature new landscaping (False Acacia)

RGS – Arboricultural Consultants 12