Barkantine Estate, Westferry Road, London E14. Statement... · 1.0 Introduction On 22nd June 2010 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, with Farrer Huxley Associates submitted an application

Barkantine Estate, Westferry Road, London E14.

A Report in fulfillment of conditions attached to Planning Permission PA/10/01319

19/01/2011

1.0 Introduction On 22nd June 2010 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, with Farrer Huxley Associates submitted an application to the Tower Hamlets Planning department for external environmental refurbishment/enhancement works to Barkantine Estate E14. Tower Hamlets granted conditional permission for development on 27 October 2010. See Appendix 1 for copy of the letter outlining conditions. This report has been submitted to satisfy the details of Condition 4 as set out in Permission PA/10/01319. This relates to existing trees and their protection during construction in accordance with BS 5837 (2005). Appendix 2 of this report contains all the relevant drawings in A3 format. 2.0 Tree survey In December 2010 Farrer Huxley Associates (Project Landscape Architects) commissioned Arbtech Consulting Limited to complete a tree location and condition survey with advice on tree protection areas in relation to the proposed construction works. The proposed works at Barkantine comprise the following environmental works:

• Playground refurbishments at Topmast Point, the Quarterdeck and Kedge House

• General landscape improvements to the Quarterdeck including raised planters, new benches, and feature paving

• Installation of refuse stations to facilitate the proper disposal of recycling, refuse and bulk waste and to tidy the streetscape.

• General landscape refurbishments such as replacement of broken pavers, repairs to tarmac estate roads, and painting existing railings.

• Arboricultural works

The environmental works are confined to limited areas of the application site (Barkantine Housing Estate) and trees in sections of the Estate beyond these areas will be unaffected by the proposed works. As agreed with Council Officers prior to submission, only those areas of the Estate within the vicinity of the proposed works have been surveyed and these are illustrated on drawing 0179-Barkantine Estate – Tree Constraints Plan TCP02/4 by Arbtech Consulting Ltd. Trees in the remainder of the Barkantine Estate will not be affected by construction works, therefore survey and tree protection will not be required. Arbtech arboricultural consultants carried out the tree survey in accordance with BS 5837 (2005) – Trees in Relation to Construction and produced the survey recording location, details of tree species, dimensions and condition. (Refer to Appendix 2 for items 0179-Tree Constraints Plan & 0179-Survey Schedule for tabulated list of species, dimensions and condition). Arbtech included information regarding root protection areas, for trees in vulnerable locations relating to the proposed works. The locations of the recommended tree

protection fencing are shown on FHA drawings P492-03-CN-51, P492-03CN-52 & P492-03-CN-53, P492-03-CN-62, P492-03-CN-63, P492-03-CN-64. NOTES:

a) Tree survey and tree protection plans have been plotted using the available OS base mapping.

b) Protective fencing will be erected only around trees likely to be affected by disturbance/construction works.

c) All levels in the vicinity of the existing trees and within their RPA will not be subject to any alterations as a result of the proposed environmental works.

d) In line with the submitted planning application, trees on the estate are to be retained wherever possible. As a result of the Arboricultural Survey a small number existing trees have been identified as dead, dying or severely damaged. It is therefore the intention of Island Homes Housing Association to remove these trees in the interests of public safety. The trees to be removed are illustrated on the submitted plans and the arboricultural justification for their removal can be found in the Arbtech 0179-Survey Sheet.

Trees to be removed are as follows: Topmast Point T8:R 1no. Ornamental Cherry (Prunus spp, Rosaceae) is to be removed and replaced because it was found to be ring-barked at base to 0.5m above ground level. T20:R 1no. Manna Ash (Fraxinus ornus Oleaceae) is to be removed and replaced due to poor condition. G6:C2 5no. Norway Maples (Acer platanoides, Hippocastanaceae); 1 no. Ornamental Cherry, (Prunus spp, Rosaceae) are to be removed and replaced due to poor condition caused by vandalism. G7:C2 The arboricultural report calls for the removal of the poorest specimens of the group composed of 1no. Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna, Rosaceae); 2no. Aspen (Populus tremula, Salicaceae); 5no. Norway Maple (Acer platanoides Hippocastanaceae); 2no. Sorbus spp Rosaceae. Qualified arboriculturalist to attend site prior to commencement of construction to advise on which species should be retained. Any trees that are removed will be replaced within the park. 3.0 General notes on Tree Protection Adequate protection, both above and below ground, is essential for trees that are to be retained as part of a development. The British Standard BS5837: 2005 Trees in Relation to Construction Recommendations gives advice for ensuring that the negative impacts of development on trees are minimised. The guidance recommends that there should be a root protection area (RPA) around trees which is kept free of all construction activities by means of an exclusion zone enforced through protective fencing or ground protection. The RPA is calculated as the area equivalent to a circle with a radius of 12 times the trunk diameter at a height of 1.5 m above ground level. The guidance recommends that the root protection area should be protected by means of fencing and/or ground protection.

Figure 1. Diagram to illustrate design of protective fencing

The proposed root protection zones have been based on the values calculated for root protection area and are illustrated on the Arbtech plan TCP0179 . These plans are included in Appendix 2. Fencing will consist of a scaffold framework (not wooden posts), well braced to resist impacts, with vertical tubes spaced at a maximum interval of 3 m (Figure 1). Onto this, weld mesh panels or 2m high shuttering board will be securely fixed with wire or scaffold clamps. Weld mesh panels on rubber or concrete feet will not be used as these are not resistant to impact and are too easily removed by site operatives. High visibility all weather notices will be securely attached to the barriers around protection zones with the words as shown in Figure 2 below. Where long lengths of barrier are erected a sign will be attached at intervals of no less than 6 m. Figure 2. Wording to be included in high visibility all-weather sign attached to protective fencing

No toxic materials will be stored within the root protection zone (e.g. oil, diesel) and no mixing of potentially toxic materials (e.g. cement) will be carried out within the protection zone. Within the protection zone no operations or changes in level may take place. Note clause 8.4.2 BS 5837: 2005 for activities which are forbidden. Where work within the canopy is unavoidable the minimum protection zone can be calculated using table 1 of BS 5837: 2005 and reduced by up to one third on one side only following instructions from the landscape architect or arboriculturalist. If temporary vehicular access or scaffolding is required within a protected area, clauses 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 shall be observed of BS 5837: 2005. All excavation works within the protected area shall be carried out by hand. Trenches for footings should be kept as narrow as possible. Existing ground levels around the excavations should not be disturbed. Only after all operations on site have been completed will fencing and ground protection be removed in order to allow final landscaping. Please refer to the Appendix 1 for Tower Hamlets Planning letter; and Appendix 2 for all relevant Arbtech and FHA drawings.

5.0 Appendix 1 Letter From Tower Hamlets Planning Dept outlining planning conditions.

6.0 Appendix 2 Contents: Arbtech survey drawing including boundaries of areas surveyed Tree schedule FHA Drawing Issue Sheet FHA Tree survey drawings FHA Tree Protection drawings

T32:B1

T33:B1T34:B1

T35:B1

T36:B1T37:B1

T38:C1

G16:B2

G17:B1

G18:B2

T29:C1

T30:C1

T31:C1

T12:B1T13:C1T14:B1T15:C1T16:B1

T17:B1T18:B1T1:B1

T2:B1

T3:C1T4:C1T5:C1

T6:B1T7:B1

T8:RT9:B1

T10:C1

T11:C1

T19:B1T20:R

T21:B1T22:B1

T23:B1

G1:B1

G2:B1G3:B2

G4:B2

G5:B2G6:C2

G7:C2

T25:C1

T26:C1 T27:C1

T28:B1

T24:B1

G15:B1

G14:B1

G8:B1

G9:B1 G10:B1G11:B1

G12:B1

G13:B1

T83:B

2

T84:B

2

T85:B

2

T86:B

2

T87:B

2

A0

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

Drawing Number

ARBTECH CONSULTING LIMITED

REV.

1/2 Charter CourtWell House BarnsChesterCH4 0DHTelephone: 0845 0176950

Survey schedule (Appendix I)

Tree survey field data compliant to British Standard 5837:2005

Date/s of survey Start 14/12/2010 Finish 14/12/2010

Survey undertaken Contract 0179 Site

Copyright © Arbtech Consulting Ltd 2010

Item ref Species Age Vitality BS Cat BS Cat Clr Height DBH N S E W Notes Mgt reco's

T1 London Plane, Platanus

acerifolia, Platanaceae

M Norm B 1 2 18.2 620 9 8 9 11 No significant defects None




T3 Indian Bean Tree, Catalpa

bignonioides, Bignoniaceae

EM Norm C 1 2.5 10.6 190 3 3 3 3 No significant defects None



EM Norm C 1 2 7 150 3 3 3 3 Old wound on main stem

@ 0.5m above ground

level - no implications

None



EM Norm C 1 2 7 120 2 2 2 2 Stem debarked by

approximately 30% from

ground level to 2m above

ground level

None

T6 Tree of Heaven, Ailanthus

altissima, Simaroubaceae




EM Norm B 1 2 10 290 3 3 3 3 No significant defects None

T8 Ornamental Cherry, Prunus

spp, Rosaceae

EM Poor R 2 8.3 240 5 5 3 3 Ring-barked at base to

0.5m above ground level

Remove

T9 Common Ash, Fraxinus

excelsior, Oleaceae

EM Norm B 1 3 12.8 240 4 4 4 4 No access to base for

inspection. Stem

obscured by climbing

plant to 1m above

ground level. No

significant defects

observed.

None

T10 Fig, Ficus carica, Moraceae M Norm C 1 2 6.7 350 3 3 4 4 Fluted stem with wounds

and included bark at

main branch junction - no

implications

None

T11 Sorbus spp, Rosaceae M Norm C 1 2 6 350 2 2 2 2 No significant defects None

T12 Common Alder, Alnus

glutinosa, Betulaceae

M Norm B 1 2 17.2 400 5 4 4 6 Ivy to 10m above ground

level obscuring stem

Remove ivy

Isle of Dogs - Barkantine Estate

T13 Norway Maple, Acer

platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae

EM Norm C 1 2 10.1 350 5 5 6 6 Ivy to 7m above ground

level obscuring stem

Remove ivy

T14 Manna Ash, Fraxinus ornus,

Oleaceae




EM Norm C 1 2 16 310 6 6 0 6 Asymmetric canopy to

the West

None


Oleaceae



Oleaceae

M Norm B 1 2.5 21 470 7 9 7 7 No significant defects None



M Norm B 1 2 18 560 8 11 8 7.5 No significant defects None


Oleaceae

EM Norm B 1 2 10.1 290 3 3 2 2 No significant defects None


Oleaceae

EM Poor R 2 12 290 5 3 3 3 No significant defects Remove


Oleaceae

M Norm B 1 2 13 300 5 5 5 5 No access to base of

tree - in building site. No

sig. Defects observed.

None



M Norm B 1 2 17.1 600 8 8 8 8 Large open cavity at

base - 0.5m high x .1m

wide x .3m deep

Investigate

G1 3 x Norway Maple, Acer

platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae

EM Norm B 1 2 10.5 Average

220

0 0 0 0 No significant defects None


platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae

EM Norm B 1 2.5 13 Average

300



platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae

EM Norm B 2 2 9 Average

210



platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae


200



platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae


250



platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae; 1 x

Ornamental Cherry, Prunus

spp, Rosaceae

EM Poor C 2 2 9 Average

250

0 0 0 0 Trees in poor condition

due to vandalism

Remove

T23 Wild Cherry, Prunus avium,

Rosaceae


G7 1 x Hawthorn - Crataegus

monogyna, Rosaceae ; 2 x

Aspen, Populus tremula,

Salicaceae ; 5 x Norway

Maple, Acer platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae ; 2 x

Sorbus spp, Rosaceae

EM Norm /

Poor

C 2 1.5 10 Average

300

0 0 0 0 Some trees in poor

condition due to

vandalism - ring barked

Replace poorest

specimens


platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae


300



platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae


300


G10 3 x Common Alder, Alnus


M Norm B 1 2 12.5 Average

350

0 0 0 0 One tree is leaning on

metal fence.

Consider replacing tree

leaning on metal fence

G11 2 x Tree of Heaven, Ailanthus


EM Norm B 1 2.5 6 Average

300


G12 1 x Tree of Heaven, Ailanthus

altissima, Simaroubaceae; 1

x Norway Maple, Acer

platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae

M Norm B 1 2 13 Average

400

0 0 0 0 The maple tree has

superficial wounds to the

bark from 0-3m above

ground level

None

G13 1 x Austrian Pine, Pinus

nigra, Pinoideae ; 5 x

Ornamental Cherry, Prunus

spp, Rosaceae ; 1 x

Hawthorn, Crataegus

monogyna, Rosaceae ; 1 x

Norway Maple, Acer

platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae

EM-M Norm B 1 2 10 Average

250


T24 False Acacia - Robinia

pseudoacacia, Leguminosae

M Norm B 1 2.5 17 380 6 6 6 6 Growing in brick planter.

Open cavity in main stem

at 4m above ground level

- no implications

Monitor

G14 2 x London Plane, Platanus


M Norm B 1 2.5 20 Average

750



platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae


300



spp, Rosaceae

M Norm C 1 2 14.2 450 7 7 7 2 Included bark union at

main branch junction with

decay

Investigate / remove

T26 Norway Maple, Acer

platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae

EM Norm C 1 2 7 250 3 3 3 2 No significant defects None


spp, Rosaceae

EM Norm C 1 2 7 260 3 3 3 2 No significant defects None



M Norm B 1 3 20 680 7 7 7 3 No significant defects None

T29 Common Juniper, Juniperus

communis, Cupressaceae

M Norm C 1 0.5 5 300 MS 2 2 2 2 No significant defects None


spp, Rosaceae

M Norm C 1 2 5 400 MS 4 4 4 4 twin main stems

entwined - no access to

base to inspect. Included

bark from 0-2m above

ground level

Consider replacing with

better quality specimen

T31 Common Juniper, Juniperus

communis, Cupressaceae

M Norm C 1 0.5 5 300 MS 1 1 1 1 Growing in, and pushing

against wall of

gravelboard planter

Consider replacing to

avoid damage to planter

T32 Common Lime, Tilia x

europea, Tiliaceae





T34 Common Alder, Alnus




platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae


300




EM Norm B 1 2.5 10.4 310 4 4 4 4 No significant defects None

T36 Swedish Whitebeam, Sorbus

intermedia, Rosaceae


T37 Swedish Whitebeam, Sorbus

intermedia, Rosaceae

M Norm B 1 2 6 240 4 4 4 4 Strimmer damage to

base - no implications

None


platanoides,

Hippocastanaceae; 1 x

Common Lime, Tilia x

europea, Tiliaceae


350



spp, Rosaceae

EM Norm C 1 1.5 4 100 3 3 3 4 No significant defects None

G18 2 x Common Alder, Alnus

glutinosa, Betulaceae; 1 x

Tree of Heaven, Ailanthus


EM - M Norm B 2 1 11.8 Average

300



europea, Tiliaceae



europea, Tiliaceae



europea, Tiliaceae



europea, Tiliaceae



europea, Tiliaceae


Documents

Barkantine Estate, Westferry Road, London E14. Statement... · 1.0 Introduction On 22nd June 2010 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, with Farrer Huxley Associates submitted an application