Trees at Hillcroft

 

    Cedar of Lebanon in front of Powell House
 
This is the fourth post about Hillcroft College planning application 22/000607 and pertains to trees. It was written by C. Mellish and discusses the trees to be lost, which could total 73. There is a  lack of mitigation for the multiple functions provided by the woodland, with no recognition for the veteran oaks that will be lost. Veteran trees are considered by Natural England to be 'irreplaceable habitats' for the purpose of the Biodiversity Net Gain metric; previous posts pertain to:

Oak to the rear of Powell House

 

Claire writes:

Hillcroft College planning application is the worst for nature that I've seen for a long time. Residents raising concerns about the number of trees to be felled, are told that they are "self-seeded and unimportant". The badger report has disappeared but there is no redacted report supplied for public consultation about this key species. So any potential stopping up of badger setts has been airbrushed out of public discussion for the planning decision. There are no impact assessments for noise and disturbance to nature.

Impacts to the Local Nature Reserve - The Wood and R Jefferies Bird Sanctuary - are barely mentioned. Yet the woodland habitat is only separated by a footpath.

An EIA is desperately needed for this site, as well as an impact assessment for the Local Nature Reserve.

·       two trees (T29 and T1) are described with the same Tree Protection Order ID - TPO1, which leads to serious confusion

·       another howler mislabels a key boundary oak as a minor tree in a tree group. As a result, it's unclear if they know what they're felling.

·       they say they're only chopping down one tree covered by a TPO, but it's 3 if you look through carefully. For example, the Landscape Statement claims only one TPO (T5) to be felled, but later mention intending to fell a very large mature and key oak - T1/TPO1 at the South Bank road entrance to the old college.

·       at least eight TPOs are to be cut back to accommodate buildings or routeways so their growth/lifespan will be limited

·       at least 11 TPOs will have incursions into their root protection areas (RPAs) so their growth/lifespan may be impaired

·       The application documents can't decide what the key boundary tree at the northern corner with South Bank is. In the Landscape Statement it is not a TPO, but in the Design & Access Statement it's shown as a TPO and Category A. In the Arboricultural Assessment it’s a TPO, but described as a Category C sycamore.

Despite an arboricultural assessment of high landscape contribution, moderate vitality and many years of predicted life, it's to be removed to create the new entrance and car park.

·       They're also removing at least one veteran oak (irreplaceable habitat). It was recommended highly for retention by their own ecology report

·       There is no assessment of veteran trees for the site, despite the planning requirement to protect them, and allow 15m buffers around them so they're not impacted by buildings.

·       They say they are retaining the 90m hedge (along the whole of the boundary next to the station/ Glenbuck) but they are only leaving a fragment here, and putting in a tiny bit of hedge on the other side of the site - both have no connectivity left for animals trying to traverse the site from the Local Nature Reserve (The Wood and Richard Jefferies Bird Sanctuary).

·       The Urban Greening Factor calculations give no indication of how they arrived at baseline figures for the site, and no existing site UGF is given for any comparison. So is it really better for sustainable drainage? What about soil erosion on this steep slope, due to all the felling and damage to trees?

·       Looking at the replanting of trees, there's still a net loss of over 40 trees and the replacements will be tiddlers for many years.

·       The Biodiversity Net Gain calculations are equally difficult to fathom. For example, there's no calculation shown of how they arrived at ~50 improvement in the hedge habitat. Baseline figures and classifications are hard to verify.

·       The ecology reports look written in haste and submitted unchecked - they suffer from a lack of clarity and lots of typos, even 'Surbition'.

1.       The Bat Survey lacks emergence times (really important) and no assessment of the survey results, despite presenting scoring/value guidance tables for valuing bat activity.

2.       In the Ground/Aerial Tree Inspection Report, it isn't clear which site trees they scoped for bat potential (eg, was it all trees potentially impacted, including RPA inclusions?).

·       At least 20 central mature trees to be felled (14 are Cat.B): At least 2 weren't even mentioned in the arboricultural report's fell list

·       40 early mature trees to be felled for the new 4-story block of flats by Oakhill public footpath - linear groups of hornbeam and yew forming a hedge-tunnel. The flats will be only a few metres away from the path, what is is (currently) a woodland walk.

·       11 trees are to be felled to make way for a new entrance and car park.

·       .Incursions into RPAs - minimum of 18 mature site trees affected in total

·       The noise report only deals with the proposed heating plants, and noise screening mitigations for nearest buildings. Not for wildlife.

Building a new college and creche + 2 blocks of flats and adding at least 200 more people on site (with events and business hire planned)...generates no extra noise impacts?

·       Connectivity for wildlife is fragmented by felling and removal of hedging, new buildings, roads, paths and internal internal walls and fencing. There is also a load of proposed lighting in the gardens.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Please share your thoughts

Most viewed

Heritage Trees part 2: street trees.

Image
  Oaks and maples Cambridge Gardens 2019   Street trees can often be the most beautiful objects in our streets. They are important to their communities as well as having environmental benefits. They are a living history in our landscape and can have particular connections. They may be fragments of a previous landscape incorporated into a modern street scene, such as the oaks at Cambridge Gardens once  part of the Duke of Cambridge's estate.  A great read with information on how to research street trees is a  History of Street Trees by Dr. M. Johnston.  London plane trees CRE 1976 Beech tree, Chesterton Terrace 1976 Studies show that the difference in local tree cover can reflect the various socio-economic groups. In Victorian times middle class areas were planted with many street trees or had higher quality front gardens than working class districts; now referred to as 'green equity'. It can be demonstrated by looking at old photos of the seven...
Read more

Fishing the Hogsmill

Image
Fly-fishing the Hogsmill   It is interesting to see the river from a different perspective: the Hogsmill is popular with anglers at this time of year; although it is unusual to see someone fly- fishing. A chub has just been caught on bread and it looks a good size. Trout are sometimes seen in the Hogsmill and can sit in the weir notch by the school. Our own Richard Jefferies in his book 'Nature Near London'  remarked on the Hogsmill trout as far up as Tolworth Hall Bridge (now the A240). chub    This fish was carefully unhooked and orientated in the swim where it soon finds it way - probably to the next father and son - sitting further upstream. These anglers have caught the 'ghost' koi within the last two weeks and appear to be the second successful pair to catch the pond-escapee in the last few days. Ghost koi are a British invention. They were produced by accident in the early 80’s when a farmer allowed a mirror carp and a koi to spawn together. The offspri...
Read more

Seething Wells: they've done it again

Image
The last day of May, I went to see if I could find the black redstart that had been widely reported, no luck but it will turn up again on one of the old buildings. The lush vegetation was looking beautiful between the Filter Beds at Seething Wells. I made a note of the breeding birds: goldfinches twinkling away, blue tits gathering food, sand martins flying over the FB's (only two this year unfortunately) moorhens and some scruffy little coot chicks entangled in the algal blooms.   Proud parents were showing off their four Canada chicks; they can cover a lot of ground in a short space of time they were soon feeding on water pepper and bistort gleaned from  the ziggerat-sided basins. A song thrush sang from the wharf alongside greenfinches as well as the seasonal chiff chaff; although this year all numbers are down, reflecting not only the topsy-turvy Spring but also the continued tumble in insect numbers (even seed eating birds are dependent on insects to feed their youn...
Read more