A16 Ecology: Application 2 - LBHF

Transcription

1 A16 Ecology: Application 2 - LBHF Addendum to the Environmental Statement Volume I January 2012

2 Introduction A16.1 This Chapter of the Addendum to the June 2011 Environmental Statement (ES) (hereafter referred to as the ES Addendum ) considers the amendments that have been made to the Earls Court Development Proposals in the context of ecology. Consideration is given to the changes that have been made to the outline elements of the Earls Court Development Proposals, in addition to the submission of details in relation to scale, layout and appearance of development plots WV01, WV02 and WV05 and their subsequent potential affect on the likely impacts to ecology defined within the June 2011 ES (Volume I). A16.2 In addition, as appropriate, additional environmental information and clarifications are provided within this ES Addendum Chapter as a result of consultation responses received to date on this technical aspect of the ES. A16.3 This Chapter of the Addendum has been prepared by URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited, who has used professional judgment in determining whether the alterations to the Earls Court Development Proposals will result in any changes to the residual impacts of the Earls Court Development Proposals on ecology as identified within the June 2011 ES (Volume I). Summary of the Conclusions of the June 2011 Environmental Statement A16.4 Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I) considers the potential impact of the Earls Court Development Proposals (Development Option (Site Wide)) on ecology. Development Option (Site Wide) results in the redevelopment of the entire Earls Court Site. A16.5 Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I) summarises the relevant legislative and planning policy context (as of June 2011); describes the baseline conditions currently existing across the Earls Court Site and in the immediate vicinity; the potential impacts arising from the Earls Court Development Proposals; and presents the required mitigation measures necessary to remove or reduce significant adverse ecological impacts. A16.6 The assessment presented within Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I) has been undertaken in accordance with the standards specified by the Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (Ref. A16-1). A16.7 The Earls Court Site does not fall within any ecological statutory site designations. There are two non-statutory designated sites within the Earls Court Site (The West London and District Line and the West London Line South of Earls Court) which are Sites of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (SBINC). West Brompton Cemetery is also a SBINC but is located circa 50m to the southeast of the Earls Court Site. A16.8 Receptors present, or potentially present, on the Earls Court Site that may be impacted by the Earls Court Development Proposals are; the existing green corridor, neutral grassland, other habitats present (e.g. parkland / scattered trees, introduced scrub and amenity grassland) bats, black redstart, breeding birds, reptiles, invertebrates and other mammals e.g. fox. June 2011 Summary of Residual Impacts to Ecology A16.9 Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I) concludes that with the implementation of a landscape and mitigation strategy, the potential adverse impacts of demolition, construction and through the completion and operation of the Earls Court Development Proposals on ecological receptors on-site will be reduced to residual impacts of between negligible and minor beneficial significance. Features that have been incorporated into the landscaping strategy will also mitigate for the loss of habitats within the West London and District Line and West London Line South of Earls Court SBINC. June 2011 Cumulative Impact Assessment A16.10 In addition to the assessment of the Earls Court Development Proposals alone, Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I) considers the potential for cumulative impacts. The following Cumulative Impact Assessment Scenarios are considered: SCENARIO 1: The Earls Court Development Proposals with other Cumulative Schemes; and SCENARIO 2: The Earls Court Development Proposals PLUS the Seagrave Road Development Proposals PLUS other Cumulative Schemes. A16.11 Each of these scenarios is discussed in more detail below. SCENARIO 1: The Earls Court Development Proposals PLUS Cumulative Schemes A16.12 The Earls Court Development Proposals in combination with the other cumulative schemes will result in an overall greening of the local area, as well as enhancement to the ecology at the Earls Court Site itself. The Earls Court Development Proposals in conjunction with the other cumulative schemes would contribute towards beneficial cumulative impacts on the local ecology. SCENARIO 2: The Earls Court Development Proposals PLUS Seagrave Road Development Proposals PLUS other Cumulative Schemes A16.13 The Seagrave Road Development Proposals will include a level of biodiversity enhancements (Ref. A16-2). The Earls Court Development Proposals in addition to other cumulative schemes within 1km of the Earls Court Site and the emerging Seagrave Road Development Proposals will therefore result in an overall greening of the local area. Both the Earls Court and Seagrave Road Development Proposals and the other cumulative schemes would contribute towards beneficial cumulative impacts on the local ecology. Further Information and Clarifications as a Result of Consultation A16.14 The following sections of this Chapter of the ES Addendum either provide further environmental information or present clarifications on the information presented within Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I) as a result of consultation on the ES. The full consultation comments and the Applicant s responses can be found within the Addendum to ES Volume III: Appendix B. The distinction between the provision of further environmental information or clarifications is made in the following sections of this Chapter. Clarification on the Basis of the Impact Assessment & Testing of the Maximum and Minimum Parameters A16.15 The ecological impact assessment undertaken of the June 2011 Earls Court Development Proposals was based on the proposed landscaping strategy for the Earls Court Site. Whilst indirectly the landscape strategy is dependent on the parameters (in terms of the amount of open space created by the Development Proposals), the principles of the landscaping strategy in terms of ecological mitigation measures and enhancements are independent of the parameters and the amount of development proposed. A16.16 The landscape strategy has been amended to incorporate details of layout, scale and appearance for buildings proposed within development plots WV01, WV02 and WV05; however the key principles of the landscaping strategy have not changed. A16.17 The key principles of the landscaping strategy that are relevant to the ecological impact assessment are as follows: No net loss of trees; Creation of wet woodland within the Lost River Gardens of 2200m2 and made up of species including alder and ash; Creation of native multispecies hedges; Provision of vertical greenery on buildings where practicable; A16-1

3 Extensive green roofs will be implemented on all roofs larger than 100m 2 that are either flat or gently sloped, making up at least 75% of the roof space of these roofs. Semi extensive green roofs such as brown roofs and sedum will be implemented on all smaller roofs; Creation of amenity grassland, species rich grassland and wildflower meadows; Creation of a minimum area of 450m 2 of neutral grassland; Provision of boxes for birds and bats; Incorporation of deadwood into the landscaping at both ground and roof level for stag beetles, hedgehog and reptiles; Creation of freshwater habitats (ponds and bird basins); and Creation of linear habitats for example the Lost River Gardens (of circa 20,000m 2 ). A16.18 The only change to the principles behind the landscaping strategy proposed by the revised Earls Court Development Proposals that is relevant to ecology is the area of extensive green roofs that will be implemented. Within the June 2011 ES it was stated that all roofs larger than 100m 2 that are either flat or gently sloped will have extensive green roofs, making up at least 75% of the roof space on these roofs (equivalent to a total of 15,800m 2 of roof space). This area has been amended as part of the revised Planning Applications; the extensive green roofs will now make up a total of 16,000m 2 of roof space of those that are either flat or gently sloped and are larger than 100m 2. This equates to 15 % of the illustrative master plan building footprint, whereas the previous extensive green roof space equated to 14% of the illustrative master plan building footprint. A16.19 It is considered that the ecological impact assessment based on the key principles of the proposed landscaping strategy, both in relation to the June 2011 Earls Court Development Proposals and as considered in this ES Addendum for the revised Earls Court Development Proposals presents a robust assessment of the likely impacts to ecology. Irrespective of the parameters, the key principles behind the landscape strategy remain applicable to the revised Earls Court Development Proposals. Further Assessment of Impacts Pre Mitigation A16.20 Table A16-1 below presents the pre-mitigation ecological impact assessment. Further Assessment of Residual Impacts (Post Mitigation) A16.21 Table A16-2 summarises the residual impacts of the Earls Court Development Proposals which have been revised to take into account of comments received from consultees. Specifically, the revised impact assessment accounts for the ecological enhancements associated with the landscaping strategy on completion and occupation of the Earls Court Development Proposals rather than both throughout the deconstruction, demolition and construction phases and on completion and occupation. The assessment of residual impacts takes into account the new habitats created through the landscaping strategy that will mitigate for some of the habitats lost to the development and provide new habitats for species which currently use the site and which may be displaced when their habitats are removed. It is acknowledged that the new habitats will not be fully instated or of value to animals until the operational phase of the development and therefore will not mitigate for impacts incurred in the site preparation, deconstruction, demolition and construction phase. Table A16-1 Ecology Impact Assessment (Pre Mitigation) January 2012 Ecological Receptor West London and District Line West London Line south of Earls Court West Brompton Cemetery Green corridor Neutral grassland Other habitats present Bats Black redstart Common breeding birds Reptiles Invertebrate assemblage Stag beetle Other mammals Nature of Impact Site Preparation, Deconstruction / Demolition & Construction Impact (Pre Mitigation) Completed & Occupied Development Impact (Pre Mitigation) Minor beneficial Overshadowing Overshadowing Minor adverse Minor adverse A16-2

4 Table A16-2 Ecology Residual Impact Assessment (Post Mitigation) January 2012 Ecological Receptor Nature of Impact Mitigation *Site Preparation, Deconstruction / Demolition & Construction Residual Impact **Completed & Occupied Development Residual Impact West London and District Line West London Line South of Table Earls A16-2 Habitat Residual Creation Ecology Impact Assessment (Post Mitigation) January 2012 Court Overshadowing None Required West Brompton Cemetery Green corridor Neutral grassland Other habitats present Bats Black redstart Other Breeding birds Reptiles Invertebrate assemblage Stag beetle Other Mammals Overshadowing None Required Check mature trees and buildings with bat potential prior to removal* Landscaping Strategy and bat boxes** Sensitive lighting of adjacent habitats** Site will not be left dormant for over two weeks during the nesting season, or the site will be checked for the presence of black redstarts*. Vegetation and building clearance undertaken outside the bird-breeding season or under watching brief*. Vegetation removed slowly and potential hibernacula dismantled by hand*. Bi-annual monitoring** Removal of dead wood sensitively* Removing burrows sensitively and covering excavations at night/providing planked escape routes for trapped wildlife. Liquids stored securely*.. Further Assessment of Cumulative Impacts on Ecology Combined Effects of Individual Impacts (Type 1) A16.22 A review of the combined effects of individual impacts on identified sensitive receptors has been undertaken. A16.23 An exercise which tabulates the residual impacts stated in the June 2011 ES (Volume I) against relevant receptors has been completed, and the potential for impact interactions and so combined cumulative effects has been identified. A16.24 This is presented within Chapter A18: Cumulative Impact Assessment of this ES Addendum. Cumulative Impacts with Other Schemes (Type 2) A16.25 Further information is provided below in the January 2012 review of the cumulative impact assessment. Review of Planning Policy Context A16.26 Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I) summarises the relevant legislative and planning policy context (as of June 2011). Consideration is given to national and regional planning policy; and local planning policy of relevance to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF). In addition, the Chapter considers the local policy context of the Royal Borough Kensington and Chelsea (RKBC) with respect to ecology. Whilst Application 2 is for LBHF determination, the Earls Court Site straddles the borough boundary of the LBHF and the RBKC. National Planning Policy A16.27 The review of the national planning policy context (as presented in the June 2011 ES) remains valid and so applicable to the revised Planning Applications for the Earls Court Development Proposals. In July 2011, a draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (Ref. A16-3) (NPPF) was issued for consultation. Page 46 of the draft NPPF concerns the Natural Environment. The Government s objective is that planning should help to deliver a healthy natural environment for the benefit of everyone and safe places which promote wellbeing. A16.28 The draft National Planning Policy Framework states that to achieve this objective, the planning system should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by: protecting valued landscapes; minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity, where possible; and preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of land, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. A16.29 The draft NPPF states that planning policies should: take account of the need to plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale across local authority boundaries identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including: international, national and local sites of importance for biodiversity, and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets13; and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan; and aim to prevent harm to geological conservation interests. A16.30 The draft NPPF confirms that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged. Regional Planning Policy A16.31 In July 2011, The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London was adopted (Ref. A16-4). This endorses the protection of land of strategic importance for biodiversity and stresses the requirement for development proposals to include new or enhanced natural habitats, or design and landscaping that promotes biodiversity, the greening of the built environment and associated provision for its management. There are no major changes in the A16-3

5 adopted London Plan to the Biodiversity and Access to Nature or Trees and Woodlands policies referred to within the June 2011 ES which will affect the revised Planning Applications for the Earls Court Development Proposals. A16.32 In November 2011, the LBHF, the RBKC and the GLA issued a revised draft of the Earl s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Supplementary Planning Document (Ref. A16-5). Key Principle ENV18 and ENV 19 of the revised draft SPD requires development to protect and enhance ecology and biodiversity with no net loss of species or habitat and requires major planning applications to be accompanied by an Ecological Impact Assessment, including an ecological enhancement strategy. It is acknowledged that an ecological management plan will also be required through any Section 106 agreement. A16.33 The revised draft has been prepared having regard to the LBHF and RBKC Ecological Aspirations Report, 2010 (Ref. A16-6). As reported within the June 2011 ES, the Ecological Aspirations Report outlines specific aspirations for the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. It states that the two core requirements relating to the development site are to audit and monitor the ecological status of habitats and species and to protect and enhance the biodiversity resource, by improving the quality of the local environment through the protection of important wildlife sites, the creation and enhancement of habitats, and the incorporation of green infrastructure through innovative design. A16.34 All the other regional planning policy documents considered within Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I), specifically, the Mayor s Biodiversity Strategy, 2002 (Ref. A16-7) and the London Biodiversity Action Plan, 2004 (Ref. A16-8) remain applicable to the revised Planning Applications for the Earls Court Development Proposals. Local Planning Policy A16.35 Since June 2011, the LBHF has adopted their Core Strategy. The LBHF Core Strategy (Ref. A16-9) was adopted on the 19th October Strategic Objective 15 of the Core Strategy states that the borough will seek to Protect and enhance the borough s open green spaces and create new parks and open spaces where there is major regeneration, promote biodiversity and protect private gardens. A16.36 All the other local planning policy documents considered within Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I), specifically the LBHF Parks and Open Spaces Strategy, (Ref. A16-10), the LBHF Biodiversity Action Plan, (Ref. A16-11), the RBKC Core Strategy, 2010 (Ref. A16-12) and the RBKC Biodiversity Action Plan, 2010, (Ref. A16-13) remain applicable to the revised Planning Applications for the Earls Court Development Proposals. Review of the Baseline Conditions A16.37 The ecology baseline surveys were conducted in 2009, 2010 and Ecology survey data is generally regarded to be valid for up to two years and it is therefore considered that the baseline information presented in Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES (Volume I) remains valid. Within the June 2011 submission it was stated that clearance works on site associated within the Northern Access Road area were underway, and due to be completed in September These clearance works are now complete; they were completed in September 2011 as indicated within the June 2011 submission. With the exception of this update, the baseline conditions of the Earls Court Site have not changed. A16.38 The Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) EcIA guidelines set out the methodology for evaluating habitats and species and these have not been updated since The evaluation of ecological receptors presented within the June 2011 ES (Volume 1) remains valid and applicable to the revised Earls Court Development Proposals. Review of the Impact of the Design Changes A16.39 The design changes and amendments to the Planning Applications are described fully in Chapter 4: The Design Changes. A16.40 The landscape strategy has been amended to incorporate details of layout, scale and appearance for buildings proposed within development plots WV01, WV02 and WV05; however the key principles of the landscaping strategy have not changed. The only change to the principles behind the landscaping strategy proposed by the revised Earls Court Development Proposals that is relevant to ecology is the area of extensive green roofs that will be implemented. Within the June 2011 ES it was stated that all roofs larger than 100m 2 that are either flat or gently sloped will have extensive green roofs, making up at least 75% of the roof space on the flat or gently sloped roofs (equivalent to a total of 15,800m 2 of roof space). This area has been amended as part of these revised Planning Applications; the extensive green roofs will now make up a total of 16,000m 2 of roof space of those that are either flat or gently sloped and are larger than 100m 2. This equates to 15 % of the revised illustrative master plan building footprint, whereas the previous extensive green roof space equated to 14% of the illustrative master plan building footprint. A16.41 This will result in slight increase in green roof space than that proposed as part of the June 2011 ES, and will still result in the minor beneficial impacts proposed in Table A16-2 above. January 2012 Potential Impacts & Mitigation Measures A16.42 In light of the changes made to the outline elements of the Planning Applications, in addition to the submission of details in relation to scale, appearance and layout of development plot WV01, WV02 and WV05, the proposed mitigation strategy remains unchanged from that presented within the June 2011 ES (Volume I) and therefore remains applicable to the revised Earls Court Development Proposals. January 2012 Residual Impact Assessment A16.43 The residual impacts of the revised Earls Court Development Proposals to ecology range from minor adverse to negligible through the site preparation, deconstruction, demolition and construction period. Once the Earls Court Development Proposals are complete and operational, residual impacts range from negligible to minor beneficial significance. This is as presented above in Table A16-2 Ecology Residual Impact Assessment January A16.44 It is acknowledged that the ecological mitigation and landscaping strategy do not go into specifics in relation to bat and bird boxes, green roofs and external lighting. It is considered that the details of these elements of the ecological mitigation and landscaping strategy can be agreed at the reserved matters stage of planning, with the required details to be secured through an appropriately worded planning condition. Review of the Cumulative Impact Assessment SCENARIO 1: The Earls Court Development Proposals with Cumulative Schemes A16.45 A review of the Cumulative Schemes that were considered within the June 2011 Cumulative Impact Assessment has been undertaken. The following amendment and two additional schemes are acknowledged: Amendment: Hammersmith Embankment residential led scheme 2011/00407/COMB, resolution to grant 23 September 2011; Additional cumulative scheme: Fulham Wharf, 51 Townmead Road, SW6 2SY 2010/02481/FUL resolution to grant 5 July 2011; and Additional cumulative scheme: Westfield mixed use retail and residential led extension to the existing Westfield London shopping centre 2011/02940/OUT submitted for planning. A16.46 Table A16-3 outlines the predicted cumulative impacts on ecological receptors identified in Table A16-1 with respect to each Cumulative Scheme, including the amended scheme and additional schemes as outlined above, where the information required is available. Where sufficient information was not available this is also stated. Ecological receptors that could be subject to cumulative impacts with respect to each Cumulative Scheme are identified. A16.47 The other Cumulative Schemes include features beneficial to wildlife such as tree planting and other soft landscaping. Ten of the schemes include proposals for green or brown roofs which provide opportunities for black redstart, other birds and invertebrates. Furthermore, five of the schemes propose to incorporate bat boxes which will add additional bat roosting habitats to those supplied by the Earls Court Development Proposals. A16.48 It should be noted that ecological enhancement details for three of the Cumulative Schemes were not available and so these schemes are not included in the assessment of cumulative impacts, as shown in Table A16-3 below. The A16-4

6 schemes not included are Warwick Road; 90 Bagley s Lane; and G-Gate, Olympia, Corner of Lyons Walk and Hammersmith Road. A16.49 The residual impact on the habitats present as a result of the Earls Court Development Proposals is minor beneficial, with the Cumulative Schemes contributing further to the greening of the local area, through tree planting and other features. However, the cumulative impact on the habitats is considered to remain minor beneficial. A16.50 The residual impacts on bats, black redstart and the invertebrate assemblage as a result of the Earls Court Development Proposals are negligible (Table A16-1). Considering the inclusion of appropriate features within a number of the Cumulative Schemes (Table A16-3) that will individually provide a beneficial impacts with respect to these ecological receptors, it is considered that the cumulative impact on these receptors is minor beneficial. This conclusion has been drawn on the assumption that no significant residual impacts are expected on these receptors from the Warwick Road; 90 Bagley s Lane; and G-Gate, Olympia, Corner of Lyons Walk and Hammersmith Road Cumulative Schemes; in these cases, insufficient information is available to determine what the residual impacts of these cumulative developments will be. SCENARIO 2: The Earls Court Development Proposals PLUS the Seagrave Road Development Proposals PLUS other Cumulative Schemes. A16.51 A revised planning application has been submitted in relation to the Seagrave Road Development Proposals. This scheme includes areas of brown and green roofs, the planting of wet woodland, trees, grassland and hedges. It also proposes the incorporation of a number of bat and bird boxes. All of these features will provide additional habitats to those proposed by the Earls Court Development Proposals and other Cumulative Schemes. It is expected that invertebrates, bats and birds (including black redstarts) in particular will benefit from these enhancements. A16.52 The cumulative impact assessment of the Earls Court Development Proposals, plus the Seagrave Road Development Proposals plus the other Cumulative Schemes (including the amendment to the scheme on Hammersmith Embankment and the additional scheme at Fulham Wharf, as noted above) has been revised, to account for the additional details provided within Table A16-3. A16.53 To summarise, the cumulative impact on the habitats present, bats, black redstart, other breeding birds, and invertebrate assemblage in conjunction with the Cumulative Schemes and Seagrave Road Development Proposals remains as being of minor beneficial significance. Conclusions A16.54 The design changes made to the outline elements of the Planning Applications in addition to the submission of details in relation to scale, appearance and layout of development plots WV01, WV02 and WV05 have no material impact on the significance of the impacts to ecology and so the resultant mitigation strategy and overall conclusions presented within Chapter 16: Ecology of the June 2011 ES. The conclusions of the June 2011 ES therefore remain applicable to the revised Earls Court Development Proposals. Table A16-3 Ecology & Biodiversity Details used in the Cumulative Impact Assessment Cumulative Scheme Relevant Ecological Receptor Cumulative Impact Assessment Westfield mixed use retail and residential led extension to the existing Westfield London shopping centre Fulham Wharf, 51 Townmead Road Habitats present, breeding birds and bats. Habitats present, bats, black redstart and other breeding birds No potential adverse impacts. Landscaping will include amenity grassland, ornamental shrubs, ground cover and hedgerows, Green and brown roofs will be installed as well as bird and bat boxes. Vegetated open space will be provided, as well as an ecology platform/garden (the jetty). Brown roofs and bat and bird boxes are also proposed Warwick Road Potential impacts and landscaping unknown. Ibis Hotel, 47 Lillie Road Habitats present and other breeding birds Tree planting and proposed gardens will contribute towards a beneficial impact. 72 Farm Lane, London Habitats present Amenity space and green roofs will contribute towards a beneficial impact. 90 Bagley s Lane Potential impacts and landscaping unknown. Holiday Inn Express, 295 North End Road Olympia Exhibition Centre, Hammersmith Road Odeon Cinema, Kensington High Street Charles House, 375 Kensington High Street and the Radnor Arms, 247 Warwick Road G-Gate, Olympia, Corner of Lyons Walk and Hammersmith Road Telephone Exchange, Warwick Road The Commonwealth Institute, Kensington High Street Car Park adjacent to Hammersmith & City Line Station Extension of the Chelsea Harbour Design Centre, Chelsea Harbour Hammersmith Palais Hammersmith Embankment Imperial Wharf, Townmead Road including land bounded by Imperial Road, Fulham Gasworks and Railway Line and Imperial Wharf J2 Land adjacent to south side of Chelsea Creek Habitats present and other breeding birds Habitats present Other breeding birds and bats Habitats present, other breeding birds and invertebrate assemblage Black redstart and invertebrate assemblage Habitats present, black redstart, other breeding birds, bats and invertebrate assemblage Black redstart, invertebrate assemblage and other breeding birds 100 West Cromwell Road Former TA Site Homebase, 195 Warwick Road Earls Court Link Road Habitats present, other breeding birds and bats Green roof and green screen will be provided, but unclear as to whether this provides mitigation or an ecological enhancement. Some soft landscaping will be provided, but unclear as to whether this provides mitigation or an ecological enhancement. Tree planting and new landscape planting within the private apartment area and in the gardens for the townhouses will contribute towards a beneficial impact. Street tree planting and a linear park will mitigate impacts as a result of the development only. Potential impacts and landscaping unknown. Planting of tree, shrubs and understory will contribute towards a beneficial impact. An area of approximately 3,000m 2 will be planted with a woodland structure, comprising herb, shrub and tree layers. Bird boxes and roosting habitat for bats, comprising bat boxes, bat bricks and/or bat houses are also proposed. These features will contribute towards a beneficial impact. The planting of trees and provision of green roofs will contribute towards a beneficial impact. Pockets of planting and greenery will be introduced; however it is unclear as to whether these features provide mitigation or an ecological enhancement. Brown roofing is proposed, which will contribute towards a beneficial impact. Brown roofs proposed, as well as bird boxes for black redstart. Bird boxes will be installed for other bird species, as well as bat boxes. Moderate beneficial impact predicted with respect birds and bats, contributing to a beneficial impact. Minor beneficial impact predicted with respect to habitats and invertebrates. Parkland corridor, with a range of habitat types, extension of the Former British Gas Pond Grade 1 Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation and green roofs will contribute towards a beneficial impact. A series of tree lined terraces and reed beds are proposed. However, it is unclear as to whether these features provide mitigation or an ecological enhancement. Planting of native trees, inclusion of bird and bat boxes as well as green roofing will mitigate potential impacts as a result of the development. New public linear park and green roof, but unclear whether this provides mitigation or an ecological enhancement. Native tree planting and proposed buildings will incorporate bat roosting habitat, which will contribute towards a beneficial impact. Removal of vegetation within part of the SBINC, resulting in a minor adverse impact on West London and District Line SBINC and the green corridor. However, this will not affect the significance of the residual impact on this receptor as a result of the Earls Court Development Proposals A16-5

7 References A16-1 IEEM 2006; Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment. A16-2 URS Scott Wilson on behalf of EC Properties limited, November 2011; Seagrave Road Environmental Statement Addendum Volume I. A16-3 Communities and Local Government, July 2011; Draft National Planning Policy Framework, July A16-4 GLA, 2011; The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, July A16-5 Greater London Authority / LBHF / RBKC, November 2011; Revised Draft Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Supplementary Planning Document. A16-6 LBHF and RBKC, (2010); Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area - Ecological Aspirations. A16-7 GLA (2002); Connecting with London s Nature: The Mayor s Biodiversity Strategy. A16-8 London Biodiversity Partnership, (2004); London Biodiversity Action Plan. GLA, London. A16-9 London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, 2011; Core Strategy A16-10 LBHF, (2003); Parks and Open Spaces Strategy Technical Document. A16-11 LBHF, (2004); Biodiversity Action Plan A16-12 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 2010; Core Strategy A16-13 RBKC, (2010); Local Biodiversity Action Plan 2010/11 to 2014/15. A16-6