Kew Gardens: White Peaks Replacement

Ecological Appraisal

Prepared by LUC
December 2017

Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd
Registered in England
Design 43 Chalton Street Bristol Registered number: 2549296
Landscape Planning London Glasgow Registered Office:
Landscape Management NW1 1JD Edinburgh 43 Chalton Street
London NW1 1JD
Ecology T +44 (0)20 7383 5784
FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper
Mapping & Visualisation london@landuse.co.uk
Project Title: Kew Gardens White Peaks

Client: Mott MacDonald Ltd.

Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by

1.0 16/11/17 Issue 1 Amy Coleman Peter Peter

Lawrence Lawrence

2.0 11/12/2017 Issue 2 (updated with Peter Peter

lighting information) Lawrence Lawrence

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement Last saved: 14/12/2017 11:51

Contents

1 Introduction 2
Scope 2
Site description 2
Policy and Legal Considerations 2

2 Method 3
Desk Study 3
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 3
Bats 3
Limitations and Constraints 4

3 Results 5
Desk Study 5
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 13
Bats 14
Other Species 14

4 Discussion 16
Designated Sites 16
Habitats 16
Bats 16
Birds 17
Badger 17
Enhancement 17

Appendix 1 19
Policy and Legal Considerations 19

Appendix 2 23
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Map 23

Appendix 3 25
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey – Target Notes 25

Appendix 4 26
Lighting Proposals 26

Tables

Table 2.1 Bat roost potential categories 4

Table 3.1 Desk Study Findings – Designated Sites 5

Table 3.2 Desk Study Findings – Relevant Species Records 9

1 Introduction

1.1 In June 2017, LUC was appointed by Mott MacDonald Ltd. to undertake an Ecological Appraisal of
the White Peaks café area at the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, TW9 3AB (hereafter
referred to as ‘the Site’). The appraisal was required to inform proposals for the replacement of
the current temporary building with retail units and landscaping.

1.2 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by Mott MacDonald Ltd. No part of this report
should be considered as legal advice.

Scope
1.3 The White Peaks Replacement Project will involve the replacement of the existing structure and
the associated hard and soft landscaping surrounding it. This project forms part of the wider
‘Family Landscape’ improvement scheme, including projects to redevelop the Children’s Garden,
Climbers and Creepers, and School Lunches provision. The Children’s Garden has been granted
full planning permission (reference: 16/3353/FUL) and will commence ahead of other proposed
works. The other projects will be subject to separate applications and are not dealt with in this
report

Site description
1.4 The White Peaks Site lies within the north of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew in south west
London. It primarily includes buildings and hardstanding with areas of grassland, ornamental
planting and scattered trees. Outside of the Site boundary are the remainder of the gardens which
comprise a mixture of plant specimens from around the world with extensive amenity grassland,
plantation woodland, and planted shrubberies and herbaceous beds, as well as greenhouses and
other heritage buildings. Located within the suburbs of London, the gardens are within an urban
landscape, with the River Thames to the north and west, and the Royal Mid Surrey Golf Club to
the south.

Policy and Legal Considerations

1.5 This report has been prepared in accordance with relevant legislation and policy. Further detail is
provided in Appendix 1, however the following primary documents are of relevance:

 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);

 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW Act), 2000 (as amended);

 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC Act) 2006;

 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended); and

 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Biodiversity Action Plan (December, 2013)1; and

 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Core Strategy (April, 2009)2.

1
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/6903/richmond_biodiversity_action_plan2-2.pdf
2
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/11612/core_strategy-3.pdf

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 2 December 2017

2 Method

2.1 The methods adopted in the survey and appraisal are outlined below. They accord with the best
practice guidance documents for survey and appraisal produced by the Chartered Institute of
Ecology and Environmental Management3 and the British Standards Institute4.

Desk Study
2.2 To provide additional background to the appraisal and to highlight likely features or species
groups of interest, a study of available biological records was undertaken to identify sites
designated for their nature conservation value, and existing records of protected or notable
species of relevance to the Site. A search of the following resources was undertaken:

 Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL; records obtained for Kew Gardens and a
1km buffer from the garden boundary);

 Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC);

 Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping; and

 Aerial photography.

2.3 The absence of a species from biological records cannot be taken to represent actual absence.
Species distribution patterns should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect
survey/reporting effort rather than actual distribution.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

2.4 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken within the Site boundary in line with
standard methods5.

2.5 Phase 1 Habitat Survey provides a rapid means of classifying broad habitat types in any given
terrestrial site.

2.6 The survey was ‘extended’ by considering the suitability of the Site to support notable or
protected flora or fauna. Species considered included those identified during the desk study, or
those considered appropriate by the surveyor during the survey. This included a walk over of
surrounding habitat outside of the Site boundary. Detailed surveys were not completed for these
species; however, based on an understanding of species ecology, consideration was given to the
Site’s potential to provide sheltering or foraging habitat and/or connectivity to allow dispersal
between populations. Further information is provided in the ‘Baseline Data’ section below.

2.7 The survey was undertaken on the 15th June 2017 by Amy Coleman ACIEEM. Weather conditions
during the survey were sunny and dry.

Bats
2.8 In addition to the above, the trees and buildings within the Site were specifically considered for
their potential to support bats. A high powered torch (LED Lenser) and binoculars were used to

3
Survey guidance is available at http://www.cieem.net/sources-of-survey-methods-sosm- and appraisal guidance is available at
http://www.cieem.net/guidance-on-preliminary-ecological-appraisal-gpea-
4
British Standards Institute (2013). BS42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and Development.
5
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1990). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. JNCC, Peterborough.

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 3 December 2017

 search for and inspect features with potential to support access points and roosting places
suitable for bats, and to locate evidence of bat activity, such as droppings, staining, feeding
remains and presence of bats (live/dead specimens).

2.9 Trees and buildings were classified as to their Bat Roost Potential (BRP), with due consideration to
best practice guidance6, and as summarised in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Bat roost potential categories

Suitability Description Further survey implications

Confirmed Bats or evidence of bats recorded, Works affecting a roost are licensable.
bat roost both of recent and/or historic Further survey required to determine the
activity. bat species present, nature of roost and
level of use before mitigation is can be
determined.

High A structure or tree with one or more
potential roost sites that are
obviously suitable for use by large
numbers of bats on a more regular
basis and potentially for longer
periods of time due to their size,
shelter, protection, conditions7 and
surrounding habitat.
Three separate survey visits. Of which, at
least one dusk emergence and a separate
dawn re-entry survey.
Subject to initial survey findings, the level
of survey effort required may be reviewed.

Low A structure with one or more A single survey visit is required for
potential roost sites that could be buildings.
used by individual bats
No further survey is required for trees.
opportunistically. However, these
potential roost sites do not provide Subject to initial survey findings, the level
enough space, shelter, protection, of survey effort required may be reviewed.
appropriate conditions5 and/or
suitable surrounding habitat to be
used on a regular basis or by larger
numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be
suitable for maternity or
hibernation).

Negligible Negligible habitat features on site No further survey or mitigation required.

likely to be used by roosting bats.

Limitations and Constraints

2.10 It is important to note that ecological surveys provide information regarding the ecological
baseline of a site for only a ‘snapshot’ of time. Therefore, if significant time lapses between the
surveys and the further development or implementation of proposals, updated ecological surveys
may be required to identify any change in the baseline, such as natural succession of habitats, or
local extinction or colonisation of species. Ecological surveys can generally be considered as up-
to-date for 1 to 3 years dependent on the nature of the site, ecological baseline and proposals and
likely impact. Therefore if a year lapses between the progressions of the proposals, it is
recommended that ecological advice is sought regarding the applicability of the survey findings.

6
Bat Workers’ Manual – 3rd Edition, JNCC, Peterborough; Bat Conservation Trust (2016) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines – 3rd
Edition, London.
7
For example, in terms of temperature, humidity, height above ground level, light levels or levels of disturbance.

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 4 December 2017

3 Results

Desk Study
3.1 The findings of the desk study are presented in the tables below. These tables list designated sites
and relevant protected and notable species which have been recorded within a 1km search radius
from the Site boundary of The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.

Table 3.1 Desk Study Findings – Designated Sites

Site Name Designation Description Orientation/Dist

ance (m) from
boundary of Kew
Gardens to
nearest border
of designated
site (approx.)

Sites With Statutory Designations

Syon Park Site of Special Syon Park is the only known area of 91m West of the
Scientific Interest tall grass washland along the Gardens
(SSSI) notified Thames in Greater London; it
under Section 28 contains several invertebrate
of the Wildlife species with a restricted
and Countryside distribution, both locally and
Act 1981 nationally.

Isleworth Ait Local Nature 3.48 Hectares This small island, or 758m South west
Reserve and part ‘ait’, was formally part of Syon Park, of Gardens
of a Site of but is now owned by Thames Water
Metropolitan Co. and managed by the London
Importance for Wildlife Trust.
Nature
It is remarkable for its tall canopy of
Conservation
mixed woodland, rooted on a bank
of ground that is regularly
inundated by high tides, and
supports one of the only remaining
areas of natural tidal marginal
habitat still not developed or
canalised on the Thames.

The Ait also provides an undisturbed

sanctuary for a variety of birds, and
supports several rare mollusc
populations.

Sites with Non-Statutory Designations

Royal Botanic Site of Kew Gardens, one of London’s top Includes the Site
Gardens at Kew Importance for tourist attractions, holds wonderful
Nature collections of plants from all over

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 5 December 2017

 Conservation the world, including many globally
(SINC) rare species. This is a World
Heritage Site. Habitats include Acid
grassland, Amenity grassland,
Flower beds, Planted shrubbery,
Pond/lake, Scattered trees,
Secondary woodland, Veteran trees

River Thames Site of The Thames, London’s most famous Adjacent to the
and tidal Importance for natural feature, is home to many West of the
tributaries Nature fish and birds, creating a wildlife Gardens
Conservation corridor running right across the
(SINC) capital. Associated landscape
habitats include Intertidal,
Marsh/swamp, Pond/Lake, Reed
bed, Running water, Saltmarsh,
Secondary woodland, Vegetated
wall/tombstones, Wet ditches, Wet
grassland, Wet woodland/carr.

Royal Mid-Surrey Site of This large golf course has areas of Immediately
Golf Course Importance for acid grassland and wetland that adjacent to South
Nature provide excellent habitat for local of Gardens
Conservation wildlife and associated habitats
(SINC) include Acid grassland, Amenity
grassland, Scattered trees, Scrub,
Secondary woodland.

Kew Pond and Site of Acid grassland, Flower beds, 16m North of
Kew Green Importance for Pond/lake, Ruderal, Vegetated Gardens
Nature wall/tombstones. Kew Green has
Conservation some rare plants in its short turf,
(SINC) and the pond and churchyard add to
the wildlife habitats.

Tide Meadow at Site of One of the very few areas beside 91m West of
Syon Park Importance for the Thames which still floods Gardens
Nature regularly with the tide. In the flood
Conservation meadows and wet woodlands, there
(SINC) are a number of rare plants, snails
and insects. Associated habitats
include Wet ditches, Wet grassland,
Wet woodland/carr.

Syon Park Site of Old landscaped parkland and 91m West of

Importance for pastures with some magnificent old Gardens
Nature oak trees and two attractive lakes.
Conservation Associated habitats include Amenity
(SINC) grassland, Flower beds, Improved
agricultural grassland, Planted
shrubbery, Pond/lake, Scattered
trees, Semi-improved neutral
grassland, Veteran trees.

Occupation Lane, Site of Scrub, Secondary woodland, Tall 433m East of

Kew Railway Importance for herbs, Wet woodland/carr. A Gardens
bridge Nature tiny plot of woodland,
Conservation designated as a reserve for the
rare two-lipped doorsnail (Balea

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 6 December 2017

 (SINC) biplicata) and adjacent road
verges and railsides which also
provide a home for this tiny
snail.

Pensford Field Site of Pond/lake, Secondary woodland, 525m East of

Importance for Semi-improved neutral grassland. A Gardens
Nature local community area with a
Conservation meadow and pond. Red fescue
(SINC) (Festuca rubra) dominates the
meadow, with wild flowers such as
common and greater knapweeds
(Centaurea nigra and C. scabiosa),
oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum
vulgare) and common vetch.
Common stork’s-bill (Erodium
cicutarium). A remnant of the
natural flora of the site, survives
next to the large mound of earth
near the entrance. A pond has been
created in the south-west of the
site, and includes soft rush and
meadowsweet on its margins.

Gunnersbury Site of Amenity grassland, Pond/lake, 636m North of

Park Importance for Scattered trees, Scrub, Secondary Gardens
Nature woodland, Semi-improved neutral
Conservation grassland, Tall herbs, Vegetated
wall/tombstones
(SINC)
The Potomac Pond is a sizeable
pond, fringed with trees and with a
wooded island. Marginal vegetation
includes yellow iris (Iris
pseudacorus), gypsywort (Lycopus
europaeus) and meadwosweet
(Filipendula ulmaria). Common
waterfowl, including great crested
grebe, breed on the pond. The area
around Princess Amelia’s Bath
House provides a variety of
habitats, including rough grassland,
scrub and tall herbs, while ferns
grow on the walls. Most of the rest
of the park is formally managed,
with short mown grass, but there
are numerous mature trees,
supporting breeding birds such as
goldcrest, nuthatch and treecreeper.
Several areas of grass have been
managed as meadows in recent
years.

Thames Potential Natural exposure of London Clay 764m South West

Foreshore, Regionally Formation with septarian nodules at of Gardens
Isleworth Important low tide. There are a number of
Geological Site sites in the upper tidal reaches of
(RIGS) the Thames where the river gravels
have been eroded away to expose
small patches of London Clay at low
tide. For the most part a spring tide
is required to see them. They are

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 7 December 2017

 easily distinguished from the
alluvium by the presence of in situ
and broken septarian nodules. The
best exposure is at Isleworth where
access is easy and pale pink fossil
Ditrupa point the way to other
molluscs which are mostly
preserved as black pyrite (golden if
fresh) (Division C2-D1 of King,
1981). Other exposures can be seen
under Hammersmith Bridge (N.
side) and upstream from Kew
Railway Bridge (S. Side). They
provide a rare opportunity of seeing
in situ London Clay with septaria
other than in temporary sites.

North Sheen and Site of Two large cemeteries consisting of 931m East of
Mortlake Importance for Amenity grassland, Scattered trees, Gardens
Cemeteries Nature Semi-improved neutral grassland,
Conservation Vegetated wall/tombstones. The
(SINC) most interesting area botanically is
in the north-east of the site, where
there is a large area without graves.
The grassland here has a good
abundance of legumes such as
common vetch (Vicia sativa) and
clovers (Trifolium spp.), including
several patches of hare’s-foot clover
(T. arvense), which is uncommon in
London. However the site also
supports a diverse population of
ornamental trees and plants and
provides habitat for many animal
species.

Duke of Site of A 400 metre section of the river, 946m South West
Northumberland’s Importance for just before its junction with the of Gardens
River at Isleworth Nature River Thames, with an excellent
Conservation flora. Cyperus sedge (Carex
(SINC) pseudocyperus) and sea club-rush
(Bolboschoenus maritimus), both
scarce in London, occur. Other
species found in this section of river
include water dock (Rumex
hydrolapathum), great pond-sedge
(Carex riparia), purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria) and water-
pepper (Persicaria hydropiper).
Where the river passes through
Silverhall Nature Park there is a
woodland of sycamore (Acer
pseudoplatanus), oak (Quercus sp.)
and willow (Salix sp.) on the north
side, while the south side is
parkland with some mature sweet
chestnut (Castanea sativa), oak and
yew (Taxus baccata) trees. Both
kingfisher and grey wagtail can be

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 8 December 2017

 seen on this part of the river.

Hounslow Loop Site of This long section of railside line runs 1352m North West
Railsides Importance for throughout most of Hounslow of Gardens
Nature Borough from Chiswick to Hounslow
Conservation Heath. The railsides are quite
(SINC) uniform in vegetation structure
throughout their length, with a
combination of rank grassland,
bramble (Rubus fruticosus
agg.),and tall herbs such as
Japanese knotweed (Fallipia
japonica), nettle (Urtica dioica) and
willowherbs (Epilobium/Chamerion
spp.) dominate. Scattered trees are
intermittent along most of the rail
side with sycamore (Acer
pseudoplatanus), oak (Quercus
robur), hawthorn (Crataegus
monogyna), hazel (Corylus
avellana) and elder (Sambucus
nigra) predominant. The corridor is
important for the movement of
mammals and other animals
through this highly urban part of
Hounslow Borough as there are very
few large semi-natural open areas
adjacent to the line.

London’s Canals Site of London’s canals provide a home for 5954m North of
Importance for many fish and aquatic plants, and Gardens
Nature are a great way to enjoy the natural
Conservation world in some of the city’s most
(SINC) built-up areas. Adjacent to the
Canals include habitats of Bare
ground, Ruderal, Scattered trees,
Scrub, Secondary woodland, Semi-
improved neutral grassland, Tall
herbs, Vegetated wall/tombstones,
Wet woodland/carr.

Table 3.2 Desk Study Findings – Relevant Species Records

Species Name Designation Orientation/Distance

(m) from boundary
of Kew Gardens
(approx.)

Higher Plants (Flowering)

Ivy Broomrape Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens

Orobanche hederae

Black Poplar Poplus Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
nigra subsp. betulifolia

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 9 December 2017

 Greater Pond Sedge Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
Carex riparia

Cornflower Centaurea Natural Environment and Rural Communities Within Kew Gardens
cyanus Act 2006, Section 41

(NERC Act Section 41)

Corn Marigold IUCN Red List (2001) Vulnerable Within Kew Gardens
Glebionis segetum

Narrow-leaved Bitter- Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens

cress Caramine
IUCN Red List Nationally Scarce
impatiens

Galingale Cyperus IUCN Red List Nationally Scarce Within Kew Gardens
longus

Bedstraw Broomrape Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 8 Within Kew Gardens
Orobanche
IUCN Red List (2001) Nationally Rare
caropyllacaea

Yarrow Broomrape IUCN Red List (2001) Nationally Rare Within Kew Gardens
Orobanche purpurea

Greater Water-parsnip NERC Act Section 41 719 m North

Silum latifolium
IUCN Red List Nationally Scarce

Invertebrates

Stag Beetle Lucanus Habitats Directive Annex 2 non- priority Within Kew Gardens
cervus species

NERC ACT Section 41

Local Species of Conservation Concern

Nationally Notable B

Ruddy Darter Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens

Sympetrum
sanguineum

Hairy Dragonfly Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens

Brachytron pratense

Marbled White Local Species of Conservation Concern 282m West

Butterfly Melanargia
galathea

White-letter Hairstreak NERC ACT Section 41 766m North

Satyrium w-album
Local Species of Conservation Concern

IUCN Red List Endangered

Invertebrates Mollusca

Swollen Spire Snail NERC Act Section 41 523m North

Mercuria cf. similis

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 10 December 2017

 Depressed/Compressed NERC Act Section 41 523m North
River Mussel
Local Species of Conservation Concern
Pseudanodonta
complanata

Amphibians

Common Toad Bufo Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
bufo
NERC Act Section 41

Common Frog Rana Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
temporaria

Great crested newt Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
Triturus cristatus
NERC Act Section 41

Habitats Directive Annex 2 non-priority

species

Habitats Directive Annex 4

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5

Birds

Stock Dove Columba Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
oenas

Mute Swan Cynus olor Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens

Goldcrest Regulus Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens

regulus

Song Thrush Turdus IUCN Bird Population Status- Red Within Kew Gardens
philomelos
Local Species of Conservation Concern

House Sparrow Passer Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
domesticus
NERC Act Section 41

IUCN Bird Population Status- Red

Grey wagtail Motacilla Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
cinerea

Redwing Turdus iliacus IUCN Bird Population Status- Red Within Kew Gardens

Local Species of Conservation Concern

Swift Apus apus Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens

Grey Heron Ardea Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
cinerea

Goldeneye Bucephala Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens

clangula

House Martin Delichon Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 11 December 2017

 urbicum
Herring Gull Larus
argentatus
Firecrest Regulus
ignicapilla
Common Tern Sterna
hirundo
Song Thrush Turdus
philomeos
Mammals (not including bats)
Western European
Hedgehog
Bats
Soprano Pipistrelle
Pipistrellus pygmaeus
Nathusius’s Pipistrelle
Pipistrellus nathusii
Brown Long-eared Bat
Plecotus auritus
Common pipistrelle
Pipistrellus pipistrellus
Daubenton’s Bat Myotis
daubentonii
Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement
Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
IUCN Bird Population Status- Red
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 1 Within Kew Gardens
Local Species of Conservation Concern
Local Species of Conservation Concern Within Kew Gardens
Birds Directive Annex 1
IUCN Bird Population Status- Red Within Kew Gardens
Local Species of Conservation Concern
NERC Act Section 41 120m North
Local Species of Conservation Concern
The Conservation Regulations (Natural Within Kew Gardens
Habitats) 2010 (Schedule 2)
NERC Act Section 41
Habitats Directive Annex 4
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5
Local Species of Conservation Concern
The Conservation Regulations (Natural Within Kew Gardens
Habitats) 2010 (Schedule 2)
Habitats Directive Annex 4
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5
Local Species of Conservation Concern
The Conservation Regulations (Natural Within Kew Gardens
Habitats) 2010 (Schedule 2)
Habitats Directive Annex 4
NERC Act Section 41
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5
Local Species of Conservation Concern
The Conservation Regulations (Natural Within Kew Gardens
Habitats) 2010 (Schedule 2)
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5
Local Species of Conservation Concern
The Conservation Regulations (Natural Within Kew Gardens
Habitats) 2010 (Schedule 2)
12 December 2017
 Habitats Directive Annex 4

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 9

Local Species of Conservation Concern

Noctule Nyctalus The Conservation Regulations (Natural Within Kew Gardens

noctula Habitats) 2010 (Schedule 2)

Habitats Directive Annex 4

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 9

Local Species of Conservation Concern

Leisler’s Bat Nyctalus The Conservation Regulations (Natural 542m North

leisleri Habitats) 2010 (Schedule 2)

Habitats Directive Annex 4

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 9

Local Species of Conservation Concern

Serotine Eptesicus The Conservation Regulations (Natural 639m South West

serotinus Habitats) 2010 (Schedule 2)

Habitats Directive Annex 4

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 9

Local Species of Conservation Concern

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

3.2 Habitat descriptions are set out below. While considering this information, reference should be
made to the Phase 1 Habitat Map presented in Appendix 2. Target notes are presented in
Appendix 3.

Hardstanding, buildings, and play areas

3.3 Hardstanding, buildings and a small section of play area comprised approximately one third of the
Site, forming the White Peaks café and retail unit and the surrounding amenity and play area.

Bare ground

3.4 Areas of bare ground were present surrounding mature trees south east of the White Peaks
building.

Amenity grassland and scattered trees

3.5 Areas of amenity grassland were present across most of the Site. This was dominated by
perennial rye grass Lolium perenne with abundant white clover Trifolium repens and common
daisy Bellis perennis. In the far south of the Site, beyond the path the amenity grassland
supported scattered mature trees.

Ornamental planting beds with scattered trees

3.6 An area of ornamental planting was present in the north east of the site, including a range of
ornamental grasses and herbaceous species, as well as ornamental scrub at the rear of the
planted beds. This included a number of mature scattered trees as above. Other ornamental
beds were present between the Climbers and Creepers glasshouse and White Peaks Café including
species such as Berberis sp., Cornus sp. and Phormium sp.

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 13 December 2017

 Bats
3.7 Bat records identified within 1km of the Site included:

 Common pipistrelle;

 Soprano pipistrelle;

 Nathusius’s pipistrelle;

 Daubenton’s;

 Brown long eared;

 Noctule;

 Leilser; and

 Serotine

3.8 Trees and areas of plantation woodland within the wider site provide suitable habitat for a variety
of bat species to roost, forage and commute, with buildings across the gardens with potential to
support roosting bats.

3.9 The Site itself provides areas of ornamental planting and mature trees which are likely to support
foraging and commuting bats.

3.10 For the most part the trees recorded did not support features which may support roosting bats,
with a large mature London plane and large lime tree to the south east of the White Peaks
building supporting high BRP given the presence of wounds and crevices.

3.11 The White Peaks café was identified as of negligible BRP. This comprised a membrane/plastic
construction with glass and metal walls for the most part which did not present features or the
thermal requirements for roosting bats. Sections around the toilet block at the rear were brick
built and included areas of lead flashing, but no crevices were identified which could support
roosting bats, with lead flashing in particular tight fitting.

Other Species
Birds

3.12 Bird records identified within 1km of the Site, including common and widespread species,
included:

 Grey Heron;

 Goldcrest;

 Song Thrush;

 House Sparrow;

 Grey wagtail; and

 Redwing.

3.13 The trees and shrubs within the Site provide suitable opportunities for birds to nest. No nesting
birds were recorded at the time of survey.

GCN

3.14 A record of GCN was identified within the wider gardens, over 1km to the south west of the Site.

3.15 There are five ponds within 1km of the Site, one of which is just over 100m north east. Four of
these ponds are heavily ornamental with concrete banks, running water and/or fish present. In
particular, the pond to the north east has previously been stocked with carp and rudd8. The fifth

8
Tony Kirkham, Head of Arboretum, Gardens and Horticultural Services at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pers. comm. June 2017

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 14 December 2017

 pond is situated 350m east, however is beyond a tall brick wall which would present a significant
barrier to GCN.

3.16 Therefore it is considered highly unlikely works will impact upon GCN and this species is not
considered further in the report.

Badger

3.17 The ornamental planting area provides opportunities for badger to forage and sett build, and
badger are known to be present and forage among the wider gardens, including within amenity
grassland areas.

3.18 No setts or signs of badger were identified within the Site or adjacent areas.

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 15 December 2017

4 Discussion

Designated Sites
4.1 The Site lies within the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew SINC, however due to the small and
localised scope and scale of the project it is considered unlikely proposals will have an adverse
effect on the SINC.

4.2 Thirteen other SINCs lie within 1km, as well as Syon Park SSSI 91m west, and Isleworth Ait LWS
758m south west. These are considered to be of a distance unlikely to be affected by the
proposals.

4.3 Best practice construction methods will be employed on Site to avoid impacts such as dust and
contamination from surface runoff.

Habitats
4.4 The Site is largely comprised of buildings and hardstanding of low ecological value. There are
mature and semi-mature trees present alongside areas of ornamental planting. These provide
habitat suitable for a range of wildlife, although these habitats are abundant across the Gardens
and at this location there value will be reduced as a result of existing development and associated
disturbance.

4.5 The majority of trees, including mature specimens (including those with bat roost potential – see
below) are to be retained and these will be protected in accordance with best practice methods
and guidance, BS5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. A small number
of semi-mature trees will be removed to facilitate the development and given poor condition (see
LUC Drawing 10040-LD-PLN-100), however loss of these trees will not result in notable ecological
impacts given their relatively small size and the retention of the majority of trees in the vicinity.
In addition, new tree planting will exceed those lost (see LUC Drawing 10040-LD-PLN-400). In
addition a small number of trees will be translocated elsewhere within the Gardens given their
value as part of the wider collection.

4.6 Areas of ornamental planting will also be lost however, again new planting will exceed that lost
and will include a diverse range of planting and species types resulting in an enhanced planting
scheme for wildlife (see below).

Bats
4.7 The legal protection afforded to bats and their roosts is summarised in Appendix 1. In summary
all bats and their roosts are subject to the highest level of protection afforded to species in the UK
as European Protected Species (EPS).

4.8 The Site lies within the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew which includes large areas of plantation
woodland, grassland, scrub and waterbodies supporting habitat for bats to forage, commute and
roost. In addition the buildings and trees across the gardens provide roosting opportunities for
bats.

4.9 The building within the Site had negligible BRP. Two trees with high BRP lie close to the White
Peaks café building which is to be replaced. However these are not to be affected by the works.

4.10 There is potential for any new external lighting to impact on bats. However, it is important to
note that the existing scheme includes lightspill from the White Peaks building and external
lighting and with careful design the proposed lighting scheme will not increase lightspill to

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 16 December 2017

 sensitive ecological features. In particular, external lighting is not located in the vicinity features
with particular ecological value and notable mature trees and those with bat roost potential. The
external lighting includes efficient LED luminaires set in to columns with fins, and are directional
to light pathways and not surrounding habitats. The lighting proposals are provided in Appendix 4
(the external lighting columns are labelled ‘F3’).

Potential Mitigation

4.11 No further mitigation is required with regards to bats, with impact avoidance measures in-built to
the scheme.

Birds
4.12 Trees within the Site provide suitable habitat for nesting birds, including ornamental planting and
trees. Localised loss of planting and trees will result in a risk to nesting birds if undertaken during
the nesting season, although it is important to note that this habitat type is abundant in the wider
Garden and these areas are subject to disturbance currently as a result of the existing facilities
which is likely to reduce their value for nesting birds. Translocation of trees could also impact on
nesting birds if undertaken during the nesting season.

4.13 The ornamental planting area close to the White Peaks café in the north west of the Site has
opportunities for nesting birds, therefore works close to this area could cause disturbance to these
species.

Mitigation

4.1 To ensure no adverse effects occur in relation to nesting birds, any shrub or tree removal (and
translocation) will be undertaken in accordance with the following precautionary approach:

 Sensitive timings where possible with works undertaken between September-February

(inclusive) to avoid the nesting season.

 If this is not achievable, the presence of bird nests will be searched for prior to works
commencing. If bird nests are present and likely to be affected by works, a suitable protection
zone would be required until such time that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer
active. This would likely result in delays to the programme and may need to be informed by
an ecologist.

Badger
4.2 Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in England and Wales it is an offence, amongst other
offences, to intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy a badger sett, or obstruct access to a
sett; and disturb a badger when it is occupying a sett.

4.3 The Site itself supports areas of ornamental planting which would be suitable for badger to forage
and establish setts. Although no setts were identified during the survey, there is potential for
badger to establish new setts prior to works with a resultant risk of disturbance or even sett loss
if located close to an area proposed for extensive works or use. A repeat survey a minimum of 6
weeks prior to the works is recommended to enable mitigation measured to be developed, and a
Natural England licence obtained, if necessary.

Enhancement
4.4 The proposals include extensive areas of wildlife friendly planting, including several areas of wild
flower lawn aimed at providing a higher ecological diversity, as well as woodland edge planting
and a woodland fern garden.

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 17 December 2017

4.5 All planting will be native and/or ornamental species with known benefits to wildlife, such as
pollinator friendly species.

4.6 Dead wood features will also be created using logs from tree works within the gardens.

4.7 These features will provide valuable habitat for invertebrates in particular, as well as feeding and
nesting opportunities for birds, and foraging habitat for bats.

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 18 December 2017

Appendix 1

Policy and Legal Considerations

Statutory nature conservation sites and protected species are a ‘material consideration’ in the UK
planning process (DCLG 2012). Where planning permission is not required, for example on proposals for
external repair to structures, consideration of protected species remains necessary given their protection
under UK and EU law.

Natural England Standing Advice aims to support Local Planning Authorities decision making in respect of
protected species (Natural England 2012). Standing advice is a material consideration in determining the
outcome of applications, in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England
following consultation.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 transpose the requirements of the
European Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (Council Directive
79/409/EEC) into UK law, enabling the designation of protected sites and species at a European level.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) forms the key piece of UK legislation relating
to the protection of habitats and species.

The Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 provides additional support to the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981; for example, increasing the level of protection for certain species of reptiles.

The Protection of Badger Act 1992 provides specific protection for this species.

The Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 sets out the welfare framework in respect to wild mammals,
prohibiting a range of activities that may cause unnecessary suffering.

Species and Habitats of Principal Importance for Conservation in England and Wales and priority habitats
and species listed in the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Biodiversity Action Plan are
species which are targeted for conservation. The government has a duty to ensure that involved parties
take reasonable practice steps to further the conservation of such species under Section 41 of the
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill 2006. In addition, the Act places a biodiversity
duty on public authorities who ‘must, in exercising their functions, have regard, so far as is consistent
with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’ (Section 40 [1]).
Criteria for selection of national priority habitats and species in the UK include international threat and
marked national decline.

The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Biodiversity Action Plan main aims are:

 To conserve, and where possible, enhance Richmond’s variety of habitats and species, in
particular those, which are of international or national importance, are in decline locally, are
characteristic to Richmond or have particular public appeal, which can raise the profile of
biodiversity;
 To ensure that Richmond residents become aware of, and are given the opportunity to become
involved in, conserving and enhancing the biodiversity around them;
 To raise awareness and increase stakeholder involvement in maintaining and where possible,
enhancing species and habitats of importance.

Species and habitats listed in the plan include:

 Ancient parkland and veteran trees habitat

 Acid grassland habitat
 Bat species
 Broadleaved woodland habitat
 Hedges habitat
 Mistletoe species
 Private gardens habitat

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 19 December 2017

  Reedbeds habitat
 Song thrush species
 Stag beetle species
 Tidal Thames habitat
 Tower mustard species
 Water vole species

The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan is currently in draft for consultation.
The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Core Strategy, April 2009 forms current planning
policy, with the following policies of relevance to nature conservation:

Policy CP4 Biodiversity

4.A The Borough’s biodiversity including the SSSIs and Other Sites of Nature Importance will be
safeguarded and enhanced. Biodiversity enhancements will be encouraged particularly in areas of
deficiency (parts of Whitton, Hampton, Teddington, Twickenham and South Kew), in areas of new
development and along wildlife corridors and green chains such as the River Thames and River Crane
corridors.

4.B Weighted priority in terms of their importance will be afforded to protected species and priority
species and habitats in the UK, Regional and Richmond upon Thames Biodiversity Action Plans

Policy CP1 Sustainable Development

1.A The policy seeks to maximise the effective use of resources including land, water and energy, and
assist in reducing any long term adverse environmental impacts of development. Development will be
required to conform to the Sustainable Construction checklist, including the requirement to meet the
Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 (for new homes), Ecohomes "excellent" (for conversions) or BREEAM
"excellent" (for other types of development). This requirement will be adjusted in future years through
subsequent DPDs, to take into account the then prevailing standards in the Code for Sustainable Homes
and any other National Guidance, and ensure that these standards are met or exceeded.

The following principles will be promoted:-

1.B Appropriate location of land uses Facilities and services should be provided at the appropriate level
locally, taking account of the network of town centres identified in policy CP8. Higher density residential
and mixed use developments to be in town centres, near to public transport to reduce the need to travel
by car.

1.C Making best use of land The use of existing and proposed new facilities should be maximised through
management initiatives, such as co-location or dual use. Redevelopment of sites should normally only
take place where there can be an increase in the number of housing units and/or quantity of commercial
floor space.

1.D Reducing environmental impact The environmental benefits of retaining and, where appropriate,
refurbishing existing buildings, should be compared against redevelopment. Development should seek to
minimise the use of open land for development and seek to maintain the natural vegetation, especially
trees, where possible. Local environmental impacts of development with respect to factors such as noise,
air quality and contamination should be minimised.
1.E Environmental gain to compensate for any environmental cost of development will be sought.

The National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012) states (Section 11), that the planning
system should minimise impacts on biodiversity, providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. It
also states that local planning authorities and planning policies should:

 Plan positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of
biodiversity and green infrastructure.

 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.

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 20 December 2017

  Promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks
and the recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets and
identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan.

Bats

All British species of bat are listed on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Schedule 5. It
is an offence to deliberately kill, damage, take (Section 9(1)) a bat; to intentionally or recklessly disturb
a bat whilst it occupies a place of shelter or protection (Section 9(4)(b)); or to deliberately or recklessly
damage, destroy or obstruct access to a bat roost (Section 9(4)(c)). Given the strict nature of these
offences, there is an obligation on the developer and owner of a site to consider the presence of bats.

All British bats are listed on the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, Schedule 2.
Regulation 41 strengthens the protection of bats under the 1981 Act against deliberate capture or killing
(Regulation 41(1) (a)), deliberate disturbance (Regulation 41(1) (b))9 and damage or destruction of a
resting place (Regulation 41(1) (d)).

A bat roost is defined as any structure or place which is used for shelter or protection, irrespective of
whether or not bats are resident. Buildings and trees may be used by bats for a number of different
purposes throughout the year including resting, sleeping, breeding, raising young and hibernating. Use
depends on bat age, sex, condition and species as well as the external factors of season and weather
conditions. A roost used during one season is therefore protected throughout the year and any proposed
works that may result in disturbance to bats, and loss, obstruction of or damage to a roost are licensable.

Application for a Natural England EPS Licence

Development works that may cause killing or injury of bats or that would result in the damage, loss or
disturbance of a bat roost would require a Natural England (NE) Bat Mitigation Licence.

For a Mitigation licence to be granted three tests must be met. Evidence is needed to determine these
three tests: whether there is a need for the development which justifies the impact on the European
Protected Species (EPS); whether there is an alternative which would avoid the impact and need for an
EPS licence; and whether mitigation proposed is sufficient to maintain the conservation status of the EPS
in question.

A Mitigation Licence application will generally only be considered by NE on receipt of planning consent,
and once any pre-commencement conditions of relevance to ecology have been discharged.

There are two licensing routes now available for bats, which comprise:

Full NE England EPS Mitigation Licence:

 NE aim to determine the application within six weeks (although this can take longer).

 The application comprises three components including an application form (broad details of
the applicant, site and proposals); a detailed Method Statement providing the survey methods
and findings, impact assessment and mitigation measures (including detailed maps and
schedule of works); and a Reasoned Statement outlining the „need‟ for the development and
consideration of alternatives.
NE Low Impact Class Licence

 This new route provides an alternative, quicker route (with a much reduced application form,
and a target of 10 days to determine an application).

 This Low Impact Class Licence is only available to Registered Consultants identified by NE.

 This is available for sites which support up to three low status roosts (day roosts, night roosts,
feeding roosts and transitional roosts) of a maximum of three common species. The common
species which can be covered by this licence include common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle,
brown longeared, whiskered, Brandts, Daubenton‟s and Natterer‟s bat.

9
Relates specifically to deliberate disturbance in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect i) the ability of any significant group
of animals of that species to survive, breed or rear or nurture their young or ii) the local distribution of that species.

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 21 December 2017

  All licensed works require evidence that there is a need for the development and that
appropriate mitigation, including seasonal constraints and provision of alternative habitat
and/or roosting structures is considered.

 Before Natural England can confirm the site is registered and licensable works can commence,
an assessment of the three tests must be undertaken by the Registered Consultant. Although
this does not need to be submitted to NE, NE may subsequently undertake a review of the
project and request to see all evidence as collected by the Consultant. This can only be
undertaken following a survey and impact assessment which must be carried out in
accordance with licence conditions and BCT survey guidelines.

 This licence cannot be used in relation to trees.

Several species of bat, including brown long-eared and soprano pipistrelle are listed as species of
principal importance under the NERC Act (2006). Section 41 of the Act is used to guide decision-makers
such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under section
40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of
biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal functions.

Great Crested Newt

GCN and their places of shelter are subject to the same level of protection as bats as a European
Protected Species (see above).

Nesting Birds

Birds and their nests are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended). This Act gives
protection to all species of bird with regard to killing and injury, and to their nests and eggs with regard
to taking, damaging and destruction. Certain species listed on Schedule 1 of the Act, are afforded
additional protection against protection

Badger

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 provides specific protection for this species. Under this act it is an
offence to take, kill or injure badgers or cause cruelty to badgers. It is also an offence to interfere with a
badger sett (including digging for badgers, permitting dogs to enter a badger sett, obstructing the
entrance to, or destroying a badger sett or disturbing a badger when it is occupying a sett); or to buy or
offer for sale or otherwise possess a live badger. Works which may result in damage to a badger sett, or
potential disturbance to badger using setts, must be undertaken under a Natural England licence.

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 22 December 2017

Appendix 2

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Map

Kew Gardens White Peaks Replacement 23 December 2017

 Kew Gardens
Multiple Sites
Ecology Surveys

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

White Peaks

6
.
Survey area

. Target note

5 Bare ground
. A!A!A!
! ! ! Amenity grassland with
A!A!A!
! ! ! scattered trees

A A
Amenity grassland
1 A A Buildings
4
!
(
.
. Hard standing/ Path

Ornamental planting / Mixed

! ! !
! ! !

scattered trees
! ! !
2 ! ! !

!
(
. Play area

Bat roost potential (trees)

3 !
( High
.
Bat roost potential (buildings)

Negligible

Map Scale @A3: 1:700

E 0 20 40
m
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CB:VT EB:Goosen_V LUC 7166_Phase1_WhitePeaks 15/11/2017 Source: LUC
Kew Gardens Family Landscape Area 24 December 2017
Appendix 3

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey – Target Notes

Target Description
Note
A very large mature London plane tree; High BRP given the presence of visible
1.
cavities and likely presence of additional features which could not be viewed given
height.
Mature lime tree; High BRP (as above).
2.
Areas of amenity grassland dominated by perennial rye grass Lolium perenne, with
3. abundant white clover Trifolium repens and common daisy Bellis perennis.
The white peaks building, a catering and retail structure. Majority comprising
4.
membrane/plastic tent like roofing, with glass and metal walls. Areas of brick
construction with lead flashing, but with no cavity features observed which could
support bats. Negligible BRP.
An area of amenity grassland adjacent to outdoor seating area.
5.
An area of ornamental planting, with scattered non-native tree and shrub species.
6.

Kew Gardens Family Landscape Area 25 December 2017

Appendix 4

Lighting Proposals

Kew Gardens Family Landscape Area 26 December 2017

 Notes

1. Do not scale from this drawing.

2. All dimensions are in millimetres unless specified otherwise.

3. Drawing originator shall be notified in writing of any discrepancies.

4. This drawing shall be read in conjunction with all other MEP, Structural and
Architectural tender drawings, specifications and equipment schedules.

5. This drawing is to be used for the preparation of installation drawings. This

drawing is not to be used for fabrication or installation.

Key to symbols

H HEAT DETECTOR WITH SOUNDER & BEACON

So SMOKE DETECTOR

So SOUNDER/SMOKE DETECTOR

DB GENERAL & BOH

H HEAT DETECTOR WITH SOUNDER

LAC
DB RETAIL MCP
Electr FOR KITCHEN MANUAL CALL POINT
FA ical In LIGHTING
ta ke

INT
PIR MULTI SENSOR
EM

INT
M PHOTOCELL
FA
E

INT
HD
G G EXIT ILLUMINATED NON-MAINTAINED EXIT SIGN

Plant Room
1 POLE SWITCH
G
I I
IP IP RATED 1 POLE SWITCH

EXIT
A
RECESSED SQUARE DOWNLIGHT
B C C
B
C C E C B
RECESSED DOWNLIGHT 28W

B
E E
B
Staff
D WelfareD
So
C
C
C C E I RECESSED DOWNLIGHT 12W

B IP D
B E OMEGA CIRCULAR RECESSED
E E E
B E C

C C C C C D WC DB KITCHEN
D
D E
RECESSED EMERGENCY SPOT
B
B DB CAFE & ICE H F
CREAMERY RECESSED 1200 LINEAR
C B E C
B
C C WC DB SERVERY
COSHH
E
Store E C
G
F2
RECESSED 600 LINEAR
D
Public
E WCs E
B B E D
F3
HL IP 65 RECESSED 1200 LINEAR
B D
C C So WC So C
F F3 G
A
E
So SURFACE MOUNTED 1500 LINEAR
E
B E H H
TRACK MOUNTED SPOTLIGHTS
E
A
C
Catering Office Retail Office
I
D E D
D C E A
A
F IP 65 WALL MOUNTED LUMINAIRE
B E E B So
A
So B
HL HIGH LEVEL
A
F3

EXIT
A

So
A A
F
Reference drawings
A A
A Back of House Kitchen
E H So
FOR KITCHEN LIGHTING
A
M
A
A A

A E
So F
I A

MCP E E
F3
FAP
A A MCP
A
So
A
F

F
H

E A A

F
F3
A I

F
F3
F

F2
A So
F

F
F3 So A
Staff Dining

F
So MCP
E F

F
So So
H

F
F3

F
F So
A
F

F
F

F
H

F
So
So
Staff Servery

F
F

F
F
F2

F
F
Servery

F
So E

F
E

F
E So

F
F2

F
H
H

F
F

F
H

F
F

F
So

F
E
F

F
E

F
F
F E So

F
E

F
F
F

F2

F
F
H

F
Cafe/ Ice Creamery

F
F
H

F
E So
F H

F
H

F
So

F
H

F
F

F
So

F
F
F

F
Artisan Coffee Seating

F
F
E

F
So So
So

F
F

F
So

F
F

F
So
So
So

F
So E

F
F

F
F
Circulation E
E

F
So
E

F
WCs

F
F3

F2
F
HL C E C C E C
So C

F
So So E
E C HL
E HL So So I
C So HL
C B

F
So HL

F
F3

F
F

F
HL

F
F
E HL
E

F
HL B B B B B
B

F
C

F
So B B B So

F
So B
E So

F
F
F

F
F
So

F
F
C

F
So

F2
F
E
So

F2

F
So

F
So

F2
F
So
Indoor Dining/ Artisan Coffee
So

F
F

F
F

F
E

F
F

F
F

F
So

So E

F
F
F

So
MCP
So

F
F
F

FOR RETAIL TRACK LIGHTING

F3
I E
F

F
F
F

H
F

F3 H So
F

H
F

H
So
F3 F H
F

H
So
H
F
F

F3 H E

F
H F
Retail Shopfloor
H

F F
F3

H So

H
F
F
H

H
F3 F
F

H So
F P1 16/10/2017 KP Stage 3 Issue RD HL
H
F
H
Rev Date Drawn Description
H
So F
F
H
10 Fleet Place
E
H
F
EC4M 7RB
H
H
United Kingdom
F

T +44 (0)20 7651 0300

F +44 (0)20 7651 0310
W mottmac.com

Client

RGB KEW

Title
Royal Botanic Gardens Kew
White Peaks Replacement
Lighting and Fire Alarm
Layout

Designed K.Pathmanathan Eng check R.Dave

Drawn K.Pathmanathan Coordination R.Clark

Dwg check R.Dave Approved H.Luker

Scale at A0 Status Rev Security
1:100 PRE P1 STD
Mott MacDonald Drawing Number
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. 374660-MMD-WP-00-DR-E-0001
\\mottmac\project\London\BSD\375330 Kew Gardens\Family Landscapes - Leaf Cafe\03 Drawings\Electrical\374660-MMD-WP-00-DR-E-0001.dwg Oct
16, 2017 - 6:20PM PAT76048
 Mott MacDonald Limited
10 Fleet Place
London
EC4M 7RB
United Kingdom
+44 (0)20 8774 2000

LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE
DATE: 16/10/2017

REVISION: P1
PROJECT NO.: 374660

PROJECT: Kew Gardens - White Peaks Replacement

CLIENT:

AREA:

CORRELATED
LUMINAIRE LUMEN COLOUR
REF. IMAGE DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER PRODUCT CODE LAMP TYPE WATTAGE COLOUR DIMENSIONS
OUTPUT RENDERING INDEX
TEMPERATURE
W Lm K

A IP40 rated recessed square downlight with a polycarbonate cover Thorlux GF15105 LED 32 2780 80 4000

Recessed LED downlight with an IP rating of 54 and a diameter of

B Thorn 92900763 LED 28 2880 80 4000
150mm.

Recessed LED downlight with an IP rating of 54 and a diameter of

C Thorn 92900672 LED 12 1410 80 4000
150mm.

Recessed LED circular edge lit panel for recessed mounting in 200dia
D Thorn 96627780 LED 42 3371 80 4000
cutout with an opal diffuser. IP 20 rated.

Small ceiling recessed emergency luminaire with 3hr non-maintained

E Philip Payne TYKA860DS LED 2 200 80 4000
feature in a white body finish.

F 1200mm Linear strip. Nmac Lighting NEA24S.1200.600.40 LED 24 2400 80 4000

F2 600mm Linear strip. Nmac Lighting NEA24S.600.600.40 LED 24 2400 80 4000

F3 IP 65 Rated 1200mm Linear strip with IP67 sealed plug and socket. Nmac Lighting 5364 1000-L24(3)-5364 LED 25.8 2560 80 4000

G IP 65 rated high impact surface mounted 1500mm linear. Thorlux TP15906 LED 30 3985 80 4000

H Spotlight mounted on track with intergral fixed output control gear. Thorn 96665974 LED 19.3 1772 80 4000

I Elegant IP65 wall light with an aluminium body. Bega 24220K4 LED 11 1600 80 4000

Exit Ceiling mounted 3 hour maintained illuminated exit sign. Thorn 96642778 LED 5 60 - -

1 This luminaire schedule is to be read in conjuction with all electrical drawings and specifications.

Provide all accessories required for mounting and correct working installation. Where luminaires are installed in suspended ceilings, the Contractor shall be responsible for advising the manufacturer of the ceiling type to
2 ensure correct fit and compatability.

The catalogue references in this schedule are for information only. The Contractor shall ensure that the references are correct before ordering. The catalogue numbers for variants, emergency versions, high frequency
3 versions and accessory parts may not be given.

All appropriate connecting pieces, suspensions, transformers, live ends, accessories etc. shall be provided with each fitting in order to form a complete installation. Accessories shall also be colour matched to the luminaire
4 body unless specified otherwise.

5 Refer to engineer in any case of discrepency or ambiguity.

6 All dimensions are in millimeters unless specified otherwise.

7 This luminaire schedule should not be relied on or used in circumstances other than those for which it was originally prepared and for which Mott MacDonald was commissioned.

REVISION DATE REMARKS PREPARED BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY

P1 16/10/2017 Stage 3 - For Information Only KP RD HL
 The use of this data by the recipient acts as an agreement of the
following statements. Do not use this data if you do not agree with
any of the following statements:-

All drawings are based upon site information supplied by third

parties and as such their accuracy cannot be guaranteed. All features
are approximate and subject to clarification by a detailed
topographical survey, statutory service enquiries and confirmation of
the legal boundaries.

The controlled version of this drawing should be viewed in DWF or

PDF format not DWG or other formats. All prints of this drawing
must be made in full colour.

75 200 Where this drawing has been based upon Ordnance Survey data, it
has been reproduced under the terms of Ryder Licence No.
100000144. Reproduction of this drawing in whole or in part is
prohibited without the prior permission of Ordnance Survey.

Secondary box section spacer fixings Do not scale the drawing. Use figured dimensions in all cases. Check
as required to support fins all dimensions on site. Report any discrepancies in writing to Ryder
before proceeding.

Space for motifs to be developed

with kew interpretation strategy

hieght varies 1.5m min - 2.5m max

Integrated linear lighting set
between steel fins

PPC steel fins with punched motifs to be

developed with kew interpretation strategy.
Colour to match building structure finish.
Fixed to base with countersunk base plates.
Steel thickeness to structural engineers
proposals

Black PPC steel angled fixing

plates bolted to concete footing
150

150 Revision Date Drawn by Checked by

50 P01 18.10.17 RBA DMC
Concrete footing to structural
First Issue
engineers details
Amendment
Status
Issue for Information
Project

RBG Kew
White Peaks Replacement
Kew Gardens
Drawing

Landscape Column Design Intent

Drawing No.
Project ID Originator Zone Level Type Role Number

RBGK - RYD -WP- ZZ -DR -A-5201

Ryder Project No. Scale at A4 Drawn By Status Revision

3109-01 1 : 20 RBA S2 P01

info@ryderarchitecture.com
www.ryderarchitecture.com