DR FRANK HOPE Forensic & Planning Arboricultural Consultant

Rebuttal of Mr Mark Mackworth-Praed’s supplementary report. 1

REBUTTAL STATEMENT ADDRESSING THE

SUPPLEMENTARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF MR MARK

MACKWORTH-PRAED RELATING TO VICTORIA TOWER

GARDENS, MILLBANK, WESTMINSTER, LONDON, SW1 3JA.

ARBORICULTURAL REBUTTAL STATEMENT

ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING COMMUNITIES AND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Prepared by Dr Frank Hope

LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REFERENCE: 19/00114/FULL

PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/XF990/V/19/3240661

DR FRANK HOPE

Forensic & Planning Arboricultural Consultant

Chestnut House, Northside, Thorney, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE6 0RL

Telephone: 01733 350500 Mobile: 07860 227002 Email: [email protected] Website: www.frankhope.com

mailto:[email protected]


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 On the 2nd of October 2020 Mr Mackworth-Praed disclosed a Supplementary

Proof of Evidence covering a number of issues, in particular:

• Updated information on recent inspections and tree management

undertaken by the Royal Parks;

• Observations and evidence arising from a site visit on Tuesday the 22nd

of September 2020;

• Commentary on a draft arboricultural method statement (AMS)

prepared by Bartlett Consulting, dated the 1st of September 2020,

relating to the proposed relocation of the existing Spicer Memorial, and

the proposed resurfacing of the existing network of paths within

Victoria Tower Gardens (VTG), and served on the City Council on the

2nd September 2020.

1.2 In item 1.1.3 of his Supplementary Proof of Evidence Mr Mackworth-Praed

states:

“I also set out relevant matters which I observed when, during a recent site visit to

VTG on 22 September 2020, an excavation was in the process of being undertaken

on Millbank. The evidence that I have prepared in this supplementary proof of

evidence is true, and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and

professional opinions.” (Emphasis added).


2. RECENT MANAGEMENT BY THE ROYAL PARKS.

2.1 In my opinion, this information makes no difference to the assessment of the

proposed works which the inquiry is considering.


3.0 THE SITE VISIT ON THE 22nd OF SEPTEMBER 2020.

3.1.1 At item 3.1.1 of his Supplementary Proof of Evidence Mr Mackworth-Praed

states:

“At the date of my recent site visit, I saw that highway works were in progress within

Millbank, just to the north of its junction with Great Peter Street. I understand that

the works related to the installation of security gates, as part of the Westminster

Ceremonial Streetscape Project to create a ceremonial cordon for events around

Westminster, an initiative driven by the Metropolitan Police Service and the Centre

for the Protection of National Infrastructure. I also understand that the works are

classed as permitted development. The presence of these ongoing works was

notified to the Applicant for information, in an email from Barbara Milne to

Donncha O’Shea on the 23rd September 2020.” (Emphasis added).

3.1.2 On the 23rd of September the Head of Arboricultural Services sent the

following email to Mr Donncha O’Shea:

From: Milne, Barbara: WCC <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 12:26:38 PM To: Donncha O Shea <[email protected]> Subject: Victoria Tower Gardens

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Donncha A couple of matters. I visited VTG today and noted excavations in the footway and carriageway on Millbank – this for your information. (Emphasis added). Are you able to share with WCC the results of your foliage testing of the London planes? Kind regards Barbara Barbara Milne Head of Arboricultural Services City Highways | City Management and Communities Westminster City Council 64 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QP Tel: 07790386505| westminster.gov.uk



http://www.westminster.gov.uk/


3.1.3 The works to install the bollards along Millbank commenced on the 15th of

September, 2020. They are within the public highway, and I have been

informed that they did not require planning permission to be carried out.

However, it is extremely likely that WCC would have been involved in a

monitoring capacity throughout the project, and I consider it inconceivable

that they would not have been involved throughout its conception, and

construction. WCC remained silent on the works.

3.1.4 I understand from other correspondence between the parties that the Head of

Arboricultural Services attended the site on the 22nd of September, the day

before her email to Mr Donncha O’Shea, when she asked Mr Mackworth-

Praed to re-measure the planes (She did not inform the Applicant of this

work). The correspondence appears to indicate that they just happened upon

the Millbank works.

3.1.5 I understand from Mr Donncha O’Shea that Mr Jason Hasaka, of Bartlett Tree

Experts, was in Victoria Tower Gardens on the 22nd of September, to discuss

the proposed tree mitigation measures with the personnel from the Royal

Parks. By chance he and the personnel from the Royal Parks noted the

Millbank works. It was not possible for them to access the site, but an

operative did note that Barbara Milne, the Head of Arboricultural Services,

had attended the site.

3.1.6 I express my concern and disquiet that the Head of Arboricultural Services

did not notify the Applicant as soon as she was aware of the date of

commencement of the works. By failing to do so this has denied the Applicant

the opportunity to inspect the works and take photographs of them. Nor has

she or Mr Mackworth-Praed provided the Applicant with the plans or any

details relating to the works that the Council is in possession of.

3.1.7 On the 5th of October 2020 I was supplied with 21 photographs taken of the

works being carried out along Millbank on the 22nd of September 2020.

3.1.8 It will be appreciated that I was not given a fair opportunity to inspect the

works myself and so I have been disadvantaged by the Council’s failure to

notify the Applicant of the works as soon as the Council became aware of the

date of their commencement (15th September 2020).


3.1.9 In item 3.1.2 of his Supplementary Proof of Evidence Mr Mackworth-Praed

identifies that the excavation was down to approximately 800mm, and that no

roots were present. I find this comment of interest in that Mr Mackworth-

Praed has repeatedly claimed roots within the site would be down below

1000mm, and that the site investigations were too shallow to identify roots.

3.1.10 The picture below shows a large plane completely surrounded by flags and

carriageway. There is only one root visible, but there are no severed roots

present, which begs the question, where are they all? They must be under the

carriageway, footway, or deeper than this excavation, as there is nowhere else

for them to go.

3.1.11 In my opinion, the picture below demonstrates that it is unreliable to attempt

to take too much from these photographs, as they are positively misleading in

terms of assessing where the roots are.

Picture supplied by Mr Mackworth-Praed showing a large plane in

the pavement surrounded by flags and carriageway.

3.1.12 In his original report Mr Mackworth-Praed showed his theoretical RPAs along

the western side of VTG as being polygons with their western edge along the

carriageway, i.e. it confirmed that he considered the roots to be beneath the


footpath. It appears that he now claims, or at least implies, that there are no

roots beneath the footpath, and that they are all within the gardens; they only

have roots on the eastern side of the trees.

3.1.13 Mr Mackworth-Praed has not addressed the fact that the planes are extremely

tall, with large spreading canopies. They are in an exposed location, and have

been in situ for over 100 years. They appear quite stable. He makes no

comment on the potential instability of the trees were it truly to be the case

that they lack roots all along one side of their trunks.

3.1.14 In item 3.1.8 of his Supplementary Proof of Evidence, Mr Mackworth-Praed

makes comment on the lack of roots beneath the pavement on the opposite

side of Millbank to the Victoria Tower Gardens. He notes that only one single

broken root of around 20mm diameter was present.

3.1.15 In item 3.1.9 of his Supplementary Proof of Evidence, Mr Mackworth-Praed

relies on evidence from the workmen on site in relation to tree roots. The site

manager noted that no significant roots were present, which indicates they

must have been at a lower level, as one tree was growing completely within

the pavement, and there was no other place for the roots to be.

3.1.16 It is important to note that the excavations for the bollards would have

removed all roots encountered, as they had to be constructed in any event.

3.1.17 In my opinion, the claim by Mr Mackworth-Praed that there was only one

root beneath the pavement on the opposite side of Millbank is simply

incredible, as if there was, the tree would not survive.

3.1.18 In item 3.1.10 of his Supplementary Proof of Evidence Mr Mackworth-Praed

states:

“In the case of the street trees planted on the opposite side of Millbank, it can be

surmised that their roots are predominantly growing beneath the footways, for the

reasons suggested in my earlier proof, and consistently with research findings.”

5.1.11 In item 3.1.11 he continues:

“However, there is no evidence to suggest either that root growth or density of the Planes in VTG which are present beneath the footway or, less likely, the carriageway of Millbank, would be sufficient to maintain their viability in the


context of the sudden reduction of rootable soil volume within VTG, or other adverse consequences of the proposed development. Nor does the observed rooting environment in the footways and carriageway of Millbank suggest conditions are favourable for current or future growth, or that root activity or density would be increasing in these conditions to the same extent as they would do in the more

favourable rooting environment of VTG.” (Emphasis added).

3.1.19 The highlighted text above accepts that roots will be present beneath the

footway, and although less likely in his opinion, beneath the carriageway.

3.1.20 I find the claim that the rooting environment beneath the footpath and

carriageway along Millbank are not favourable to future growth is unrealistic.

It is important to note that trees are growing directly within the footpaths, and

are showing no signs of any stress or lack of growth (See also the photographs

on pages 32, 33, 34 and 35 of my Proof of Evidence).


4.0 ANALYSIS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY

MR MACKWORTH-PRAED.

4.1.1 As mentioned previously in this rebuttal, Mr Mackworth-Praed visited the site

on the 22nd of September 2020, and inspected the excavated works. His report

was dated the 2nd of October 2020.

4.1.2 It is worthy of note that discussions between the parties have taken place in

order to produce a Statement of Common Ground (SOCG). The statement was

eventually signed on the 5th of October 2020, i.e. the day before the

commencement of the hearing. Although the SOCG was signed on the

evening of the 5th of October, it was not distributed by the Head of

Arboricultural Services until approximately 10.00am on the 6th of October;

just before the commencement of the hearing.

4.1.3 At no time during the discussions on the SOCG did Mr Mackworth-Praed, or

the Head of Arboricultural Services, make any mention of the works along the

carriageway.

4.1.4 The SOCG has now been signed, and neither Mr Mackworth-Praed, or the

Head of Arboricultural Services included any comment in it relating to the

works along Millbank, even though Mr Mackworth-Praed has produced a

Supplementary Report on the subject. Had he been confident of the relevance

of his photographs, I would have expected him to include them in the SOCG

(signed after submission of his Supplementary Report), and not just disclose

his Supplementary Report a few days from the commencement of the hearing.

4.1.5 Although Mr Mackworth-Praed has produced his Supplementary Report, and

introduced it as evidence to the hearing, he does not appear to rely on it. In

item 1.25 of the SOCG Mr Mackworth-Praed confirms that he bases his

evidence on the information in his May 2020 report.

4.1.6 The timing of Mr Mackworth-Praed’s Supplementary Proof of Evidence, i.e.

the 2nd of October 2020, has prevented the Applicant from carrying out a

detailed analysis of the works, I am very concerned that this has been done for

tactical reasons.

4.1.7 The picture below, supplied by Mr Mackworth-Praed, shows a large section

of pavement lifted along Millbank. No significant excavations have been


carried out, and the extent of root growth within the pavement area is not

known, although there is evidence of a large root running along the foundation

wall (See the picture below).

Picture supplied by Mr Mackworth-Praed showing a large section

of pathway with no excavation of the substrate.


Picture provided by Mr Mackworth-Praed showing the large root

running along the boundary of he railings.

4.1.8 The picture on page 12 below, supplied by Mr Mackworth-Praed, shows the

large section of lifted pavement, with very little overall excavation. The extent

of root growth within the pavement area is unknown. Note the extensive

outward movement of the foundations to the railings.

4.1.9 The picture on page 12 shows an area of excavation containing a metal and

concrete structure down to 800mm below ground level. No evidence has been

provided to indicate the extent of root activity within the area prior to insertion

of the frame, and all roots would have been removed.

4.1.10 In my opinion, Mr Mackworth-Praed’s, photographic evidence, does not

convincingly show that no roots will be beneath the pathways and

carriageway.


Picture supplied by Mr Mackworth-Praed showing the extensive area of

pavement where the flags have been lifted. No knowledge is available to

indicate the extent of root growth beneath the surface.

4.1.11 The first picture on the following page supplied by Mr Mackworth-Praed

shows a section of the construction, with signs of fibrous root growth against

the foundations. The root growth will have emanated from the adjacent tree

within Victoria Tower Gardens. As mentioned previously, it is not known

what root activity was present prior to the insertion of the frame.

4.1.12 The second picture on the following page shows root activity within the

trenched area.


Picture supplied by Mr Mackworth-Praed showing fibrous roots.

Picture provided by Mr Mackworth-Praed showing root activity.

Fibrous roots.

Roots.


Picture supplied by Mr Mackworth-Praed showing rooting

adjacent to drainage pipes, and fibrous roots beneath the flags.

Root.

Fibrous roots.


T5. COMMENTARY ON DRAFT ARBORICULTURAL METHOD

STATEMENT (AMS) PREPARED BY BARTLETT CONSULTING,

DATED THE 1ST OF SEPTEMBER 2020.

5.1.1 The draft Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) produced by Bartlett was

intended as a discussion document to be addressed during the SOCG

discussions.

5.1.2 It is worthy of note that no detailed criticism of the draft AMS has been

included within the signed SOCG.

5.1.3 In my opinion, the most practical option to progress the draft AMS into a final

version would be during continued discussions with the WCC Arboricultural

manager outside the inquiry with a view to being able to report back to the

inquiry by the time of the roundtable session on conditions. If agreement is

reached then the document could be referred to in a planning condition.

5.1.4 In my opinion, the criticisms of the draft AMS by Mr Mackworth-Praed are

unjustified, and addressing the draft via a Supplementary Proof is an

inappropriate way in which to progress discussions between the parties.

Dr Frank Hope

7th October 2020

Documents

DR FRANK HOPE Forensic & Planning Arboricultural Consultant