A REPTILE SURVEY AT THE LAND AT HILL ROAD AND ELM TREE DRIVE, ROCHESTER, KENT,

Transcription

1 A REPTILE SURVEY AT THE LAND AT HILL ROAD AND ELM TREE DRIVE, ROCHESTER, KENT, Commissioned by: King & Johnston Homes Ltd and Medway Council Report Number: October 2013 Regent s Place, 3 rd Floor, 338 Euston Road, London NW1 3BT Tel: Fax: Mobile: aswecology@yahoo.co.uk Website:

2 CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Page 1. Introduction 4 2. Methodology Constraints to survey 5 3. Survey results Results of reptile survey 6 4. Conclusions Significance of survey results Potential impacts of proposed development on reptiles Legal protection of reptiles in the UK 8 5. Recommendations Reptile translocation requirement and exclusion fencing Receptor site requirement Habitat management at receptor site References 11 Appendix 1 Table 1: results September/October Appendix 2 Photographs A-F 13 Appendix 3 Map A: Location of reptiles found at the Land at Hill Road and 19 Elm Tree Drive, Borstal, Rochester, Kent 2

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. A Reptile Survey was undertaken at the Former St Matthews School Playing Field, also known as the Land at Hill Road and Elm tree Drive, Borstal, Rochester, Kent ME1, during September/October 2013, for: King & Johnston Homes Ltd and Medway Council. 2. This reptile survey was required due to the proposed clearance of vegetation within the development footprint and the construction of new housing. 3. One reptile species was found during this survey at the development footprint and this was common lizard (Zootoca vivipara), with both adult and juvenile animals recorded (see Table 1 for the full results). 4. Since common lizards are fully legally protected reptile species in the UK, reasonable steps must be made by the client to avoid injuring or killing these animals during site works including all vegetation clearance works. This would be expected by both the local planners and by Natural England. 5. No amphibians of any species including great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) were found under any of the installed refugia at this site. 6. Reasonable steps in accordance with standing advice from Natural England, in regards to the common lizards found, would include the installation of reptile exclusion fencing around the boundary of the development footprint and a standard reptile translocation made, as long as a viable receptor site has been found beforehand to re-home these reptiles. 3

4 1. INTRODUCTION A Reptile Survey was undertaken at the Former St Matthews School Playing Field, also known as the Land at Hill Road and Elm tree Drive, Borstal, Rochester, Kent ME1, during September/October 2013, for: King & Johnston Homes Ltd and Medway Council. This reptile survey was required due to the proposed clearance of vegetation within the development footprint and the construction of new housing. The main method used for this reptile survey, as well as the full results and the recommendations proposed can be found within this report. Both this survey and report were undertaken and compiled by Mr Andrew S. Waller, Consultant Ecologist,, with assistance from colleagues with the fieldwork. Mr has been a Consultant Ecologist since 1997, has very extensive experience and knowledge of protected wildlife species/issues including reptiles, amphibians, mammals and birds. He is also a Full Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Report copyright 4

5 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Artificial refugia were installed within suitable reptile related habitat at the development footprint during mid September 2013, and were left for over one entire week before the survey commenced so to bed in properly within the potential reptile s environment and home ranges. These artificial refugia consisted of roofing felt, and these were cut into small/medium sized pieces. These sheets would provide additional refuge places for reptiles to any already present. Reptiles would utilise these refugia for both sheltering and for basking. A total of sixty-five sheets were installed at a high density within the development footprint, and were searched during seven visits during September/October Visits were undertaken by one reptile surveyor in suitable weather conditions only for reptiles e.g. includes not in freezing weather, no heavy rain or in strong winds. All reptiles would be identified to species level plus life stage recorded too. The starting daytime temperature, general weather conditions and the maximum windspeed were also recorded for each survey visit. 2.2 Constraints to survey The only constraint was that this reptile survey can only cover the early autumn period, due to the specific commissioning of this contract. Therefore, this survey can only provide a snapshot of the reptiles present at this overall Site during the October This is at the end of the season so is a late survey, but is viable as reptile surveys can be done to the end of October and temperatures were mild throughout the survey period. However, this is a standard constraint for most surveys, in that it is not possible to survey all of the spring and summer months due to the timing of works related to the development. 5

6 3. SURVEY RESULTS 3.1 Results of reptile survey One reptile species was found during this survey at the development footprint and this was common lizard (see Table 1 for the full results). The maximum number of common lizards recorded in any single visit was thirteen animals in total, with both adults and juveniles being found, showing that this species has bred inside the site most likely. This legally protected reptile species was found underneath roofing felt sheets across the site, within the tall vegetation inside the development footprint. Suitable weather conditions were present throughout the survey, and all habitats represented within the overall survey area were well sampled for reptiles. These reptile survey results and their obvious implications are discussed in the next section of this report. 6

7 4. CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Significance of survey results Common lizard was the only reptile species recorded during this survey within the development footprint at this site. This species was found across the site, and especially near to residential gardens. Further reptile species may be expected, mainly slow-worm (Anguis fragilis), and it may be that this species is present in a low density in the general area. It is understood from a local resident that slow-worms have been present in adjacent gardens, but not seen for some years. Suitable reptile habitat is most certainly present throughout the development footprint, and this includes the tall herbs and bramble areas. The confirmed presence of reptiles within the area to be developed, means that mitigation measures will be required to ensure that no reptiles are harmed during the future habitat clearance works. This is a legal requirement, since reptiles will be found across the development footprint. This mitigation will need to follow current best practice recommendations to be found in the next chapter. 4.2 Potential impacts of proposed development on reptiles There will be a direct impact to the existing reptile population within the proposed development footprint at this site. The loss of reptile habitat such as the tall herbs/grass/bramble related habitats will need to be mitigated for. Due to the likely negative impact that will be caused by the future site clearance works to reptiles, a detailed mitigation strategy must be developed and adhered to by all contractors at this Site. Without any mitigation of any type, reptiles could be killed and injured during site clearance works, so a reptile translocation at the correct time of year will be legally required as a reasonable step to avoid such impacts and to avoid any unintended criminal offences from occurring. 7

8 4.3 Legal protection of reptiles in the UK (Simplified current summary only of the relevant legislation please see other texts for full details) In the UK, reptiles are legally protected from intentional killing and injuring, as well as against sale too under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The offences stated may be absolute, intentional, deliberate or reckless (English Nature, 2004). This means that reasonable steps must always be taken to avoid killing or injuring all reptiles if they are known to be present within the development footprint. A criminal conviction for injuring or killing reptiles could result in large fines being imposed, imprisonment and/or seizure of the equipment involved. 8

9 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Reptile translocation requirement and exclusion fencing It is essential that a reptile translocation programme is undertaken within the development footprint at this site, before any habitat clearance works are undertaken, should this be confirmed in the future. A combination of reptile exclusion fencing and artificial refugia (such as roofing felt sheets) should be utilised throughout the area to be developed. Any rubble, brick piles or stone piles, if present for example, should also be removed from the Site beforehand. All captured reptiles should be carefully and humanely removed from the area and released onto the new receptor site. All translocation work can only be undertaken by experienced reptile ecologists as animals can be easily injured without suitable skill and experience. Reptile fencing needs to follow current best practice standards and a specialist company can be approached for the installation of such exclusion fencing. This fencing must be installed at the boundaries of the main construction zone so it is enclosed completely, and therefore no new reptiles can enter the development footprint. Due to the potential low density of reptiles within the survey area, it is recommended that any translocation exercise should be undertaken by experienced reptile handlers over a period of up to sixty suitable days in good weather, and between the months of March to September (HGBI, 1998). Although since a low common lizard population is present, a translocation may more realistically last between thirty and forty-five days, but this all depends when the last animal is found. Approximately, at least fifty to sixty roofing felt sheets per hectare should be permitted due to the reptile density of this area, although more would be used so to go beyond current best practice. The next window of opportunity for a reptile translocation is Spring 2014, but exclusion fencing must be installed first and more roofing felt added so the density of refugia is increased for this to be undertaken efficiently. 5.2 Receptor site requirement A receptor site will need to be found urgently for the reptiles to be translocated, and this should ideally be present on nearby land such as at the adjacent future pocket park site. Suitable natural habitats will need to be present already at the receptor site for reptiles, and the receptor site must be safeguarded in the long-term from development. Finding a suitable receptor site can be time consuming so the quicker this is done, the more likely the translocation can begin in regards to the time frame desired by the client. 9

10 5.3 Habitat management at receptor site It is also recommended that some resources are allocated towards the ongoing management of the natural habitats at the receptor site e.g. bramble/scrub control, other vegetation control or grass cutting, as compensation for the loss of natural habitat in the development footprint. This needs to be arranged with the landowner, and is part of a standard overall mitigation and compensation strategy, so that reptiles can survive at the receptor site in the future and have a viable long-term breeding population. 10

11 6. REFERENCES (1) Arnold, N.E. (2002) A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Britain and Europe. Collins, London. (2) English Nature (2004) Reptiles: guidelines for developers. English Nature, Peterborough. (3) Gent, A.H. and Gibson, S.D. (eds) (1998) Herpetofauna Workers Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. (4) HGBI (1998) Evaluating local mitigation/translocation programmes: maintaining best practice and lawful standards. HGBI advisory notes for amphibian and reptile groups (ARGs). HGBI, c/o Froglife, UK. Unpublished. 11

12 APPENDIX 1 Table 1: results September/October 2013 Survey date Time of day Weather Reptiles seen 28/9/2013 Morning Part cloudy, quite mild, calm, dry/ Temperature: 13 C/Windspeed: 0mph 30/9/2013 Morning Cloudy, quite mild, light breeze, dry/ Temperature: 14 C/Windspeed: 3mph 2/10/2013 Morning Cloudy, quite mild, light wind, dry/ Temperature: 14 C/Windspeed: 5mph 3/10/2013 Morning Cloudy, light breeze, cooler, dry/ Temperature: 13 C/Windspeed: 4mph 5/10/2013 Morning Mainly cloudy, quite mild, dry, light breeze/ Temperature: 13 C/Windspeed: 3mph 8/10/2013 Morning Mainly cloudy, quite mild, calm, dry/ Temperature: 14 C/Windspeed: 0mph 9/10/2013 Morning Mainly cloudy, quite mild, light breeze, dry/ Temperature: 14 C/Windspeed: 3mph No reptiles found No reptiles found 1 adult common lizard and 4 juvenile common lizards found under roofing felt sheets 5 juvenile common lizards found under roofing felt sheets 6 juvenile common lizards found under roofing felt sheets 2 adult common lizard and 7 juvenile common lizards found under roofing felt sheets 13 juvenile common lizards found under roofing felt sheets 12

13 APPENDIX 2 Photographs A-F Photograph A An adult common lizard found during this reptile survey at the development footprint at the 13

14 Photograph B The main area of habitat close to gardens where many of the common lizards were found during this reptile survey 14

15 Photograph C Another photo of the main area of the development footprint where reptiles were found 15

16 Photograph D A partial photo of a juvenile common lizard trying to escape after being found under a roofing felt sheet at the development footprint 16

17 Photograph E All of the development footprint is suitable for reptiles, especially common lizard, so this entire area will need to be enclosed by exclusion fencing first before the translocation starts 17

18 Photograph F It is possible that reptiles have colonised from nearby areas so common lizards are expected in nearby gardens and any other suitable habitats 18

19 APPENDIX 3 Map A: Location of reptiles found at the, Borstal, Rochester, Kent Key: Common Lizard record = Green Circle on map below 19