Reptile Mitigation Strategy

Land east of Ashingdon Road Rochford

On Behalf Of: Bloor Homes Ltd.

October 2020

© SES 2020 www.ses-eco.co.uk

Author Sarah Wiltshire BSc (Hons) MSc

Technical Review Jessica Breeze BSc (Hons) MSc ACIEEM

Report Status Rev B

Date of Issue 15.10.2020

Contents

1.0 Aims ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1

3.0 Mitigation & Enhancement ..................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................. 10

5.0 Responsibilities & Reporting ................................................................................................................. 10

6.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 11

7.0 References ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Appendices

Appendix 1: Site Location & Development Proposal Plan

Appendix 2: Reptile Legislation & Ecology

Appendix 3: Habitats on Site

Appendix 4: Reptile Survey Results

Appendix 5: Reptile Mitigation Plan

Appendix 6: Illustrative Development Landscaping Plan

1

1.0 Aims

1.1 Southern Ecological Solutions Ltd (SES) has been commissioned by Bloor Homes Ltd. to prepare a

reptile mitigation strategy for Land east of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex (Ordnance Survey Grid

Reference TQ873916) (the site) in association with planning application 20/00363/OUT, for the

development of 665 residential dwellings (C3), a community facility (D1), open space and associated

infrastructure including flood storage and surface water drainage attenuation, with all matters

unreserved for 233 residential dwellings comprising Phase 1 of the proposals, and all other matters

reserved except for Access and Layout. The application is currently awaiting decision. A site location

and development parameter plan are provided in Appendix 1.

1.2 The aim of this Reptile Mitigation Strategy is to provide information on how protection and mitigation

measures for legally protected species of reptile will be implemented before and during the

development of the site at Land east of Ashingdon Road, pending any forthcoming Planning Approval.

2.0 Background

Legal Protection

2.1 All UK reptiles are afforded legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended). It is therefore an offense to intentionally or recklessly kill or injure a reptile, or sell/attempt

to sell any part of the species, alive or dead. A summary of relevant legislation is provided in Appendix

2.

The Development Site Reptile Survey Results

2.2 The site at Land east of Ashingdon Road, Rochford is predominantly arable cropland that is considered

unsuitable for reptiles due to periodic soil disturbance associated with cropping and ploughing.

However, the field boundaries comprise a mix of hedgerows, ditches, scrub, long-sward grass and

ruderals, providing an appropriate matrix of foraging, basking, sheltering and connecting habitat for

common reptile species (see Appendix 3).

2.3 SES therefore carried out reptile presence/likely absence surveys on the site in May to July 2019, in

accordance with published guidelines (Froglife, 1999; Gent & Gibson, 2003; HGBI, 1998).

2.4 Surveys detected the presence of three common reptile species on site; slow-worm Anguis fragilis,

common lizard Zootoca vivipara and grass snake Natrix helvetica. The peak count of adults over seven

visits was determined to assess the population class (low, good or exceptional) per reptile species

(Froglife, 1999). The population of slow-worm classed as ‘good’ and the population of common lizard

and grass snake as ‘low’, according to the Froglife (1999) standard, following adjustment of peak

counts to reflect the increased survey effort above the recommended mat density of 10 p/ha of

suitable habitat. Results are summarised below, with detailed results provided in Appendix 4.

2

Table 1. Reptile survey results summary & population assessment (Froglife 1999).

Species Peak Adult Count Peak Count Adjusted for

Enhanced Survey Effort Population Class

Common lizard 15 3 Low

Slow-worm 58 12 Good

Grass snake 0 (1 juvenile only) - Low

Adder 0 N/A N/A

2.5 In addition, breeding was confirmed by observations of slow-worms engaging in mating behaviour and

the presence of juveniles of slow-worms and grass snake. Reptiles were recorded throughout the site,

though particular ‘hot spots’ were noted along the northern site boundary, and within the

grass/scrubby margins of a hedgerow running east-west through the centre of the two arable fields

(see Appendix 4). For full details, please refer to the SES Ecological Impact Assessment Report (2019).

Potential Impacts 2.6 Although Hedgerow 2 and its associated margin along the eastern boundary of the site (see Appendix

3 Phase 1 Plan) will be retained and buffered from the development, Hedgerow 3 and the adjacent

grassland strip running east-west through the site, as well as suitable scrub and ruderal habitat along

the northern, western and southern arable boundaries, will be lost to facilitate drainage works and

other construction activities. The total area of suitable reptile boundary habitat to be lost is

approximately 1.2ha in extent.

2.7 The destruction of suitable reptile habitat on site could result in killing and / or injury to individuals, an

offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This is predicted to have an adverse effect at the

local level should suitable mitigation not be put in place.

Mitigation Requirement

2.8 Therefore, translocation of reptiles from areas of suitable habitat to be impacted under the proposals

is required to avoid the killing or injury of individuals during site clearance and construction.

2.9 It will be necessary to identify a suitable receptor site to receive the reptiles and move all individuals

within the development site to this area in advance of any clearance works taking place on site. The

receptor site will need to provide a sufficient area of suitable habitat to support the translocated

population and ensure that there is no net loss of local reptile conservation status, by providing

sufficient quality, quantity and connectivity of habitat to accommodate the reptile population in the

long term, either on site or at an alternative site nearby.

3.0 Mitigation & Enhancement

Receptor Site 3.1 At the time of writing, a suitable receptor site has not yet been secured. The process of site selection

has commenced; currently, initial enquiries are being made and discussions regarding the feasibility of

potential approaches are being undertaken.

3

Consideration of On-site Solutions

3.2 HGBI (1998) best-practice guidance notes that in many cases on-site solutions are preferable and that

the feasibility of on-site retention of reptile populations (at least in part), and/or translocation within a

site, should be considered first as a favoured approach. This is because an on-site solution avoids the

uncertainties often associated with translocations.

3.3 However, the on-site approach necessitates that a sufficient area of the site to support the existing

population must be protected from development and maintained in a suitable state for reptiles

throughout and beyond the construction process. Typically, this requires the creation of new habitat

that is suitable for reptiles within the development site (i.e. through conversion of arable cropland to

rough grassland), and/or the enhancement of existing areas of suitable habitat to increase ‘carrying

capacity’ to absorb reptiles translocated from other areas of the site that will be impacted by

development.

3.4 In this instance, the entire development site is proposed to be subject to significant re-levelling works

as part of the surface water drainage strategy. This re-levelling will affect both the core development

area and the proposed Public Open Space (POS) to the east (see Appendix 1 Parameter Plan);

therefore, it would require careful planning and management to create a receptor area within the red

line boundary that is sufficient in size to absorb the existing reptile population on site in its entirety,

that can be protected throughout the construction period.

3.5 However, the retention of H2 and its associated margin along the south-eastern boundary of the site

(see Appendix 3 Phase 1 Plan) will facilitate at least the partial retention of the on-site population. This

boundary is proposed to be protected from construction activities through the erection of Tree

Protection Fencing and Reptile Exclusion Fencing (see Reptile Mitigation Plan; Appendix 5).

3.6 Depending on the width from this boundary that can be excluded from re-levelling works for drainage,

it may be possible to provide an increased area of suitable habitat in this location relative to that

currently present through the conversion of existing arable cropland to rough grassland habitat in

advance of the reptile translocation. Additional habitat enhancements such as provision of hibernacula

could also potentially be delivered. These measures could increase the carrying capacity of this area of

the site for reptiles and potentially enable the successful translocation of individuals from other areas

of the site. Once re-levelling works have been completed, a receptor area in this location could also

potentially be expanded to include adjacent areas that will form part of the POS. This would

necessitate early landscaping, but could facilitate the retention of a greater number of reptiles within

the site. Furthermore, on completion of construction when temporary exclusion fencing is removed,

reptiles would be able to disperse back into the wider site from this location.

3.7 The capacity of this area (or any other on-site) to absorb new individuals will depend on the area that

can be protected throughout construction; this will drive the extent of new habitat which can be

created to absorb translocated individuals and the potential enhancements which are feasible to

deliver. The Project Engineers are currently establishing what is technically feasible to deliver in light

of surface water drainage constraints. If considered to be in the best conservation interest of the

reptile population on site, an on-site solution (at least in part) will be favoured in the first instance.

4

Consideration of Off-site Solutions

3.8 If suitable on-site mitigation cannot be provided in full then an off-site solution will need to be secured

and hence initial enquiries are currently being made. The decision-making approach will follow the

below HGBI (1998) and Natural England (2011) guidance:

Location

3.9 Receptor sites should be local to the donor site, and as close as possible to it (at least within the same

similar administrative area, and the same geology and habitat type).

o The favoured option when translocating off-site is relocation to an area immediately

adjacent to the development site.

o If it is unavoidable that reptiles are moved to a new LPA area, any mitigation and post-

development works should be secured through a Section 106 Agreement or other

mechanism that can be enforced outside the original LPA area.

Reptile Status

3.10 Receptor sites should ideally not currently support a population of the species to be translocated but

be capable of supporting them given suitable remedial works if necessary.

o Exceptions to this may be made for low numbers of animals unlikely to form a viable

breeding population if introduced to an unoccupied site. In this case, it may be appropriate

to select receptor sites supporting small numbers of the species, but capable of supporting

more given suitable remedial works.

o Reptiles should only be moved to a non-adjacent site (i.e. one outside the normal home

range) already containing the same species when there is no viable on-site solution, small

numbers are predicted to be moved, habitat enhancement works at the release site are

undertaken which are likely to substantially increase carrying capacity, and there would be

no net loss to local conservation status.

Size

3.11 The amount of habitat suitable for the species to be relocated should be no less, and preferably

greater than, that to be lost through development.

o For common reptile species, some reduction in area may occasionally be acceptable if you

can ensure the quality of the habitat will be substantially higher than that to be lost.

Habitat

3.12 The habitats at a receptor site should either be already suitable for the species to be released, or

capable of being made suitable. There should generally also be attempts to improve the extent and

quality of habitats prior to relocating reptiles. No reptiles should be released until the site is in a

reasonable state to receive reptiles.

3.13 Receptor sites should be well connected to semi-natural habitats, and particular attention must be

paid to grass snake relocations given the long-distance dispersal behaviour of this species. If it is

impossible to retain good connectivity in situ, then an ex situ (non-adjacent) receptor site may be

more suitable.

5

3.14 The following habitat types are often used as receptor sites, since their character or history means

they may be unoccupied by reptiles or are capable of substantial habitat enhancement: forestry land;

uncultivated margins and associated habitat on farms; former hay meadows; arable land.

Alternatively, sites with existing rough grassland, scrub, ponds, hedgerows and woodland edge may

provide already suitable habitat requiring less enhancement.

3.15 However, if a site that already provides suitable habitat for reptiles is considered for selection, pre-

translocation monitoring must be undertaken to determine if reptiles are already present, assess

current population size, and thereby establish whether the site has capacity to absorb the population

of translocated individuals providing habitat enhancement works are undertaken. If surveys establish

reptiles are absent, the reasons for this must be also established and it should be demonstrated these

are able to be remediated.

3.16 Pre-translocation monitoring, if required, will involve 10 reptile surveys being undertaken according to

Froglife (1999) guidance:

o Artificial refuges (0.5m x 0.5m felt squares) to be laid in in transects in suitable habitat at a

density of approximately 10 per hectare (Froglife, 1999), and left for a minimum of seven

days to settle before surveys commence.

o Artificial refuges will then be checked over 10 visits during reptile active season (between

April-September) for basking individuals.

o In addition to artificial refuge checks, surveyors will also conduct visual searches of reptile

‘hot-spots’ such as embankments and spot checks of any natural refuges encountered.

o Visits will be undertaken during ‘suitable’ days for reptile activity; a ‘suitable’ survey day is

determined by the weather, with temperature being the pre-eminent factor. Reptile surveys

conducted between 10 and 17°C have the most chance of success.

o The key months for reptile surveys are April, May and September with April and May being

advantageous because it is reptile mating season, which means they will be more obvious

and less wary of observers (Froglife, 1999; HGBI, 1998).

Protection

3.17 Selected sites should not be subject to planning or other threats in the foreseeable future. A

frequently used method to ensure protection is designation as a Local Wildlife Site. Alternatively, a

Section 106 agreement, legal agreement with landowner or contract with a land management

company or conservation organisation may be used.

3.18 Receptor sites should also be subject to a written and funded management agreement that ensures

the site will be maintained in a favourable state for reptiles long term, and a post-translocation

monitoring programme. Developers are normally required to fund post-translocation monitoring. In

regard to funding of ongoing management:

o If the selected site is already being managed by a conservation organisation in accordance

with a management plan that is favourable for reptiles, the developer may simply be

required to make a financial contribution towards delivery of additional habitat

enhancements and ongoing management

o If the selected site will be owned/leased by the developer, the developer will likely need to

fund the development of an appropriate management plan and the delivery of the plan via

contract with a land management company

6

Translocation Method Exclusion Fencing

3.19 Reptile exclusion fencing will be installed in accordance with the Reptile Mitigation Plan in Appendix 5

prior to any site clearance works or translocation taking place. This fencing will be installed in order to

protect existing reptile habitat on and directly adjacent site that will be retained post-development;

specifically Hedgerow 2 and its associated grass margin along the south-eastern boundary, and a small

area of semi-improved grassland adjacent the northern boundary, at the end of Oxford Road. Fencing

of these locations will ensure reptiles can continue to utilise these habitats throughout construction,

while minimising the risk of reptiles entering the construction area. This fencing will remain in place

throughout the entire construction phase and will be regularly checked for wear and tear/damage and

maintained as necessary. A 45-degree return will be created at the end of each length of fencing to

close off adjacent habitat.

3.20 The majority of the northern boundary, the entirety of the southern and western boundaries, and the

northern section of the eastern boundary will be left unfenced. In regard to the northern part of the

eastern boundary, fencing is not considered necessary as this site boundary will abut land in continued

management for arable cropping that is unsuitable habitat for reptiles. In regard to the northern,

western and southern boundaries, the strip of suitable reptile habitat present along the field margins

is only approximately 3-4m in width and is frequently densely vegetated with scrub. Therefore,

significant clearance of the existing suitable habitat along these boundaries would be necessary to

install the fence line pre-translocation. This vegetation clearance could potentially harm or kill

individuals. In addition, there is a stand of Japanese knotweed on the southern boundary which will

need to remain undisturbed until removed by a specialist contractor.

3.21 Therefore, it is considered that the best option is to leave these boundaries unfenced for the duration

of the translocation. Post-translocation, the likelihood of further individuals entering the site via

adjacent gardens is considered to be low, as the landscape to the north/west/south is already

urbanised in nature. The boundary habitat on site will also be cleared post-translocation and

maintained in an unsuitable state through construction, to further discourage any potential ingress of

reptiles via the unfenced boundaries.

Trapping & Translocation

3.22 Reptiles will be trapped out of suitable habitat that will be impacted by the development and any

individuals caught will be moved to an appropriate receptor area, within which enhancements to

improve the quality of the habitat and its ability to support reptiles will be delivered.

3.23 A high density of reptile refugia will be placed throughout the suitable habitat on-site, in particular

along the northern boundary and central margin of the site where ‘hot spots’ of reptile activity were

identified during surveys (see Reptile Mitigation Plan, Appendix 5).

3.24 In conjunction with direct observation of habitat patches, the refugia will be checked daily until

reptiles are considered to have been cleared from the site; ARG UK guidance requires a minimum of 70

suitable days trapping, with a refugia density of 100/ha between April and September (HGBI, 1998) for

the population class sizes present, though efforts will be made to reduce the number of trapping days

through increased surveyor effort, including placing a high density of refugia and/or undertaking more

7

than one sweep per day. Capture will either be concluded following 7 consecutive ‘clear’ trapping

visits or at the judgement of the site ecologist.

3.25 Trapping effort will be restricted to periods of appropriate weather when reptiles are active, typically

from mid-March to mid-September, although this is entirely dependent upon temperature and the

arrival of both spring and autumn. Trapping will be undertaken during suitable weather conditions, i.e.

when temperatures are above 9⁰C, and avoiding periods of rain or high winds.

3.26 Reptiles located through refugia checks and observations of suitable habitat will be captured by

ecologists experienced in reptile handling and translocation. Reptiles will be promptly transferred after

minimal handling to a container containing loose vegetation to provide cover and minimise stress for

captured animals during transport. Reptiles will be then transported to the receptor site for release.

Habitat Manipulation

3.27 Habitat manipulation of the development site will be undertaken at stages of the translocation in a

sequenced manner, to encourage reptiles to move out of newly strimmed short-sward areas providing

little cover towards core trapping areas. Here, a high density of reptile refugia will be placed within a

retained minimum 2m buffer of suitable longer-sward grassland or ruderal habitat, thus channelling

and condensing populations and increasing capture rates.

3.28 Grassy/herbaceous/scrub boundary vegetation will be carefully strimmed using either hand-held tools

such as brush-cutters or a low-impact tractor, as considered appropriate by the Project Ecologist, to a

height of no less than 15cm above ground level. This will be carried out under the supervision of an

Ecological Clerk of Works (ECOW), who will then perform a hand-search of the area to capture any

remaining reptiles. The vegetation will then be further strimmed to ground level after a period of 24

hours has elapsed, allowing time for any reptiles not discovered to move out of the area.

3.29 Any refuges (log piles etc.) will be taken apart by hand and removed from site under the supervision of

the ECOW.

3.30 Clearance of these habitats will be undertaken with due consideration to the potential presence of

nesting birds, toads and hedgehogs in addition to reptiles. An ECOW will undertake a search

immediately prior to any such clearance being undertaken. Ideally such clearance works would be

scheduled for outside the nesting bird season (generally March to August inclusive); however if

vegetation clearance is necessary during nesting season, nesting bird checks will be undertaken by the

ECOW prior to works, and any active nests located will be protected, with a suitable buffer of

vegetation left around the nest until the chicks have fledged.

Destructive Search

3.31 To reduce residual risk of harm to any reptiles remaining within the impacted boundary habitats post-

translocation, a destructive search supervised by an ECOW will be undertaken.

3.32 The destructive search will involve potential reptile habitat being slowly scraped by an excavator using

a toothed bucket while an ecologist supervises and safely removes any reptiles ‘scraped-up’ in the

bucket or disturbed on the ground (Gent & Gibson, 2003). These animals will then be promptly

relocated to the receptor site.

8

Pre & During Construction

3.33 A toolbox talk will also be given to site workers and reptile identification information will be displayed

on site. Management will be instructed to always use reptile-sensitive vegetation clearance and

management methods and to maintain long grass buffers around sensitive habitats to be retained.

Development Site Compensatory Habitat

3.34 On completion of construction, the reptile exclusion fence along retained H2 and to the north of the

site will be removed. These areas are directly adjacent to the main proposed POS on site; this will

favour reptiles to recolonise the site post-development.

3.35 The illustrative landscaping proposal for the main POS is provided in Appendix 6. Habitat features

proposed to be provided include:

o Creation of 5 x log piles/hibernacula

o Some areas of open space to be sown with a grass/wildflower meadow mix maintained at

long-sward height

o Creation of new native scrub, shrub and hedgerow habitat adjacent to long-grass areas, to

provide an appropriate mosaic of sheltering, foraging and basking opportunities

o New SUDS ponds planted with Emorsgate EM8 and EP1 meadow mix

3.36 Detailed landscaping proposals are not yet available. However, it is proposed that the following will be

delivered:

Log Piles/Hibernacula

3.37 Of the 5 x refuge features proposed for reptiles, at least two will be hibernacula created to the below

standard. Above-ground log-piles will provide further habitat suitable for refuge in the active season.

Locations sheltered from the weather by scrub, trees or SUDS banks will be selected, with sunny

south-facing aspects for basking on emergence. Indicative positions are indicated on the landscape

proposal; however final locations will be driven by detailed proposals to ensure all features are sited

within a suitable reptile habitat mosaic. These features will be added to over time so that they

continue to provide suitable hibernation habitat.

3.38 There are two suggested ways of creating the hibernacula; one by covering a mound of loose rubble

and logs with topsoil, the other by digging a hole and filling it in with these materials and then covering

in topsoil (see Figure 1 for dimensions).

9

Figure 1: Reptile hibernacula design.

Hedgerows, Scrub & Long-Grass Areas

3.39 Vegetation will be allowed to grow to the base of new and retained hedgerows to avoid them

becoming ‘leggy’. This will increase the habitats sheltering value for reptile species as well as other

species such as hedgehog.

3.40 Marginal buffers from the hedgerows (of minimum 3m width) will be created, and managed to create

a structurally complex edge habitat grading from hedgerow/scrub, to tall ruderals and grasses, to mid-

height grasses, as indicatively shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Hedgerow edge habitat sketch.

3.41 A band of tussock grassland (Emorsgate seed EM10) will be sown to create a rough grass margin

alongside new hedgerow, and to improve the structural complexity of existing hedgerow margin

where necessary, with sowing to take place in spring (March) at the start of the growing season.

Tussock grassland will additionally be sown adjacent to new proposed groups of scrub and native

shrub planting in lower foot-traffic areas towards the boundaries of the POS.

3.42 Once new habitats are established, rotational management (cutting only a portion of the habitat

available in each year) will ensure uncut sections are left to provide cover for reptiles and other fauna.

10

3.43 Grass cuttings from ongoing management will be collected to avoid over-enrichment of soils across

the site. These will be piled to form compost heaps in sunny locations nearby to hibernacula, to

provide suitable grass snake egg laying habitat.

SUDS/Ponds

3.44 The margins of the southern SUDS pond will provide additional suitable reptile habitat, particularly for

grass snake. Seasonally wet areas will be planted with Emorsgate EM8 meadow mix, with EP1 mix to

be used at the margins of permanent water areas; these mixes contain a diversity of native species

which will encourage invertebrates and thereby amphibians to colonise, which in turn will provide a

food source for reptiles.

Receptor Site Enhancement & Long-Term Management

3.45 Habitat enhancement works to improve receptor sites can include rough grassland creation, scrub

planting or removal, provision of ponds, provision of egg-laying sites (for grass snakes), and provision

of refuges/hibernacula.

3.46 Appropriate habitat enhancements will be decided on the selection of an appropriate receptor site,

based on pre-existing habitat conditions. A management plan/agreement will be developed which will

detail the specific enhancements to be provided and provisions for management long-term.

4.0 Evaluation

4.1 The status of the population post-translocation will be monitored via reptile surveys of the receptor

site according to a program to be agreed.

4.2 Monitoring survey visits will be spread across the active season between April-September and will

include visits during the early part of the season that will aim to observe mating behaviour, as well as

visits during the late part of the active season to detect the presence/absence of juveniles that will

evidence successful breeding.

4.3 The following measures may be used as indicators of translocation success and the continued

favourable conservation status of the translocated slow-worm population:

o No significant decreases in peak count recorded over the monitoring period (noting that

results may vary in individual years)

o Factors evidencing breeding on-site including presence of juveniles and gravid females and

observation of mating behaviour

5.0 Responsibilities & Reporting

5.1 The developer (Bloor Homes Limited) will be ultimately responsible for funding and delivering the

reptile mitigation and monitoring proposed in this report. Delivery of mitigation and monitoring will

be undertaken by an ecological consultancy acting on behalf of the developer.

11

5.2 A concise report will be produced for submission to Rochford District Council and the Receptor Site

Management in each year of post-translocation monitoring, detailing the results of monitoring surveys

and any recommendations for remedial action should targets not be met.

6.0 Conclusions

6.1 Through following the above mitigation process prior to, and during, the development phase, and with

areas of the planned open space managed with reptiles in mind (post-development), it is considered

that the potential impacts to reptiles resulting from the development will be fully mitigated in

accordance with section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

12

7.0 References

Froglife (1999) Reptile Survey; an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for

snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10.

Gent, A.H, & Gibson, S.D., eds. (1998). Herpetofauna workers’ manual. Peterbrough, Joint Nature

Conservation Committee.

Herpetofauna groups of Britain and Ireland (1998). Evaluating local mitigation/translocation

programmes: Maintaining best practice and lawful standards. HGBI advisory noted for amphibian and

reptile groups (ARGs). [Online] Available at: https://www.arguk.org/info-advice/scientific-and-

technical-reports/4-evaluating-local-mitigation-translocation-best-practice-and-lawful-standards

Natural England (2011). Reptile Mitigation Guidelines. Natural England Technical Information Note

TIN102.

Southern Ecological Solutions (2019). Ecological Impact Assessment – Land east of Ashingdon Road,

Rochford Final Rev E.

Appendix 1: Site Location & Development Proposal Plan

Site Location Plan

Land Use and Access Parameter Plan

Appendix 2: Reptile Legislation and Ecology in the United Kingdom

Ecology

Britain has six native reptile species distributed throughout the mainland. They are common lizard Zootoca

vivipara, sand lizard Lacerta agilis, slow-worm Anguis fragilis, grass snake Natrix natrix, adder Vipera berus

and smooth snake Coronella austriaca. Reptiles can be encountered in a wide range of habitats (except Sand

Lizards) including heathland, rough and tussocky grassland, hedgerows, woodland edges, quarries, urban

areas, road side verges, railway embankments and waste land areas, with the snake species also found in

boggy areas. Sand lizards have more specific habitat requirements, such as heathland sites and sand dune

systems. They all require access to sunny patches with access to ground cover.

Reptiles are active from early spring to late autumn and enter a period of hibernation when the temperature

drops through the winter months. On the whole, reptiles are ectothermic, whereby internal body

temperature is controlled by external environmental temperature. This can mean temperature regulation is

achieved through basking and shuttling in and out of sunny spots, or by moving through temperature

gradients in the vegetation/substrate absorbing heat directly through contact. The reliance on external heat

sources means that good reptile habitat requires a variety of thermally and structurally diverse

microhabitats, as the quality and variety of these microhabitats can affect the ability of reptiles to forage,

disperse and ultimately breed successfully.

Invertebrates form the major part of common lizard and slow-worm diet, whilst grass snakes will often feed

on amphibians and the adder will prefer lizards and small mammals.

Legislation

The legal information below is an interpretation of relevant legal statutes and has not been prepared by a

legal professional and should not be treated as a definitive review but as a guide.

Common lizard, slow-worm, grass snake and adder are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

1981 (as amended), where they are listed as a schedule 5 species, and therefore, parts of Section 9(1) and

section 9(5) apply. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) strengthens their protection. It is

offence to:

• Intentionally, or recklessly, kill or injure any of the above species, and/or;

• Sell, or attempt to sell, any part of the species, alive or dead.

If a proposed development is likely to have an impact on these reptiles the statutory nature conservation

organisation must be consulted.

The rare Sand lizard and Smooth snake receive full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)

Section 9 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007; the Sand Lizard and

Smooth Snake are listed on Schedule 2 thus regulation39 applies. Read together it is an offence:

• Deliberately kill, injure or capture any wild animal of European protected species;

• Deliberately disturb wild animals of any European protected species in such a way to be likely to

significantly affect:

o The ability of any significant groups of animals of that species to survive, breed, rear or

nurture their young; or

o The local distribution of that species.

• Recklessly disturb sheltering European protected species or obstruct access to their resting place;

• Damage or destroys breed sites or resting places of such animals;

• Deliberately takes or destroys the eggs of such an animal;

• Possess or transport or any part of a European protected species, unless acquired legally;

• Sell, barter or exchange any part of a European protected species.

The maximum fine per offence is £5000 and if more than one animal is involved, the fine is £5000 per

animal (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 21) The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

(CROW) amendment contains a provision for a custodial sentence of up to 6 months instead of, or in

addition to, a fine. Along with a lengthy development delay until appropriate mitigation has been agreed

and completed.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC) lists all reptile species as a species of

principle importance under Section 41. Section 40 requires every public body in the exercising of its

functions ‘have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose

of conserving biodiversity’ (all biodiversity and not just section 41 species and habitats); therefore making

reptiles a material consideration in the planning process and requiring a detailed ecological survey before

planning permission can be granted.

Appendix 3: Habitats on Site

Phase 1 Survey Plan

Bloor Homes Limited

Target Notes

Table A5.1. Phase 1 Survey target notes.

Target Note Description

1 Semi-improved grassland grading into scrub. Reptile potential.

2 Mature intact hedge. Bird nesting habitat.

3 High bat roost potential tree with lightning strike feature.

4 Pond on site boundary. Potential for amphibians.

5 Main badger sett. Active.

6 Mature hedge; defunct to west, becoming intact to east.

7 Power lines.

8 Approx. 2m field margin, vegetated with ruderals and patches of scrub. Reptile potential.

9 Approx. 2m field margin, improved grassland & common herbs/ruderals.

10 Approx 10m field margin & vehicle trackway, bare ground, grasses and common herbs/ruderals.

11 Singing/displaying skylarks Alauda arvensis observed over oilseed rape fields.

12 Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica growing along field boundary for approx. 15-20m. Also growing in garden of adjacent residential property.

13 148-150 Ashingdon Road; two semi-detached bungalows with low suitability for roosting bats.

Appendix 4: Reptile Survey Results

Reptile Survey Plan

Reptile Activity:

Reptile hotspots

Reptiles present

No reptiles detected

Reptile Survey Results Table A4.1: Detailed reptile survey results.

Visit No# Date Temp Cloud %Wind

(Beaufort) Last rain M F Total J M F Total J Ad Juv M F Total J

1 14/05/2019 13 10 1 5 days ago 11 19 30 13 2 2Slow-worms distributed evenly throughout site boundaries

apart from none found along F

2 21/05/2019 18 50 3 >24 hrs 7 8 15 17

Slow-worms distributed evenly throughout site apart from

none found along F. 3 breeding pairs of slow-worm found in

A, B and C

3 05/06/2019 18 90 3 24 hrs ago 17 13 30 27 7 8 15

Highest counts of slow-worm along B (11 adults, 12 juveniles)

and G (9 adults, 4 juveniles). Slow worms present on all

boundaries excepting F. Common lizard only found on B and

G, with largest count (11 adults) on G

4 11/06/2019 18 60 2 9 hrs ago 15 10 25 12 4 1 5

Not all mats located on some boundaries due to dense

ruderal and scrub growth. Slow worm present on all

boundaries except E and F, with highest count on B (11

adults, 8 juveniles) and G (8 adults, 2 juveniles). Common

lizard only found on G.

5 18/06/2019 16 90 1 5 days ago 24 34 58 34 5 3 7

Highest counts of slow-worm along B (27 adults, 21

juveniles). Slow worm present on all boundaries excepting F.

Common lizard only found on A, B and G.

6 26/06/2019 17 100 2 >24 hrs 18 25 43 27 0 2 2

All female common lizards found were gravid. Highest

counts of slow-worm along B (20 adults, 14 juveniles). Slow

worm present on all boundaries excepting F. Common lizard

only found on A and G.

7 08/07/2019 15-17 85 1 >24 hrs 13 31 44 47 3 2 5 0 1

One juvenile grass snake (new species presence confirmed).

Highest slow-worm count on B (17 adults, 32 juveniles). Slow-

worm present on all boundaries, common lizard only on B

and G.

Slow-worms Common lizards Grass snake Adder

Comments

Appendix 5: Reptile Mitigation Plan

Appendix 6: Illustrative Landscaping Proposal