1.   Introduction & Background Information

1.1   London Borough of Richmond Council granted full (sic) planning permission to develop
land at Mill Farm, Whitton in December 2001, The land owned by Richmond Upon Thames
Churches Housing Trust (RUTCHT) is intended for residential development, subject to
planning conditions. Jaquelin Fisher Associates Ltd (JFA) were instructed in April 2002 to
resolve the ecological issues of planning condition NS05U, a copy of which is provided in
Appendix 1. This condition recognises that reptiles are protected from killing and injury
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981).   In order to satisfy the requirements of the
planning condition a survey to confirm the presence of reptiles was undertaken in May 2002.
The methodology for this survey was agreed in advance with the Strategy Directorate of the
GLA and a copy was sent to Richmond Borough Council. The three day survey at Mill
Farm by Dr Jonathan Denton yielded seven common lizards {Lacerta vivipara).

1.2   The confirmation that reptiles were present at Mill Farm prompted the need for a
reptile translocation exercise and the need for suitable receptor sites. It was decided to look
for a receptor site for grass snakes (Natrix natrix) as well as common lizards as the site
supported suitable grass snake habitat. In choosing receptor sites JFA sought suitable habitat
which was not in threat of future development and had spare carrying capacity for both
species. Under these criteria, Esher Common SSSI was identified as the receptor site for
common lizards and Mosley Heath as the receptor site for grass snakes. Two separate
receptor sites were needed as neither had spare carrying capacity for both species. These
two sites were confirmed as suitable receptors after a visit by JFA and liaison with the
owners, Elmbridge Borough Council. Permission to use Esher Common SSSI as a receptor
site was also gained from English Nature.

1.3   It was decided that the most efficient approach for reptile clearance would be to
remove reptiles from land owned by RUTCHT and from adjacent area land to the east
managed by Serco on behalf of Richmond Borough Council (see Figure 1). By clearing both
areas of land the need for fencing was avoided. The surrounding area which is hard standing
with industrial and residential use, is unsuitable for reptiles, meaning that migration of
reptiles into the site is unlikely.

1.4   The methodology for the reptile capture and translocation was agreed in advance
with all the consultees (GLA Strategy Directorate, Richmond Borough Council, Elmbridge
Borough Council, English Nature and Serco). Copies of the methodology were sent via fax
and post on 21s1 June 2002-

1.5   This report includes the agreed methodology m Section 2. It then summarises the
results of the reptile capture and translocation exercise in Section 3. Discussion of the
results with recommendations is provided in Section 4 and conclusions are set out in Section 5.

2.  Methodology

2.1   Reptile capture and translocation was undertaken at Mill Farm by Bruce Shortland
HiSc (Hons). A combination of 25 metal tins and 49 tiles of rooting felt were used as
artificiail refugia to assist the capture of reptiles. Records were kept on species of reptile
caught, dale of capture, time when caught, sex, length, life stage and release details.

2.2   Each artificial refugium was approximately 0.5 m2 in area. They were placed around
the site in suitable reptile habitat on the 21s1 June- Figure 2 shows the area of reptile habitat
where the tins and felts were placed. During the survey the tins and felts were moved
around their immediate area to maximise the area of basking habitat surveyed and to reduce
the area of suitable habitat available to reptiles (dead vegetation was created underneath the
tins and tiles).

2.3   The artificial refugia were checked on 60 visits between 24th June and 11th
September, on weekdays and some weekends. These sixty site visits were in the early
morning when conditions were suitable for reptile activity. A capture effort of sixty suitable
days is as recommended in die guidelines by the Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and
Ireland, for low populations of common lizards and grass snakes- Some tins were left on the
site after the sixty day survey period had been completed to be checked prior to site
clearance.

2.4   During each site visit each tin/felt was searched for basking reptiles and lifted to
search for any reptiles sheltering underneath. All the reptiles were caught by hand and
immediately placed in a linen bag tied with ribbon. Reptiles were then transferred into a
large plastic bucket with small ventilation holes in the lid, with a layer of damp moss and
grass at the bottom. The reptiles were held in the bucket to ensure optimal release
conditions but no reptiles were held captive in the bucket for more than four days. The
reptiles were driven to the release sites at Esher Common SSSI (grid reference TQ 116 619)
and Moseley Heath (grid reference TQ 134 673), Figures 3 and 4 are location plans of the
two receptor sites. The exact release areas varied to reduce the risk of overcrowding. As
requested by English Nature, photographs 1 and 2 illustrate reptile capture and release.

3. Results

3.1   Over the 60 day survey period, a total of 31 common lizards and four grass snakes
were translocated- The common lizards comprised seven adult females, six adult male and
eighteen juveniles. Three of the grass snakes were immature and one was an adult female.
Table 1 provides a summary of common lizards rescued at Mil! Farm. Table 2 provides a
summary of the grass snakes rescued.

4. Discussion & Recommendations

4.1   In total, 35 reptiles were removed by JFA frrom Mill Farm during Summer 2002. No
reptiles were killed during the capture and translocation exercise. Two reptiles species were
rescued, common lizard and grass snake, no other reptile species were found. August was
by far the best month fur common Lizards when capture was most regular, with captures in
September being more intermittent. Conversely, July yielded the most grass snakes with
only one grass snake caught in August and none in September. Most reptile captures were
made around 2/3 hours after sunrise.

4.2   Dr Denton's previous assessment of the site was correct in that the site did support a
low population of both common lizards and grass snakes. The sex ratio of common lizard
adult females to adult males was balanced and the relatively high number of juveniles
indicated that the adult population was viable.

4.3   A satisfactory search effort has been undertaken for the size of the common lizard
and grass snake populations thai were present at Mill Farm. It is recommended that further
action should involve a destructive reptile search of tlie site. A destructive search would
entail a last opportunity for reptile rescue by JFA staff tied in with site clearance of
vegetation and debris by the client's contractors. Removal of reptile habitat would make the
site unsuitable for reptiles thereafter, thus preparing the site for the next stage of
development. JFA have liased with the Strategy Directorate of GLA who have confirmed
that leaving some felts/tins on site to be checked during the final destructive search would
fulfil the requirements of planning condition NS05U. The details of this proposed method
follow current best practice and are provided in Appendix 2.   It is intended that a destructive
reptile search is undertaken in the first week of October 2002 and the condition is thereby
discharged.

5. Conclusion

5.1   A successful capture and translocation exercise has been undertaken at Mill Farm. A
total of 31 common lizards and 4 grass snakes were caught and translocated over a sixty day
period of survey between 24th June and 11th September 2002.

5.2   It is proposed that further action should involve a destructive reptile search of Mill
Farm. Some tins have been left on site in areas where common lizards may still occur which
will be checked and then removed as vegetation clearance progresses. This approach of a
final check of refugium tied in with a destructive reptile search has been agreed with the
GLA to fulfil the requirements of planning condition NS05U. Site clearance is proposed for
the first week of October 2002.

Main Report: