the online meeting place for all who love our amphibians and reptiles |
|
ú8,400 fine for flouting newt law |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
badgerboy
New Member Joined: 15 Dec 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 29 Jan 2007 at 10:00am |
Hi all Just to make you aware (if you were not already) of a recent GCN conviction in Leicestershire. All credit to the WCO who investigated and the CPS for running it. This is surely the largest penalty yet for a GCN offence in the UK? ú8,400 FINE FOR FLOUTING NEWT LAW
A BUILDER has been fined ú8,400 for damaging the habitat of great crested newts.
Gerald McHugh, of King Street, Seagrave, admitted damaging or destroying a place used by the protected creatures, between March 2005 and June 2006 and damaging or destroying a breeding site or resting place used by them.
He also admitted the same charges on behalf of his company, McHugh Construction Ltd, when he appeared at Melton Magistrates' Court on Thursday. The court was told some land in King Street, Nether Broughton, which included a paddock and pond, was bought for development in 2004. Neighbour Karen Shipside told McHugh (52) numerous times about the presence of great crested newts at the site. He was visited by a County Hall ecologist, police wildlife officer Neil Hughes and a newt expert who advised him about the presence of newts in the pond. Sue Lawley, prosecuting, said: "The defendant was advised he should see an ecology survey before any work was carried out on the pond or paddock. "The survey revealed adult great crested newts and eggs and he was advised not to carry out work until he had obtained a licence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs." But when officials revisited the site they saw work had been carried out which would have affected the newts. She added: "The pond water was black and foul smelling and there was no presence of newts. The pond was little more than a hole in the ground. No licence was issued to allow work to be carried out." Mr Patel, defending, said a survey revealed only four newts in the pond. And when it came to light newts were present, McHugh fenced it off. Mr Patel said: "He wasn't aware of conservation regulations though ignorance is clearly no defence. He was unaware if he moved some soil there could be some newts in it." Mr Patel said most of a hedge was removed before McHugh came on site. "Some was left near the pond. He didn't appreciate it was a habitat. He removed it and put some new hedging in." Mr Patel added McHugh had been advised by council officials a fallen fruit tree at the site should be coppiced. "This is not a man who could see frogs and tadpoles jumping out of the pond and thought to hell with this I'm going to fill it in." However, magistrates' chairman David Penny said: "We consider this was intentional rather than wreckless. There was acceptable evidence of great crested newts on that site and that you and your company worked to damage the environment over a period of time. "The removal of the hedge and tree was contrary to the council's coppice order." McHugh was personally fined ú1,400 for the offences and his firm ú7,000. An order was also made for ú70 costs. Speaking afterwards police wildlife officer Neil Hughes said: "It shows magistrates will treat seriously and deal effectively with people who flout conservation laws. I hope this will send out a message to others to comply with legislation to conserve our wildlife." Great crested newt numbers have plummeted across Europe over the last century, with an estimated 40,000 breeding pond losses in Britain during the 1960s to 1990s alone. Such declines are largely due to loss of ponds and surrounding habitat through agricultural intensification in the countryside, but residential, industrial and commercial development around towns and inappropriate management of ponds has also played a part. A similar pattern of decline is happening throughout the European range of the species, with England emerging as one of the strongholds for great crested newts. As a result, the newts and the places they use for breeding, resting, shelter and protection are safeguarded under UK and European law. |
|
Badgerboy
|
|
james4
Senior Member Joined: 13 Nov 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 471 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
good,im glad they do good fines so stop people.
|
|
adamanteus
Senior Member Joined: 03 Jun 2008 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 65 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Okay, I know this is a pretty old thread, but I'm new to the forum (and I have some time to kill) so I've been reading through a lot of older threads. I have spent most of my working life in the construction industry, and I think the penalty McHugh had to pay was trivial. He was most likely laughing up his sleeve. Construction work is run on extremely tight schedules, and every day lost is money lost. The delays involved with dealing with his newt 'problem' correctly would have cost him many times more than the insignificant fine that was imposed. If he knew that GCNs were present, he would have just costed a few grand into his price to cover small fines. Until significant penalties and 'user friendly' alternatives are in place, the McHughs of this world will continue to do what they do. Edited by adamanteus |
|
James.
|
|
administrator
Admin Group Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Being one of those that 'sleeps with enemy', totally agreed James, lets look it in terms as a fine that was less than the potential fine for killing two animals, cheaper than a 6 week delay, cheaper than a 6 day delay - the developer won. Not a suprise when blatant abuse of the law is usually let off due to poor support from those on the ground and incompetence from those we trust to know what is going on - lots of coughing and nothing more to say.... other than what is an ú8,400 fine compared to the bill for a mitigation, trivial, in real terms about 10% to 5% of the cost so it sounds like the developer won in every way.. |
|
AGILIS
Senior Member Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1689 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
PITY THEY DONT FINE GOLF CLUBS FOR DESTROYING SAND LIZARD HABITAT SAME AS THEY DO FOR NEWTS BUT AS YOU STATED GEMMA ITS A BIT LATE WHEN THE DAMAGE IS DONEKEITH
Edited by AGILIS |
|
LOCAL ICYNICAL CELTIC ECO WARRIOR AND FAILED DRUID
|
|
will
Senior Member Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1830 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It's always going to make sense from a financial point of view for a developer to kill protected newts. lizards etc. The reason the big boys generally don't is because of the negative publicity. Unfortunately small to medium developers don't care about their profile so much, and I've personally been involved in several attempts to get them prosecuted but even with direct evidence of persecution CPS only slaps their wrists. Basically the legislation works (if at all) as a deterrent, and then only to reputable developers.
|
|
timbadger
Member Joined: 15 Dec 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 19 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have always wondered why you rarely - if ever see larger companies taken to court for 'wildlife offences'. Im sad to say that i dont think it is because they are less likely to impact protected species negatively, nor that they employ good people and therefore are 'covered' through that. As mentioned in the thread the negative publicity does seem to be a possible deterent, but one wonders if it just means more closed doors rather than actual well done mitigation. As has been covered here the sums are trivial - and the timing is usually after the event and the development. Perhapse if offences could be brought to attention quicker then the developer might be more likely to incur both the fine and the 'down' time on the project...?
|
|
badgerboy
New Member Joined: 15 Dec 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
In relation to larger companies not getting taken to Court I understand that EDF Energy are appearing at Harlow (Essex) Magistrates Court in relation to GCN offences. |
|
Badgerboy
|
|
badgerboy
New Member Joined: 15 Dec 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
There is also this from: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/press/releases2007/210607.h tm " Housing Developer fined for damaging great crested newt habitatTaylor Woodrow Developments Limited based in Solihull, were fined ú2,000 with ú87 costs after pleading guilty to damaging or destroying a resting place of great crested newts at a development site in Stansted Mountfitchet, Essex following a hearing at Harlow Magistrates Court yesterday (20 June). The company were aware of the legally protected newts on their site and had been granted a licence by Natural England to enable ecologists to capture the newts to allow the development to go ahead. The captured newts were placed in a temporary reserve while new ponds were being created for them nearby. Once the ponds were suitable for the newts to live in they, and the temporary reserve, were to be joined to form a larger reserve. However, in December 2006 a manager from the company instructed contractors to excavate the new ponds. The contractors drove machinery over special fencing which protected the newt reserve and placed soil from the excavation on top of where the newts had been released. Wildlife Management Advisers from Natural England and PC Andrew Long, the Force Wildlife Crime Officer for Essex Police, visited the site after being informed by an ecologist working for the company. The visit confirmed a breach of the law and led to yesterdayÆs case. Paul Cantwell, Wildlife Management Adviser with Natural England, said: ôThis case highlights why developers must take extra care when dealing with their contractors who are working where there are protected species. I believe this situation was completely avoidable. I would like to commend PC Long and the Crown Prosecution Service for bringing this case to Court.ö PC Andrew Long, the Wildlife Crime Co-ordinator for Essex Police said: "This case demonstrates that Essex Police, working with agencies such as Natural England can have a positive impact on wildlife crime. Essex Police will, where possible, investigate matters of wildlife crime, and if there is sufficient evidence refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service.ö Notes for editors: 1. Natural England works for people, places and nature to conserve and enhance biodiversity, landscapes and wildlife in rural, urban, coastal and marine areas. We conserve and enhance the natural environment for its intrinsic value, the wellbeing and enjoyment of people, and the economic prosperity it brings. 2. The offence prosecuted was the damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place of a European protected species under Section 39(1) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). 3. Great crested newts and their habitat are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). They breed in ponds but spend much of their lives on land, sometimes venturing several hundred metres from the pond. They often depend on several ponds close together, linked by suitable land habitats. Great crested newts are found in rural, suburban and urban areas. A licence is required to undertake actions affecting great crested newts which would normally be prohibited by law (such as capturing newts, or filling in their breeding ponds). 4. Information on protected species licensing and the law regarding protected species in England can be found on the Natural England internet site. For further information contact: Natural EnglandÆs Press Office on 0845 603 9953, press@naturalengland.org.uk." |
|
Badgerboy
|
|
AndyS
Senior Member Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 153 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Just as wishful thinking really, maybe when ever a developer does damage or destroy GCN (or any other species) Development is halted for say 3-5 years to allow the species affected to get a foot hold it would certainly make developers think before flouting the Law.
I'm sure I'd make a good Judge in these case's at the very least there would be a few more zero's added to the fine
|
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |