the online meeting place for all who love our amphibians and reptiles |
|
Prosecution Case Studies |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||||||||||||||||
Matt Harris
Senior Member Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 26 Feb 2008 at 7:09am |
|||||||||||||||
Not prosecution, but planning caselaw again:
DC Casebook: Waste management - Newt habitat blocks recycling growth Waste management Planning, 22 February 2008 The extension of a recycling site in Glamorgan has been rejected following a ruling that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that it would not result in the loss of the terrestrial habitat of a protected species. The council argued that the site was within 500m of a pond known to be a great crested newt habitat. The newts were a European protected species under schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. The council presented survey results indicating that newt eggs were found on the margins of the pond. The inspector noted that terrestrial hibernation habitats for such newts were known to span this distance. He found no evidence that the woodland between the pond and the appeal site could not support a wildlife corridor and a refuge for the species or that the area that drained into the pond would not be part of the newts' habitat. The Countryside Council for Wales had objected to the proposal because there was insufficient information to assess the possible effects on the great crested newt population or the presence on the site of habitat that could support the species. The inspector agreed that this contravened national advice set out in the regulations, Planning Policy Wales and development plan policy. DCS Number 100-052-806 Inspector Iwan Lloyd; Hearing. |
||||||||||||||||
Local Authority Ecologist
|
||||||||||||||||
Matt Harris
Senior Member Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||
The only information I have is on the "Planning" website, from which I cut and pasted the above
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/dcs/caseFile/index.cfm?fus eaction=abstract&cfID=40946&b1=View+Abstract |
||||||||||||||||
Local Authority Ecologist
|
||||||||||||||||
Vicar
Senior Member Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1184 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||
OOh, I know that area, and am pleasantly gobsmacked at the council's thoroughness ! Do we know the consultancy which undertook the survey ?
|
||||||||||||||||
Matt Harris
Senior Member Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||
Bit of planning caselaw for you
Wychavon District Council 10/01/2007 Inspector/Reporter: Anthony Thickett Address: Stanway Screens Ltd, Kemerton Road, Bredon Worcestershire, GL20 7LX A mixed use scheme comprising the erection of 38 dwellings and an employment unit lying within part of a conservation area, was rejected after an inspector expressed reservations about the adequacy of the appellantsÆ ecological survey. The appellantsÆ survey recorded the presence of slow worms, grass snakes and bats. The council accepted that the impact of the scheme on bats could be mitigated through appropriate conditions. However it remained concerned about the extent to which the slow worm and grass snake habitats had been accurately recorded noting that the survey was undertaken in July and August when April, May and September were the ideal months for recording. The inspector agreed that in July and August the air temperatures were likely to be higher than in the optimum months. This meant that the reptiles would not need as long to warm up and reach their active temperature before moving off. Consequently it was likely that the appellantsÆ survey did not record the full extent of the habitat nor the total number of animals within the site. Although the appellants proposed to translocate the habitat onto another site, the inspector expressed doubts as to its effectiveness. He noted the advice given by English Nature, which stated that finding a suitable site could take many weeks of survey work, fact finding and liaison. However there was no evidence that the appellants had undertaken such an extensive search, having chosen an area which had originally been proposed as public open space, he noted. In his view the chosen site would be inferior in terms of size and quality and overall he decided that the appellants had failed to achieve a good understanding of the needs of the reptile population within the site. This conclusion justified dismissing the appeal. |
||||||||||||||||
Local Authority Ecologist
|
||||||||||||||||
badgerboy
New Member Joined: 15 Dec 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||
See my message posted the other day under Great Crested Newts about a GCN case.
|
||||||||||||||||
Badgerboy
|
||||||||||||||||
jopedder
Senior Member Joined: 24 Jul 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 55 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||
I've just quickley skimmed through this thread, but will read in more detail later, so apologies if this includes any repitition, but I've started to compile a list of test cases from public websites, two of these are relevant, one being the Essex horses, the other is detailed below:
|
||||||||||||||||
herpetologic2
Forum Coordinator Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||
The case is tricky because it is a private home owner who wants to reduce the pond size which takes up 90% of the garden area - the plan is to provide a lawn area for his young family - but we have a protected species issue here and with Crested Newts a license will be required to infill part of the pond - this is only if a license can be obtained - We are now looking out for an independant consultant or consultants who can help with this case - as the EARG would like to keep being a third party observer. I cannot take up the case due to the possible conflict of interest of me being the current coordinator of the EARG and a paid consultant. I tend to work on other jobs which have not involved the EARG directly. If any local consultants would be able to help then please get in touch. Regards JC
|
||||||||||||||||
herpetologic2
Forum Coordinator Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||
Dear All I have been asked to explain a bit more about the two cases relating to the Red Cow Pub and the site at 30 High Street, Chrishall. Here are the two planning applications as listed on the Uttlesford District Council website Red Cow Pub 'Planning application number = UTT/0689/00/FUL - Enlargement of existing public house car park, formation of childrens play area, outdoor seating and landscaping including retention of pond. Conditions to this planning application included retaining the pond' '30 High Street, Chrishall UTT/1649/03/FUL - Demolition of dwelling and construction of two detached houses. Detached garage Condition - 15. No development or demolition shall take place until a comprehensive survey has been undertaken of the area covered by this application and the immediately surrounding area, in order to identify Great Crested Newt, bats and other wildlife likely to be present on the site. This survey shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing and suitable protective measures undertaken during implementation. REASON: The site shows evidence of wildlife and their protection is required in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.' Now the two sites were investigated by the Essex Police following call outs by various people and organisations. The Red Cow Pub case was determined by the CPS that there was a lack of evidence to prove that the pond was 'recklessly' destroyed. At 30 High Street Chrishall the house was apparently demolished before an ecological survey was carried out on the pond - the applicant was unwilling to do anything for the newts living within this piece of land when this was brought to his attention. The neighbour of the property, where the newt pond is located called the EARG and we in turn called the police/or we instructed the neighbour to call the police (cant really remember). The Essex police visited and inspected the site - The advice given to the developer was to contruct a newt exclusion fence around the site to prevent any newts from wandering into the site. This was while a License was applied for from DEFRA. The EARG is currently asking for the ecological information contained within DEFRA license returns for Essex since 2001 - We will hope that the ecological survey undertaken by Elmaw Consulting, keith.seaman@elmaw.co.uk for the 30 high street chrishall, would be contained in these returns while the record for a single crested newt was supplied by EECOS ltd in 2001 for the Red Cow Pub. The Police it seems did their best to follow up on these two cases - I would like to point out that the EARG will be working closely with the Police in the future - we are putting on a workshop for Police Wildlife Crime Officers and we are currently working on a tricky case in Roydon with the help of LEHART. Will Atkins has determined the presence of Crested Newts in the pond which was being filled in - Essex police were instrumental in stopping this work in February of this year after a complaint was made to Epping Forest Council - I will keep you all posted on how this tricky case pans out as the private land owner has become frustrated with the delay so we need to plan what to do next carefully - we are in touch with English Nature, the police and we hope to get a successful outcome without the need for prosecution.
Regards
Jon
|
||||||||||||||||
calumma
Senior Member Joined: 27 Jun 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 375 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||
Very useful information Jon. Anyone else know of successful prosecutions under either WCA or Habitat Regulations?
|
||||||||||||||||
herpetologic2
Forum Coordinator Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1511 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||
Well I have found two links that describe the case - I couldnt find the actual proceedings but http://www.defra.gov.uk/paw/prosecutions/default.htm
these are pretty much correct as Sgt Saunders wrote the RSPB article
Regards JC |
||||||||||||||||
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 |