the online meeting place for all who love our amphibians and reptiles |
|
Prosecution Case Studies |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | |
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
|
|
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
|
|
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)
|
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
|
|
Matt Harris
Senior Member Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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
|
|
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 |