the online meeting place for all who love our amphibians and reptiles
Home Page Live Forums Archived Forums Site Search Identify Record Donate Projects Links
Forum Home Forum Home > General > UK Reptiles and Amphibians
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Prosecution Case Studies
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Prosecution Case Studies

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Matt Harris View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 233
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt Harris Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Prosecution Case Studies
    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
Back to Top
Matt Harris View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 233
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt Harris Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Apr 2007 at 4:20am
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
Back to Top
Vicar View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vicar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2007 at 11:35am
OOh, I know that area, and am pleasantly gobsmacked at the council's thoroughness ! Do we know the consultancy which undertook the survey ? 
Steve Langham - Chairman    
Surrey Amphibian & Reptile Group
Back to Top
Matt Harris View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 233
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt Harris Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2007 at 8:12am
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 appellantsĂ ecological survey.
The appellantsĂ 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 appellantsĂ 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
Back to Top
badgerboy View Drop Down
New Member
New Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 9
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote badgerboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2007 at 5:33pm
See my message posted the other day under Great Crested Newts about a GCN case.
Badgerboy
Back to Top
jopedder View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 24 Jul 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 55
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jopedder Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2006 at 11:05am

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:

species date fine costs reckless/intentional disturb/kill special Full Text
Great Crested Newt Mar-05 1000.00 500.00 reckless disturb
In March 2005 a man was fined ˙1,000 and ordered to pay ˙500 costs after being found guilty of recklessly disturbing great crested newts. Despite advice given by English Nature Peter Dennis of Spennymoor, County Durham went ahead and cleared a pond of weeds on land that he was developing. He was aware that if newts were in the pond at this time they would be at risk of harm. Mr Dennis admitted that he removed the weed and then did not check it after removal.

 

 

Back to Top
herpetologic2 View Drop Down
Forum Coordinator
Forum Coordinator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote herpetologic2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2005 at 7:02pm

 

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

 

Back to Top
herpetologic2 View Drop Down
Forum Coordinator
Forum Coordinator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote herpetologic2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2005 at 6:53pm

 

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

 

 

 

Back to Top
calumma View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 375
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calumma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2004 at 10:45pm
Very useful information Jon. Anyone else know of successful prosecutions under either WCA or Habitat Regulations?
Lee Brady

Kent Herpetofauna Recorder | Independent Ecological Consultant



Email
Back to Top
herpetologic2 View Drop Down
Forum Coordinator
Forum Coordinator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote herpetologic2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2004 at 11:01am

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


http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Legal%20Eagle%20No%2039_tcm5-55947.pdf

these are pretty much correct as Sgt Saunders wrote the RSPB article

 

Regards

JC

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.06
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.