Countryside development mixing with ecological issues

I am increasingly experiencing the problems associated with development in the countryside and its interaction with ecological issues.

All bats now receive protection at a European level, as do other species such as Great Crested Newts while many others are also protected at a domestic level via UK legislation. But the manner in which all this legislation is interpreted can result in an unintended economic impact with little or no environmental benefit.

The main beneficiaries of the legislation are the huge number of “ecological consultancies” which have sprung up in recent years, but because this is a very “young industry” the quality of advice given is very variable.

I suspect this is in part due to cuts in Natural England’s budget but equally I wonder whether their scrutiny of developments could not be better prioritised to speed up the process for all applications.

For example I have seen many instances where newt fencing has been erected at great expense around a development site but not properly maintained during a project, thereby negating the whole point of the exercise.

I have also been involved in one project where newts were being collected in buckets for relocation, only to find the local seagulls were eating the newts as fast as they fell in the buckets.

Then there are projects where a track is used regularly for agricultural or other purposes, but the moment it starts to be used for construction traffic, the track becomes part of the construction site and all the ecological bells and whistles apply. Yet immediately adjoining the site, a farmer can continue to plough up the land as he has always done.

The whole area of gaining ecological consents and the interpretation of the law needs serious examination.

The people with most to gain from the current situation are the ecological consultancies who decide what needs to be done and the more that needs to be done, the more money they make, while landowners often bear the costs and the wildlife sees little or no benefit from the ecological intervention.

No doubt many ecologists will disagree with these concerns but I suspect underneath, some will also question whether many of the habitat creation schemes, newt fencing projects or newt relocation exercises on which they have advised, have actually benefited wildlife.

Some form of cost benefit analysis needs to be brought to bear in all such projects to judge the level of ecological intervention that is reasonably required.

Meaningful discussion on the interpretation and implementation of ecological legislation in the UK, involving industry leaders on all sides of this debate, is needed now.  

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk