The Lincolnshire Bird Club

A WILDLIFE site on the outskirts of Burgh-le-Marsh has been saved - at least for the time being -
thanks to an objection from the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

Developers wanted to grub up the hedgerow to make way for nine new homes, but East Lindsey
planners yesterday deferred the application following representations from Clare Sterling of LWT.

Councillors were persuaded by the LWT of the need for a better scheme that will do less harm to the biodiversity of a site that incorporates historic meadowland as well as the hedgerow.

Little credit - at least re the ornithological aspect - is due to the ecological consultancy engaged by the developer. Between them, the two consultants managed to detect just seven bird species on the site between them.

https://publicaccess.e-lindsey.gov.uk/online-applications/files/5100C711F2A9351BED3060118DE4EB9A/pdf/S_023_00513_16-ECOLOGY___PROTECTED_SPECIES_REPORT-4046905.pdf

For anyone interested, the rest of the documents, including the LWT objections are at:

https://publicaccess.e-lindsey.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_EASTL_DCAPR_120415

Thanks for pointing this out Jim. I see the ecological report is no longer available at your first link and the application form for it has also disappeared from your second link. That's a pity because those producing sub-standard ecological reports need to be named and shamed. Would ELDC allow them to withdraw the documents in order to protect themselves from embarrassment, I wonder?

The practice of conducting a survey at an inopportune time of year for establishing the true biodiversity on a site is particularly nefarious and has been pointed out by LWT in their comments about the botanical value of the site. I can understand the greed motive that developers have when rushing to get planning permission and trying to cover up what they are proposing to destroy. What I find particularly abhorrent are supposed professionals who do not point this out to their clients and do a poor job in order to get paid. These people need to be outed so that local authorities place no credence on their opinions.

Thanks. Phil, I note that the ecological consultancy's report has now been made "unavailable".

It should not have been withdrawn because the application is still 'live' - it was deferred by councillors at this month's planning meeting and is due to be reconsidered probably at the corresponding meeting next month or in October.

I have seen far worse ecologists' reports on other planning applications - including one this year which stated that not a single bird species (!) had been recorded on a particular application site.

These surveys are invariably carried out in winter when there is no risk of the presence of hirundines, warblers or other summer migrants.

As for butterflies and moths, they are right at the bottom of the list - their welfare seldom if ever gets a mention.

One of the problems is that that local authority planning officers/ councillors are unlikely to be birders - they take the ecology reports in good faith without realising that the wool is being pulled over their eyes. So long as the box is ticked, that's all that matters.

In a sense, you can't blame the ecologists - they are not paid to be honest and impartial. They are paid to frame their conclusions in such a way as not to jeopardise the prospects of a developer's application from being approved. If they are too thorough and objective with their reports, they are unlikely to be recommended by one developer to another.

Having said that, some are just not competent to do the job. Someone (was it Robert Carr ?) made a telling comment at the annual meeting in March when he said that some applicants for jobs at The LWT were unable to identify common species even though they were ecology graduates.

The LWT used to have its own consultancy, called Lapwings, but it was wound up - presumably because engagements dried up after it came up with conclusions/ recommendations that were unwelcome to the developers which commissioned the surveys.

The planning system purports to encourage biodiversity, but it mostly works the other way.

You hear of many other abuses in advance of ecological surveys being carried out : derelict buildings having apertures blocked up to exclude bats or owls; remnants of hirundines's nests being removed from barns earmarked for conversion/ demolition; falconers being engaged to clear waders from prospective wind farm sites.

Unfortunately, conservation organisations are completely unaware of how the planning system operates - and how it has been corroded to the detriment of birds and other wildlife - so there's nothing to prevent the downward spiral from continuing.

I have been dismayed at some of the things that I have personally come across regarding bird surveys, e.g.:-

Inland mid-county Windfarm site: Nearby species of conservation concern = Mediterranean Gull. Same site recorded no Barn Owls and even stated that there were no suitable Barn Owl nesting sites in the area, despite an obvious pole-mounted Barn Owl box (occupied at the time!) within 70 metres from one of the proposed turbines that was clearly visibly from a public road only 30 metres away. In mitigation the report suggested that to mitigate for potential Barn Owls in the area, the developer and local landowners should instigate a mowing regime to keep the grass short so that Barn Owls are not encouraged!

Inland south-county Windfarm Site: No Barn Owls were observed during extensive field surveys……….which was strange as a barn that we monitor raised two broods that year and the exit window from the barn was about 5 metres from the site boundary. I actually met a young chap doing a 'bird survey' for this site and pointed out a Lesser Whitethroat – a bird he had never heard of!

Another mid-county Windfarm site: On one occasion, whilst I was speaking to a consultant from away, when two of his survey staff came up and announced proudly that they had just found Merlins feeding fledged young in a tree at the edge of the adjacent wood!

Windfarm developers in particular seem to come up with some questionable data, but inaccuracies are not just confined to them…. A local Drainage Board's draft BAP produced by consultants also made reference to breeding populations of Marsh Warblers in watercourses within their area.

Alan