What does this even mean?

[Moonshine]

23 minutes ago, pudding said:

Indeed, at the moment it's a recommendation from the Council's Ecologist. It will be included as a condition of planning when you get the final decision notice. The council planning officer would need a very good reason to ignore their own ecologist and not require you to get an initial survey done, and tbh I dont think they're going to ignore their own in house ecologist based on anything you can say unfortnately.

 

This is the way it works, and agree the planning officer will likely go with the councils ecologist recommendations.

 

I would also say that some derogatory comments on here about "council wasting your time and money" are pretty unfair.

 

I think that people need to remember that you are wanting to develop something, the onus is on you to prove what the impact is and how / if it can be mitigated, and the future use of the site. It is not the planners or their in-house consultees job to do that for you.

 

Yes, councils can be sticklers for detail (mainly to manage risk) and having a time or cost implication that you haven't planned for or didn't realise you need is not nice and can be very annoying (see my on rant about pre-app timescales). However it comes down to the fact that you are asking permission to develop something, and you need to satisfy them its going to be o.k. 

 

I write this as a type of "ologist" that submits supplementary information for planning applications, and have had quite a few experiences of people (usually that don't submit that many apps) have been caught by surprise needing my services, and not liking the associated unplanned costs.

[canalsiderenovation]

We have spoken to our architects who have been in touch with the Planning Officer, indeed they want the Phase 1 initial survey so that's where we are.

 

Our architects do know someone locally and we reviewed a couple of the ecologist reports they did, one just round the corner for a swimming pool who got away with an initial assessment so we are happy to go with her. Our architects did say we could do our own research if we wanted but in their experience they have used her a fair bit and think she is good, and good for us. To be honest we'd just be doing our own research so would just be going off prices so perhaps local knowledge and advice pay pay off in the long run. That is another £375.... If we have to have Phase 2 I think that's another £860.

[Moonshine]

as least it answers your question and as long as its only a stage 1 assessment, then its not too painful.

[canalsiderenovation]

Ecologist came today.

 

A) No newts

B) Recommending some temporary fencing is put up on grass adjacent to canal to stop any little creatures like water voles venturing out whilst building work takes place and getting lost/trapped in building work

C) Standard lighting stuff applies (the irony when there is three great big floodlights already on the bungalow that light up everything)

D) Evidence of birds nesting in fascias as underneath is hollow one end to other (knew this as we saw them using it last year but blocked it up end of last year with an old rag but he had one of those small camera things so took it out and removed rag and looked inside as there was moss etc inside). So need to leave this now til September just incase anything is nesting (there isn't as it's been blocked up)! and then do work after September or block it up with proper wood/nails to ensure nothing gets in it before we start building next year....

 

These aren't birds that the ecologist is bothered by, his words "probably just sparrows, blue tits etc". I know this is right as we watched them last year nesting there and there were little baby birds too but they are long gone.

 

And the final annoying point:

 

C) No presence of bats in loft, sheds etc, no evidence. HOWEVER, as our site is an ideal place and there could be bats we need to have them back (or someone back) mid May to do the whole look around dusk for bats and where they could be nesting as point D could be potential habitat for bats!!!!

 

And there will be three people needed, one ecologist to look at the left hand side of the house, one for the right hand side and one to look at the front near the fascias that have a hole either side (that isn't a hole as it's had rags stuffed in either end since December)!

 

If it wasn't so expensive I'd feel like making a joke about how many ecologists it takes to find a bat . . . . 

?

 

So first £400 plus vat spent and awaiting full report plus quotes for additional reports...

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by canalsiderenovation
Edit

[AliG]

Quelle surprise!

 

In our case they found a few bat droppings so had to come back to check they weren't nesting.

 

However, I have never heard of the notion that despite no evidence they have to come back because in their opinion it is a nice place for bats to nest. That is nonsense. No evidence, should equal job done.

[canalsiderenovation]

15 minutes ago, AliG said:

Quelle surprise!

 

In our case they found a few bat droppings so had to come back to check they weren't nesting.

 

However, I have never heard of the notion that despite no evidence they have to come back because in their opinion it is a nice place for bats to nest. That is nonsense. No evidence, should equal job done.

They've got us as point D which could be birds (moss, twigs etc on pic he took) could also potentially be a habitat for bats too, and there were scratches on the wooden fascias which COULD also be bats or it COULD be birds!

 

Lots of could be's and potentials...

[Danny68]

On 06/03/2019 at 22:13, Russell griffiths said:

We have had 3 different ecology type things that needed doing, all by different companies as I didn’t like the first  2, 

you need to find a very tame one who won’t find a thing, you then need to prep your site so that there is nothing to find. 

Probably the best bit of advice I'm likely to receive "prep your site so there is nothing to find" 

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, Danny68 said:

Probably the best bit of advice I'm likely to receive "prep your site so there is nothing to find" 

 

I hate to say this, but I opted to just cut down the trees on our site as soon as we purchased it, and before we submitted a planning application, because I had a feeling that objectors might well just get TPOs put on them in order to block us.  I had a couple of complaints at the time, but there wasn't anything they could do after the event.  Anyway, I've now planted 10 new trees, plus a few hundred native hedging plants, so have more than made up for the loss of a couple of horse chestnuts and a sycamore.  Also, according to the EPC, our house has a CO₂ "emission" rate of -0.9 tonnes/year, it's roughly the same as having about 42 trees on the site, and I doubt that 42 trees would fit.

[canalsiderenovation]

3 minutes ago, Danny68 said:

Probably the best bit of advice I'm likely to receive "prep your site so there is nothing to find" 

 

We did so much work in preparation, so many trees have been cut, ivy pulled up and removed, and the out outbuildings are cleaner than some houses. We no longer have the pond either.....

 

I guess my worry is of course there are bats around the area, they definitely aren't nesting in our house or outbuildings (outbuildings have a flat roof) but it is still a worry!

[Danny68]

Would it be wise to tackle potential problems before they arise, eg present a bat survey with your planning application I say this because not 100mtrs from my plot I see that the development near by had to have a bat survey on their planning conditions admittedly a bigger site. 

[Ferdinand]

10 hours ago, Danny68 said:

Would it be wise to tackle potential problems before they arise, eg present a bat survey with your planning application I say this because not 100mtrs from my plot I see that the development near by had to have a bat survey on their planning conditions admittedly a bigger site. 

 

However, remember that such reports will contain valid dates and the LPA may ask for another one if expired or there has been time since for eg bats to arrive. The ones I have seen are validity of 2 years, and I have never seen an LPA use that as a reason.

 

You could manage that risk by eg negotiating a 25% fee for an "update" when you order the initial exercise.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

Disagreeing with @Moonshine.

 

On 07/03/2019 at 10:21, Moonshine said:

I think that people need to remember that you are wanting to develop something, the onus is on you to prove what the impact is and how / if it can be mitigated, and the future use of the site. It is not the planners or their in-house consultees job to do that for you.

 

No! That is the wrong way round ... the law says that development is to be approved unless there is a material reason in planning terms not to do it. The basic principle is in Para 11 of the NPPF:

 

11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 

Elucidated thusly:

 

For decision-taking this means:

 

c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or

d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date7 , granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6 ; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

 

In law it is for the Council to justify a refusal, and show that it cannot be justified in planning terms. (Though they sometimes don't act like that).

 

On 07/03/2019 at 10:21, Moonshine said:

Yes, councils can be sticklers for detail (mainly to manage risk) and having a time or cost implication that you haven't planned for or didn't realise you need is not nice and can be very annoying (see my on rant about pre-app timescales). However it comes down to the fact that you are asking permission to develop something, and you need to satisfy them its going to be o.k. 

 

I am not really convinced much of it is to do with managing risk, unless that is for the Council rather than the community. I think that much of it is to do with a culture that seeks reassurance in procedural tick boxes and archived reports, rather than a willingness to exercise professional judgement. One problem is that there is little downside in a Planning Officer imposing costs of £££ on the applicant, to create xyz extra report, whether or not it is justified or necessary.

 

There is (to me, anyway) a noticeable difference when dealing with 'wise owl' type 5x year old planning officers, and those who are still in short trousers and wet behind the ears. One of the things some lack is the impact on the applicant of what seem to them to be minor decisions. Two years ago I applied for a Change of Use, which involved about £4k expenditure and a hundred hours of my time, and months of consultation with planning. The planning officer applied - of his own accord - a time limit of 3 years on the change of use on the last morning, after no consultation whatsoever with me, got it signed off, and issued the decision notice (ie too late to change it). I was not even asked about my business plan, which required a 10 year CoU to justify the 100k which was to be spent on the unit. He just said "should be enough".  He had previously seen an outline of our BP. The economic development people knew about it, but they were not asked either.

 

We had to spend weeks renegotiating a complex lease. And the bloody unit had been empty for a decade anyway, which we were bringing back into use.

 

Much criticism of Councils is fully justified.

 

On top of that we have a number of professional lobbies on the "more checks" side who have a vested interest in protecting their income streams, or powerful single issue lobbying groups who want to use the planning system as a weapon to protect their pet cause, whilst it is supposed to be a way of balancing interests around a development. (*)

 

Some of these groups have serious institutionalised conflicts of interest. A good example of this is the Bats Protection people, who make their money from selling training courses to batmen, and are also a key adviser to English Heritage on Bat Conservation Trust in planning policy .. which creates the demand for the thing that makes them money. This is an abuse imo.

Single issue lobby groups unfortunately do not give a toss about anything except their single issue. Will explore that another time.

 

On 07/03/2019 at 10:21, Moonshine said:

I would also say that some derogatory comments on here about "council wasting your time and money" are pretty unfair.

 

In some cases yes. In some cases no.

 

On 07/03/2019 at 10:21, Moonshine said:

I write this as a type of "ologist" that submits supplementary information for planning applications, and have had quite a few experiences of people (usually that don't submit that many apps) have been caught by surprise needing my services, and not liking the associated unplanned costs.

 

I tend to use it because I get fed up of typing umpteen polysyllabic words.

F

 

(*) Witness Village Greens or Buildings of Community Value.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Moonshine]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

No! That is the wrong way round ... the law says that development is to be approved unless there is a material reason in planning terms not to do it. The basic principle is in Para 11 of the NPPF:

 

11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.  

 

Yep, that is what it states, so question to you, how do you achieve sustainable development, and how do you prove that a development is sustainable?

 

Think about a potential site that is located on a flood plain, the council could very rightly say, "That sites on a flood plain, that's not sustainable", and have a material objection to planning being granted. It's not the council planners job to determine how the site could become sustainable, if you want to develop it, the onus is on you to show what the impact is, and how it can be mitigated so that that the potential flooding doesn't cause issue to future occupants of the site.  

 

 

 

[canalsiderenovation]

So, next stage bat survey. I'd asked for a quote and here it is.

 

In the email the ecologist said this:

Please find the quote for the precautionary bat survey attached. I have kept the references for “up to three bat activity surveys may be needed” just in case we do find a cheeky roosting bat, but I would hope that the costs would come downslightly in that case as we would be able to use fewer surveyors to focus on areas where evidence of roosting was found in the precautionary. Hopefully we will only need the one survey though. 

 

I'm finding the info a bit confusing so I've asked for clarity for the total price of this, including mileage based on my interpretation, e.g. are all the ecologists travelling together or not as three surveyors all in their own cars at 55p a mile will soon add up!!

 

I think they mean 1 survey is £430 and we could need up to 3 surveys so potentially £1290 plus mileage each time they visit. 

 

At least once I have something more concrete I can shop around. As I said before they had no real evidence of roosting at all, the scratches on the fascias which were from birds nesting.....

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by canalsiderenovation

[Ferdinand]

On 02/04/2019 at 10:08, Moonshine said:

 

Yep, that is what it states, so question to you, how do you achieve sustainable development, and how do you prove that a development is sustainable?

 

Think about a potential site that is located on a flood plain, the council could very rightly say, "That sites on a flood plain, that's not sustainable", and have a material objection to planning being granted. It's not the council planners job to determine how the site could become sustainable, if you want to develop it, the onus is on you to show what the impact is, and how it can be mitigated so that that the potential flooding doesn't cause issue to future occupants of the site.  

 

 

 

 

By making a proposal in accordance with national and local policy. I would say that falls under 11 d) ii in my quote.

 

Thinking of your example, that is catered for in detailed guidance in National Policy.

 

And if I comply with that the Council would have to judge the costs and benefits balance of the proposal in the light of the NPPF and local policy, under the presumption to approve.

 

They cannot say "that's not sustainable"; they have to justify that allegation / judgement on balance in "planning terms" such that it would stand up on Appeal, and if conditions can make it acceptable in Planning Terms then they have to apply the conditions and approve.

 

That is what I see as the difference between your original statement, and my belief.

 

Ferdinand

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Ferdinand

[PeterW]

@canalsiderenovation if you want a comparable quote try BrindleGreen who we use. 

[canalsiderenovation]

27 minutes ago, PeterW said:

@canalsiderenovation if you want a comparable quote try BrindleGreen who we use. 

Thank you I'll try there.

[canalsiderenovation]

We now have further clarification:

 

The costs will be £430.00 + VAT, which is for three surveyors, and the time for analysis of the calls and writing of the report of the findings. I have spoken to my colleague and he is willing to take over as principal, meaning travel will be for the round trip which will be 44 miles at £0.55 for a total of £24.20, you will only be charged for one set of travel costs on any given survey, even if we end up coming from different areas for the survey.

 

The potential roost features identified were gaps above the soffits and under the eaves of the roof on the east face of the southern half and on the western face of the northern half, and a gap in the mortar leading under the ridge tiles on the southern gable end of the northern roof. Evidence of birds was found in the gap between the soffit and tiles on the northern roof, but this does not preclude the use by bats in other gaps.

 

However, as there was no direct evidence of bats found, and few potential roost features found, the bungalow counts as having low potential for bats, so unless we see evidence of roosting bats on the precautionary survey we will not need to do any more surveys. Having three surveyors means that all aspects of the building will be visible throughout the survey, so we won’t risk the county ecologist coming back to us questioning the findings of the survey.

 

Hopefully this will be the end of it. Roll on end of May then.

[Ferdinand]

22 minutes ago, canalsiderenovation said:

The potential roost features identified were gaps above the soffits and under the eaves of the roof

 

How wide is such a gap for a bat to be able to fit through?

[canalsiderenovation]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand said:

 

How wide is such a gap for a bat to be able to fit through?

 

The gaps under the soffits had a rag and brick stuffed in them either end since last year but he was able to take it out and push his camera on a wire through it to find the evidence of birds nesting from last year.

 

The eaves of the roof - I've since looked and can't see any gaps on the eaves so they must be small. Unless bats have the ability to squash themselves into insect size I'm at a loss to see how this could be potential roosting area but will be properly looking at the areas he mentioned again....

[joe90]

I did not think bats could get in the small gaps around the roof of our previous building (which we demolished to build new) but they did, right little Houdini’s they must have been.

[Gone West]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

 

How wide is such a gap for a bat to be able to fit through?

IIRC the slits in the bat boxes we put up were about 15mm. Pipistrelle bats are very small, probably smaller than a mouse and they get through small gaps.

[PeterW]

A pipistrelle is about the size of your thumb when it’s wings are folded so anything you can get a thumb into, a bat can get into ..! 

[canalsiderenovation]

5 minutes ago, PeterStarck said:

IIRC the slits in the bat boxes we put up were about 15mm. Pipistrelle bats are very small, probably smaller than a mouse and they get through small gaps.

Thanks for this, need to check fully tj places he has mentioned. 

[Ferdinand]

10mm.

 

http://www.acerecology.co.uk/mitigation-crevice-dwelling-bats/