Wakemans Trade Secrets
Insider information of general interest to the construction industry.

Tails of Woe for Unwary Developers

David Howles, Chief Executive of Birmingham based construction consultancy, Wakemans Limited, reviews the increasing ecological implications of developing brownfield and greenfield sites.
In more and more instances, Wakemans is being asked to include ecological surveys within project management briefs. Surveys that can incur increased development costs and subsequent costs for the mitigation and management of any protected species found.
There are more than 650 species of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and plants that have significant protection in law in Britain. Hedgerows and some other wildlife habitats also enjoy protection. Maximum penalties for contravention of the wildlife legislation in Britain are high and with the new Countryside and Rights of Way Act, these have increased, so it pays to be diligent and seek advice.

Although an ecological survey is not a pre-requisite of all planning applications it is becoming more common. There are several reasons for this; the proposed site may include areas of particular nature conservation interest, for example ancient woodland, species-rich grassland, heathland etc., the local council may have policies that require an ecological survey, or it may simply be because the developer has previous experience of issues relating to protected wildlife on development sites.
Christopher Betts Environmental Biology publishes a comprehensive list of legally protected species that includes amongst others: all bat species, otters, various species of birds, common lizards, slow worms and grass snakes. Another publication by the same author offers advice and guidance to project managers, planners and environmental professionals on the creation, repair and management of natural habitats that may be required as part of mitigation for areas lost to development.
Wakemans is well aware of the cost to developers when mitigation and management for wildlife has to be built into a development project. In addition to the financial costs, which in some circumstances can be in excess of £100,000, translocation proposals, as part of a species mitigation programme, can cause significant and serious delays to the time taken to complete projects. Some ecological work can only be done during certain seasons. Options for resolving the wildlife situation on sites include capture and translocation, temporary protection during development and some sacrifice of development land or purchase of extra land to be used as new habitat.
It only needs a one off sighting of say a common lizard to halt a development project. Lizards and slow worms only emerge from hibernation during March and so any development work, which may be due to start in say April, would have to be put back to allow sufficient time for their capture and translocation to a safe area. The procedure for translocation may include the cutting of tall vegetation by hand. This would be followed by the placing of a large number of felt mats (refugia) measuring 1m square over the complete site. Reptiles would then be carefully captured from these artificial refugia and relocated to a safe part of the site designated of special scientific interest. The statutory period for clearance is up to eighty days, which would have to be added to the project completion timetable. To prevent inward migration of reptiles onto the cleared site, a 60cm high polythene sheet fence would need to be erected along the whole perimeter. In addition, to ensure that all translocated reptiles remained within the safety of the designated reserve, this too would have to be fenced.
Different species require different capture and removal procedures. Water Voles natural habitat is well vegetated river banks. To encourage the protected animals to relocate upstream, away from a proposed development it would be necessary to cut the vegetation. This would encourage the animals to disperse naturally because of the lack of cover. As a final precaution, a humane trapping operation would have to be undertaken to ensure any water voles remaining on the proposed development site could be moved to an area of safety before construction work began. Development work could not start until ecologists were sure that the site was clear of water voles.
Ecological surveys and subsequent mitigation can cost hundreds and thousands of pounds but in the context of a development that costs millions, this often accounts for only a very small percentage of the total. However, the penalties for ignoring the need for a survey can have far greater consequences, often causing significant delay and in some cases threatening the viability of the project as a whole.