Which is more important in Britain, housing or pigeons?
The answer to this question will shock you…
A friend works for a social housing landlord. They recently acquired an old, obsolete block of flats from the local council. The plan was to demolish that block, and replace it with about 20 new, fit for purpose flats.
They applied for planning permission and did an environmental survey for bats, newts, and everything else. They scaffolded the building and started demolition. And then one of the crew found some nesting pigeons. Disaster.
Because the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 protects all nesting wild birds, without exception.
There is no clause that says “Unless it is a pigeon”.
The penalties for breaking the law are large - up to six months in prison and a “level 5” fine - that is an unlimited fine. The penalty is per bird. Kill a family of six pigeons and the fine is up to three years in prison, and six fines, each unlimited.
We should not be surprised that work stopped. The direct cost to stand down the crew and extend the scaffolding booking was £10,000. There were also indirect costs - local people will have to look at an ugly building site for six extra weeks. 20 families will be denied a decent home for six weeks. The social landlord will lose rent on 20 flats for 6 weeks. The council may have to pay for temporary accommodation for some of those 20 families. All for some pigeons.
Now the government’s guidance does indicate that something might be possible.
“In exceptional cases the law allows certain exemptions to permit legal activities (such as a development with planning permission) and where avoiding harm isn’t possible.”
That looks hopeful, but it is all a mirage. When you click the link you discover that the legal activities referred to are nothing to do with planning permission. Rather it says that it is legal to kill an injured bird, prevent the spread of disease, and prevent serious damage to crops. So you can kill pigeons to prevent your crop being eaten, but not to build houses for people in desperate need of housing. In this case the exemption would fail in any case, because “avoiding harm” was possible - by stopping work.
The government guidance then contradicts the earlier indication that development in line with planning permission creates an exemption -
There is no list of legal exemptions, or information on how to find them.
People in government told me that the builders should have rung Natural England and asked for an exemption - even though the government’s website says that there are no licensing purposes to permit development or construction. I asked whether Natural England would put it in writing that they would be able to issue some sort of exemption - an idea that was met with silence.
My policy suggestion is simple. We amend the clause in the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act that says it is acceptable to kill wild birds and nesting birds if they are damaging crops by adding the words “or for lawful demolition and construction”. As ever, “schedule 1” birds - tawny owls, and 79 other important species - would still receive full protection.
The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor and so on are supposedly united in wanting more housing, more building, and more growth. At present there is a planning and infrastructure bill going through Parliament. There is still time for a third reading Lords’ Amendment. An opposition or cross-bench peer could propose an amendment along the lines I set out, and the government could accept it.
And then pigeons would not trump houses.
As the PM said, “Build, baby build”.
Let’s see if he meant it.
I happen to like pigeons.