Developers ‘clearing wildlife habitats without approval to win planning permission’

Exclusive: ‘It’s hideous in a biodiversity crisis, but these are the forces we’re up against,’ say householders

Developers have been accused of underhand tactics in clearing wildlife habitats from sites before planning applications are submitted or granted.

The strategy is not illegal, but residents and conservationists say it is undemocratic and a menace to biodiversity.

It’s claimed that building companies move on to sites they have earmarked and remove vegetation, reducing wildlife populations so that surveys prepared for decision-makers show less wildlife there – increasing the chances that planning approval will be given.

Residents and campaigners say that in some cases, habitats have been destroyed months before planning approval was sought or given, while in others badger setts have allegedly been disturbed, which is illegal.

A householder in Berkshire told The Independent: “They mass-cleared a site down my road before putting in an application. It had protected species and red-list birds in the area.

“Another copse was cleared a couple of years back and a badger sett destroyed. It seems that landowners will go in and chop down trees and hedges before putting in an application.

“It seems to go on so that when they do a second-phase ecology survey, less is recorded so they don’t have to do as much mitigation. It’s hideous in a biodiversity crisis, but these are the forces we’re up against.”

Elsewhere in Berkshire, local people said a site in Reading was cleared without an ecology survey – often needed for planning permission – having been carried out. They claimed that the developer that was interested in building homes on the site had said it needed to do the clearance work in order to conduct surveys.

One resident said that workers had strimmed back greenery for four days in October, although work was delayed when residents blocked their access to the site.

Contractors for the landowner used “inappropriately heavy” machinery for minimal clearance of a site where protected species had been identified, she said, to “ensure there was no ecology left when a survey was conducted”.

In an email to the ecologists, seen by The Independent, the resident wrote: “They are back on site again today with petrol hedge-trimmers ... Can you please tell me why it is necessary to do any more clearance at this pre-planning stage?

“Exceeding what is strictly necessary for the various pre-planning surveys seems to me an intentional act of habitat destruction, to ensure there is no wildlife on site when it comes to a proper ecology survey.”

Videos showed a badger entering a sett less than two metres from where the contractors had been using petrol hedge-trimmers to strim brambles, the resident said.

Other householders complained to Natural England, the body that advises the government on nature-related matters, claiming to have seen contractors clearing vegetation above a badger sett and less than two metres from another.

Had the developer already applied for planning permission, they would have been obliged to apply for a badger disturbance licence from Natural England.

The Independent has asked the site landowner in Berkshire, the developer and the ecologists to comment on the above claims.

It is not uncommon for landowners to clear brownfield sites without needing any consent, but these cases are rarely controversial because the land does not contain wildlife habitats.

Exceeding what is strictly necessary for pre-planning surveys seems to me an intentional act of habitat destruction

Resident in Berkshire

However, in October, a property developer was fined £150,000 for carrying out unauthorised work on land in Barrow.

Mulberry Homes, in Blackburn, carried out work without planning permission, including soil excavation, deposit of hardcore, creation of hard-surfaced driveways and ground clearance.

The council said mature hedgerows had been ripped out and that the work had had a “serious impact on the environment”.

While there is no suggestion that Mulberry, or the individuals mentioned below, undertook such actions in order to improve their chances of being granted planning permission, there have been several tree removal prosecutions in recent years.

In September, a property developer was ordered to pay more than £68,000 in fines and costs after they cut down 53 protected ancient oak trees in Horton Heath, Hampshire, prior to submitting a planning application to build holiday homes.

Neighbours awoke to the noise of diggers tearing down the trees in defiance of a tree preservation order (TPO).

Southampton Magistrates’ Court heard how James Barney, 35, planned to build two holiday lets on the plot he had recently bought. Barney, who was also ordered to plant 650 new trees, said he was unaware of the TPO when he chopped the trees down. He was later prosecuted for a similar offence.

In Warwickshire last year, another developer was fined £5,000 for cutting down trees protected by a TPO. Two protected ash trees in Clifton-upon-Dunsmore were cut down, and a further ash and a pair of cherry trees were damaged while being lopped and topped, Coventry magistrates heard.

Patrick Hutchinson, who was also ordered to pay nearly £1,000 in costs, said he had mistakenly thought discussions between the council and his tree consultant amounted to consent for the work.

Tom Fyans, interim chief executive of CPRE (the Council for the Protection of Rural England), said:  “Cases like these highlight the need for stronger enforcement and more effective action against breaches of planning control.

“Wildlife is delicate and it cannot be easily or quickly replaced. Often local communities fight a losing battle to stop protected woodland from being felled.

“Even when developers are fined and ordered to replace the trees they’ve already chopped down, the destruction is already complete, and wildlife in the area will take decades to recover.

“In the face of climate and nature emergencies that require us to take greater care of the environment, we simply cannot allow such unsanctioned destruction to continue.”