Setting the record straight over wildlife licensing myths
There are a number of myths surrounding wildlife licensing, ranging from the slightly inaccurate to the plain daft. We aim to clear up some common misconceptions.
Media reports can be very misleading, resulting in damage to people's attitudes to wildlife or even resulting in people being unclear about what is legal, putting them at risk of breaking the law.
We work hard to secure a balance between the needs of wildlife and people, so we want to make sure that we do all we can to set the record straight about the way we do our work and the status of the species we work to protect.
Wildlife myths
1. Natural England can intervene with local planning authorities where they have not discharged their duties correctly in relation to planning consents and protected species.
Natural England has no role in relation to investigating or acting on complaints about how local authorities have handled planning decisions involving protected species. People wishing to complain about how a local authority has handled particular planning decisions should follow the individual planning authority’s complaints procedure. You can also ask your District or Borough Councillor to help. If this process is exhausted and you are still not satisfied, you should ask the Council’s Monitoring Officer to examine the case. If you are still not happy with the outcome of this you can contact the local government ombudsman
to ask them to investigate your complaint. You may also care to copy to your complaint to the Department for Communities and Local Government via your Member of Parliament.
More information on planning and protected species can be found on the legislation page.
2. Natural England takes enforcement action in relation to all species offences in England.
This is not the case. Natural England is the enforcement authority in relation to breaches of the individual, class and organisational licences that we issue in our own name and on behalf of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. This is set out in our Compliance and Enforcement Position available on our website (see link below) which was the subject of full public consultation.
The Police are the statutory enforcement body for all other species offences in England and most forces have Wildlife Crime Officers (WCO’s) who lead on the investigation of such offences.
Further information on our enforcement role and how we work with other enforcement bodies is available.
3. Natural England artificially rear and release otters
This is completely incorrect. Natural England did not and have never had a policy of artificially rearing and releasing otters.
Until the 1960s, otters were widespread and common throughout England. The introduction of certain pesticides in the late 1950s led to a massive decline in numbers and reduced their range to Wales, the north and southwest of England. This continued until these pesticides were eventually banned in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time, it was feared we might lose the otter completely from England.
In response to this drastic decline, a programme of releasing captive-bred otters by the Otter Trust was initiated. 117 otters were released between 1983 and 1999 (an average of only 7 a year). The Vincent Wildlife Trust also released a number of rehabilitated animals (mainly orphaned cubs) between 1990 and 1996, predominantly in Yorkshire. Throughout this time the surviving otter populations in western England and Wales began their natural recovery and spread eastwards. Populations in the north of England also began to recover.
This modest reintroduction programme (not funded by either Natural England or the Environment Agency or their predecessor bodies) soon became less significant as the natural recovery of the otter population gained momentum. The main benefit was to speed up natural re-colonisation by just a few years. The great majority of otters in England now are natural re-colonists, not the descendants of released animals.
Otter populations are limited by food supply and habitat. Numbers are no different to those we would expect from naturally recovering populations.
There have been no releases of captive-bred animals for over 10 years.
Further advice and legislation relating to otters is available.
4. A change in licensing rules means that England will be over run with grey squirrels
Natural England have not changed their licensing position, small numbers have been released under licence since the legislation came into force. Releases of individuals only occur where there will be no impacts. For some people, grey squirrels have become a part of our wildlife and give a great deal of pleasure. The number of animals covered by licences is insignificant compared with the size of the population.
A guidance note: (21kb)
giving more information on the release of non-native species, with particular reference to the grey squirrel is available.
Further advice and legislation relating to the release, management or control of non-native and former native species in England is available.
5. Proposing excessive mitigation and compensation will help secure a mitigation licence more quickly
This is not true. Natural England expects proposed mitigation and compensation to be proportionate to the impacts of the planned works on the European Protected Species to be affected.
A guidance note: (69kb) is available.
6. Bat survey licences permit consultants to remove small numbers of bats and damage or destroy minor roosts without the need for a mitigation licence
All species of bat and their breeding sites or resting places (roosts) are protected under Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is an offence for anyone intentionally to kill, injure or handle a bat, to possess a bat (whether live or dead), disturb a roosting bat, or sell or offer a bat for sale without a licence. It is also an offence to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place used by bats for shelter, whether they are present or not.
This matter was covered in more detail in July's European Protected Species (EPS) Mitigation Licensing update: (210kb). Please refer to item 4 on page 3.
Further advice and legislation relating to bats is available.
7. Natural England issue licences to 'cull' cormorants
This is not true. Cormorants are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Whilst Natural England issue licences to allow the killing of a limited number of cormorants to protect fisheries, these are only issued to aid or enhance other non lethal measures of reducing predation by cormorants. 'Culling' implies an active attempt to significantly reduce the overall population, which is not done. The licences which are issued may slightly reduce the numbers of cormorants in a local area, but the overall number of cormorants killed under licence is closely monitored to ensure the overall conservation status of the population is maintained.
Further advice on measures to help reduce cormorant predation problems can be found here
8. Natural England are responsible for and will undertake activity to control gulls
No, this is incorrect. Natural England issues licences to allow the control of gulls under certain circumstances, but we do not undertake the actual control measures. That responsibility lies with the land/property owner or body responsible for public health and safety.
9. Why does Natural England needlessly duplicate the work already done by Planning Authorities by separately assessing mitigation proposals for developments?
Defra has authorised Natural England to perform the function of determining species licensing applications under the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 in connection with planning applications where a species licence is required. This authorisation is contained in an agreement between Defra and Natural England under section 78 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 dated 29 September 2006 (and last amended 1 April 2010). This Agreement is published on Natural England’s website: (1.1mb).
It is expected therefore, that where a species licence is required in connection with a planning application, that Natural England will be responsible for deciding that licence application. This is confirmed in the current Defra Circular 01/2005 to Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9), which states in paragraph 112/113 that the licensing authority grants licences and must be satisfied that the derogation tests set out in the Habitats Directive are met. It is quite clear from recent legal judgements (R (Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council and Millenium Estates Ltd [2009],: (142kb) and R (Vivienne Morge) v Hampshire County Council [2011]) that while Local Planning Authorities must consider the likelihood of a species licence being issued when considering a planning application, there is no suggestion that anyone other than the licensing authority will decide whether the derogation tests in the Habitats Directive have been met.
In exceptional circumstances where the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may make a licensing decision they will state clearly that they had considered the derogation tests and were granting a species licence. It is difficult to envisage any circumstances where they would do so without the advice of Natural England.
