"OH LOOK ORCHID!" and then came the bulldozer

[myotis]

As I understand it, as long as the japanese knotweed is retained on the site, it isn't illegal to move it around the site.

However, as the site clearance is in preparation for a development that hasn't yet got planning permission, I am very surprised that the enforcement team seems to think this isn't a problem.

This certainly needs chased up, especially as you have a plant species list available, as evidence of the ecological value of the site.

As suggested Natural England, and local Planning Authority both need written complaints, and the Environment Agency informed about the Jap Knotweed,because a company who seems to have started their development work before getting planning permission may also be a company who feels they can disregard the law as regards jap knotweed.

Graham

 

[Rebel]

As I understand it, as long as the japanese knotweed is retained on the site, it isn't illegal to move it around the site.

However, as the site clearance is in preparation for a development that hasn't yet got planning permission, I am very surprised that the enforcement team seems to think this isn't a problem.

Graham

You may be correct about the legal situation but I'm not sure. Spreading it around the site might well be considered to be propagating it, which IS illegal. I guess that might be one for the lawyers to argue over.

Of course if they have spread it around it is going to be a future headache for the developers. Which may well serve them right.

 

[dorkingbushcraft]

today there is this incredibly complex society, but yet its so fragile
one day these people will realise that what they have just done was a big mistake

 

[myotis]

You may be correct about the legal situation but I'm not sure.

Having had a quick look at the EA Guidance, rather than repeating what others have told me, it seems I'm not correct.

It seems that the "keep on site" part only means you can "get away" with not having a waste management license, but only if you follow the EA Best practice in dealing with it. ie burying on site deeper than 5m, ensuring that no tubers are moved off site accidentally by being caught in vehicle tyres etc etc.

If you are not following best practice, then it seems the EA will prosecute you for not having a waste management license.

I don't have time to read the guidance in detail, but, certainly, this seems an avenue worth chasing up with the EA given that it is known to be a site with Jap Knotweed.

The guidance is here http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/japnkot_1_a_1463028.pdf

Graham

 

[troy ap De skog]

well its seems reminding the council its election year got them to contact me...
and i am deliving all my data on the flora (more than 90 different species)of the site along with evidence of there being adders on the site (photos and my medical record as dating evidence)

the council have the EA told them, that the JK is not a pressing issue in the area to them as it is not near a water corse. which i find very insulting.
i have also found out the council had known about the orchid as thy were also surveyed in 2002.

thanks to every one for the surport and useful infomation..

 

[badgeringtim]

It is true that if one keeps the JK on site there are mechanisms that can be put in place to avoid the spread, and actually its is a preferred EA option in many cases - but there are ways and means.
Bulldozing is certainly not one them.
The EA response is curious in relation to water courses while JK is listed as being of particular concern around water i would suggest aquatic bourn fragments are not a major source of transmittal and the apparent absence of 'care' would be very concerning. Although not following best practice certainly is not enough for prosecution.
In reality the presence of adders or other species on a site is unlikely to prevent the development on their own. Although the additional costs to deal with them can swing the balance occasionally.

Im afraid that we are probably falling foul of the limitation of the english legal system, under which much of the wildlife legislation has never really got of the ground. Without the case law it is very difficult to predict the outcome of any legal proceedings and so hard for councils or even Nat England to justify the expense of taking people to court in all but the most blatant breeches.
So while in theory (depending on your take of words like 'reasonable' and 'Knowingly' ) a lot of things could be illegal but i would be surprised if they end up in court in my lifetime, if they do it would come down to legal wranglings rather than spirit in which the legislation was intended.
There is also a requirement for the council planners to take wildlife (or at least specific species) a 'material consern' it would be interesting to ask the council for the surveys or the Ecology section of the Environmental Statement (if one was needed).
The reason this is pertinent is that a council were recently found to be negligent in this matter (specifically to bats, even though the development was later found not to have a negative impact), it was very specifically the council who were not appropriately discharging their requirement and ended up in big heap o trouble. Importantly it provided some case law in this respect!

Achem . . sorry rant over...

you stick at it troy