New estate bans cats and dogs to protect birdlife

The Sunday Times of 27th December carried this story that a property developer - Redrow - has banned homeowners from keeping cats or dogs to protect birdlife on nearby heathland.  Breach could lead to eviction. 

The tone of the article portrays Redrow as an unreasonable developer imposing draconian rules on something which is none of its business.  MP and "cat-owner" Anne Widdecombe is quoted saying “The dictatorial nature of this decree is unbelievable. The developer has exceeded its powers by telling people what pets they can and can’t own.”.  That's an interesting reaction because this is of course what Natural England requires as a result of the designation of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA under the Birds Directive to protect the Dartford Warbler, the nightjar and the woodlark, and the operation of the Habitats Directive. The latter is particularly difficult as it dictates the outcome in certain circumstances, rather than the process; the decision maker has no choice.  Complaints about dictatorial behaviour should therefore be addressed to those who passed those two Directives.  It also illustrates how important it is that the UK Government maintains a practically minded watch on the emergence of new law in Brussels.  The Thames Basin Heaths are geographically located just where we have a major housing need.

The seventy or so comments on the article are worth looking at too. They range from agreement with Anne Widdecombe to support on the ground that dogs and cats spread disease.  Only two comments point to the EU Directives.

There is however a nice irony in the article which says that the RSPB thinks the ban is unenforceable.  What will their next action be?

Comments

[Paul Barkley, Solicitor]

I can not see how this could be enforceable through Planning control and any planning condition would be invalid. I also doubt whether any covenant would be enforceable in practice. With Thames Heaths there is a "no-build" zone around the protected area, and a wider buffer zone (5km) where no building likely to impact on the Heaths (essentially residential development)can take place. The LPAs are pursuing a policy of only allowing new housing in the buffer zone if there is provision of "suitable" (i.e. heath-like) alternative open space to encourage dog walkers not to use the Heaths (and hence, in theory, avoiding any impact on the Heaths). As a matter of law, the LPA can not grant planning permission for development within the buffer zone unless they are satisfied that the development will not have an adverse impact upon the SPA. Whether the provision of alternative open space will avoid such adverse impact is unproven and, given the "precautionary" principle of European Law, it is not unlikely that a Judicial Review of a planning permission for development within the buffer zone based upon the provision of alternative open space will be forthcoming. I have experience of the issue in relation to Farnham, but I am aware that there are issues in Guildford and other areas adjoining the SPA all of which are under pressure for housing development

[pet insurance]

domestic cats and dogs are rarely known to attack birds wildfire. in fact dodmestic cats hardly go out and dogs have not been known to attack birds. chase them maybe. but never attack.

and to say that cats and dogs spread diesases: humans spread diseases too. quicker than cats and dogs ever will. perhaps humans need to be banned from this place as well.