Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.advisorMatthews, Iain McCombe
dc.contributor.authorCohen, Keith
dc.coverage.spatial212en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-06-24T10:25:21Z
dc.date.available2011-06-24T10:25:21Z
dc.date.issued2011-06-22
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/1906
dc.descriptionThis study was supported by RPS Group plc (Planning & Development)
dc.description.abstractDespite national and international protection, and the focus of conservation biology research, UK bat populations remain under threat from development. Cumulative impacts from development threaten bat populations with the “death of a thousand cuts”: direct mortality; loss of roost spaces; increasing road traffic and wind turbines killing more bats; disturbance, fragmentation and degradation of habitat may increase mortality by reducing fitness. It is timely to investigate the efficacy of conservation measures targeted at protecting bats in local development planning (“development management”), in particular the process of screening planning applications for potential impacts upon bats, acting in resolution of this Human-Wildlife Conflict. Examination of published guidance was combined with review of practitioner experience through Local Planning Authority (LPA) development management staff and bat survey consultants, with the aim of determining weaknesses in principles, mechanisms and resources. Key issues were the lack of political and managerial support, poor enforcement, a lack of expert natural heritage skills, inconsistent interpretation and application of guidelines, and significant gaps in guidance. For one LPA, 22% of sampled planning applications showed a high risk of potential impacts upon bats, yet only 1% had a bat survey undertaken; and 32% of known roost sites had been subject to one or more planning applications in 10 years. Only a few LPAs enjoy excellent access to expert natural heritage skills, biological data and advice from SNCOs. I present a multi-disciplinary synthesis to derive recommendations for process enhancement including seven good design principles, and seven key resources. The foundation to comprehensive adoption and enforcement is clear nationally consistent political support; thus engendering good practice e.g. all UK development applications should declare how biodiversity issues are addressed; research should address bat population dynamics, and responses to development impacts.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of St Andrews
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
dc.subjectBatsen_US
dc.subjectChiropteraen_US
dc.subjectDevelopmenten_US
dc.subjectPlanningen_US
dc.subjectUKen_US
dc.subjectHuman wildlife conflicten_US
dc.subjectHWCen_US
dc.subjectDevelopment managementen_US
dc.subjectMaterial considerationsen_US
dc.subjectProtected speciesen_US
dc.subjectBiodiversity conflicten_US
dc.subjectCumulative impactsen_US
dc.subjectNatural heritage skillsen_US
dc.subjectScreeningen_US
dc.subjectEPSen_US
dc.subjectEuropean protected speciesen_US
dc.subjectConservation biologyen_US
dc.subjectBiodiversityen_US
dc.subject.lccQL737.C5C7
dc.subject.lcshBats--Conservation--Great Britainen_US
dc.subject.lcshPlanning--Environmental aspects--Great Britainen_US
dc.titleLocal development planning and bats in the UK : “an impenetrable fog” ?en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.contributor.sponsorRPS Group plc (Planning & Development)en_US
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen_US
dc.type.qualificationnameMPhil Master of Philosophyen_US
dc.publisher.institutionThe University of St Andrewsen_US


The following licence files are associated with this item:

  • Creative Commons

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
Except where otherwise noted within the work, this item's licence for re-use is described as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported