Brilliant and positive stuff from @samdumitriu.bsky.social on the culture that created the infamous ‘bat tunnel’ and the steps being taken to purge Britain of the bat menace for good.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
The bat menace? Really? As with most things this issue is caused by people and not bats. If the system isn't working that's because of the system, not bats. There isn't an ecologist in the country that wants a system where £100m is spent on a tunnel.
I used to work in a job where I'd advise local planning officers on the ecology side of planning applications and I can't tell you the number of times I saw an application that including a baseline ecology survey that said 'you'll need a bat survey'...
A year or two later they submit the application without having done a bat survey which would have cost £1-2k (prob <1% of the total budget). Their app then gets sent back and they complain about bats stopping the work when in reality the work is stopped because they haven't read their own report
Plus given issues with inflation and worker shortages, if you ask a developer what's getting in their way, the planning system would be nowhere near the top of their list of issues and ecology stuff wouldn't be at the top of planning issues. But sure, let's stop the bat menace
using the phrase 'the bat menace' implies the issue is with bats and not the system.
Also, the piece is broadly supportive of a new government proposal which is completely unworkable. As far as I understand, rather than doing surveys and mitigation, the proposed system involves developers paying..
a levy which supports nature recovery zones off-site. But if you haven't surveyed the development site first then how do you know what you're losing? How can you measure if it's an effective system if you don't know if the benefits in the recovery zones outweigh the loses from development sites..
If a developer starts work and finds a rare bat, what do they do? The whole point of the new proposal is to avoid doing surveys and on-site remediation so do they just kill it? Destroy its habitat?
Without surveying how do you know that there isn't a small population key to the survival of a species in that particular area?
There isn't an environmentalist out there that things the system is working but the new proposals aren't the answer
As the UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, and is on a relentlessly downward path, I’d much rather see “brilliant and positive stuff” about how we actually restore nature diversity and abundance.
That’s also the point of the piece, in which actual bat conservationists point out that if we stop this kind of nonsense we could use the money far more effectively on real conservation projects.
Natural England is doing the job it's there for - to enforce the law regarding protected species & habitats. They required mitigation but didn't specify a tunnel, that was HS2's decision.
If the only people on the ground are experts in railway infrastructure, you'll get more railway infrastructure. The engineers' solution is more engineering. Can't ‘build’ habitat corridors so let's... uh, let's build an extra tunnel.
I'm also confused by why love that quote.. Natural England's role is to protect the environment. Can you imagine the govt body tasked with environmental protection saying 'sure, kills a few bats, what's the harm'.
What else could they have said?
I'd defer to the experts, but one possibility would be creating more corridors between smaller woodland blocks.
It seems unlikely on the face of it that the most cost effective means for protecting Bechstein's bats happens to be by constructing a large structure in the woodland affected by HS2.
I want to see a separate plan, that takes account of but is not directly tied to development at any level, that is separately funded to actively increase biodiversity and bioabundance year on year.
The problem with many infrastructure projects managed by the Civil Service is that they're giving management of them to people who have NO expertise in the science or engineering involved.
Worse than that, they know that there will be no personal comeback if they screw it up because no-one beyond a public accounts committee post-mortem will ever question it.
Even worse than that, they employ private sector consultants who ARE experts in the subject, who then give them the appropriate advice which they then regularly ignore. So part of the cost overrun involves consultancy fees for advice they ignore.
That's just ONE of the reasons why public infrastructure costs in this country are blown out of all proportion, compared to elsewhere in the world. Contractors are making an easy fortune and probably think it's all hilarious.
I’m nervous that this will create culture of “it’s ok to kill all these bats because in 10 years the government will build a new bat sanctuary on the other side of town” which I don’t think is a very good plan to boost wildlife.
But you have said it takes 10 years - that is not really true - it could all be done much quicker then waiting for a rail line- it’s as much an opportunity. They could have said rather than £100m bat tunnel - how about we instead can start downing money immediately.
Comments
Also, the piece is broadly supportive of a new government proposal which is completely unworkable. As far as I understand, rather than doing surveys and mitigation, the proposed system involves developers paying..
There isn't an environmentalist out there that things the system is working but the new proposals aren't the answer
Shame the same view isn’t taken of the homeless.
What else could they have said?
It seems unlikely on the face of it that the most cost effective means for protecting Bechstein's bats happens to be by constructing a large structure in the woodland affected by HS2.
Also, putting a price on them like this makes it sound like there's a line where it's too much.