The cost of breaking the law

Do current penalties really serve as a deterrent?

Recently, a person in Cumbria got prosecuted for destroying a bat roost. They demolished an outbuilding which was known to contain a roost, without getting a licence, and after they’d had survey work done which proved bats were using it.

But no bats were proven to have been killed, what’s the issue?

Bat roosts are protected whether or not bats are present, because of the way bats use them – they move between roosts at different times of the year, and often return to roosts every year.

It’s a good thing they were convicted though, right?

Yes, it’s excellent. But I’d question how much of a deterrent a fine of £750 actually amounts to. That’s less than it would have cost to get an individual licence under the new charging regime, where Natural England charge £500 for simple sites before you’ve even factored in the cost of the ecologist.

So what’s the alternative?

In previous convictions, where commercial developers were involved, large fines have been levied, like this instance where Landrose Developments were fined more than £18,000. Fines were previously capped at £5000 per incident, but are now unlimited. I would suggest that a real deterrent would be to calculate the cost of getting a licence, implementing it, and doing all the follow up monitoring, and to then double that figure. Until it starts costing more to break the law than it does to abide by it, cases like this will keep happening.