Badger mitigation measures ‘destined to fail’

Mitigation measures to protect badgers are “destined to fail”, an appeal submitted to An Bord Pleanála in a bid to overturn approval for an Athlone housing development claims.

It is one of two appeals hoping to reverse the granting of planning permission by Westmeath County Council to Marina Quarter Ltd, for 70 homes in Cornamaddy at the end of October.

Despite a number of local objections expressing concern about the impact to badger setts and other wildlife, the housing developer, with an address in Maynooth Co Kildare, got the green light to amend a previous approval for 38 units and replace it with 70 homes on a 10 hectares plus site, close to the Drumaconn housing development and 2km from Athlone town centre.

Marina Quarter Ltd states that, along with other phases of proposed housing development in the area, the project would form part of "a new residential neighbourhood in Athlone, of circa 400 units' total".

Among the 22 separate conditions laid down in the October planning approval included several measures relating to the badger. All measures in the Badger Mitigation Strategy (May 2023) should be implemented, it insists, adding that a monitoring survey of the artificial sett must be undertaken by a qualified and experienced ecologist every three months for the first two years following completion of the project.

Furthermore, a mitigation monitoring report has to be submitted every three months over a two-year period and no exclusion of badgers from active setts should take place until and unless the artificial sett has been established.

However, in a seven-page appeal, Ruairí Ó Leocháin, a founder member of Stand with Badgers, says the proposed area for the artificial sett is 50 metres from the road which has yet to be constructed. He argues that this goes against guidelines which he said were quoted by consultants, in the planning file that the sett should not be “far away from any construction/development that could cause disturbance”.

He maintains that the road will “also block a significant area of remaining forage and inevitably lead to roadkill,” which is a “complete contradiction” of the proposed mitigation plans. Consideration should have been given to the “installation of tunnels beneath this road” which would have allowed the badgers continue safe passage to their foraging lands, he adds.

Stand with Badgers is also unhappy with the size of the artificial sett proposed (15 metres by 15 metres) which it says should replicate the natural one it replaces and cover around 80 metres.

The planting around the sett “wouldn't have any significance” in encouraging the badgers to stay in the area in terms of forage in the medium-term, he believes, saying that 90% of their worm foraging areas have been removed through development.

“Where breeding setts are to be destroyed, badgers must be provided with a viable alternative – the plans do not provide for this,” the appeal stresses, adding that had the need for an artificial sett been considered from the outset, the location, size and foraging habitat could all have been properly assessed. “Unfortunately, the protection of badgers and their centuries old habitat was not considered and is now only an afterthought, due to objections,” Mr Ó Leocháin says

He argues that there are “multiple plans for this site and some of these plans appear to overlap” and as the plans were not submitted at the same time, the “in combination effects are not adequately dealt with”.

The second appeal from DM Leavy, with an address at Proudstown Road, Navan in Co Meath, contends that there is no current development plan in place for Athlone town and this context the proposal is “premature” pending the publication of a new plan. “The 2014-2022 plan expired over three years ago, so the appeal site is un-zoned land and any application on it should be assessed accordingly.”

He claims that the local authority has “erred in law” by applying the provisions of a “lapsed development plan” and considering the site zoning as residential.

In addition, Mr Leavy argues that the density of 25 units per hectare is too low and should be at least 35 units per hectare.

A decision is due in the case by April 5.