Blue Mountains ‘City’ Council’s development approval process is organisation-wide, culturally mealy-mouthed and corrupted from one’s learned personal experience since 2001 and of records well prior, indeed since 1957 from damning local accounts.

 

 

---

 

PART  I.    A Land-Use Development issue at hand

 

We highlight a non-complying third outbuilding development by an immediate neighbour (being a current work in progress in December 2025) located in a low density residential zoned and heritage listed area of Katoomba in the Blue Mountains.   Verbal feedback is that it is set to become a new ‘backyard sauna‘ situated just 30cm from this author’s back fence boundary, yet our research shows that the build is prohibited under various local Council and Sydney Water planning rules. 

Post build, the currently owner-occupied residential property (with renovated dwelling) is, news to hand, now intended to be let out to online Airbnb-type tourists for likely tourist group parties.  Include also the likes of online holiday let ‘Stayz’, ‘Bookings.com’, etc.    It will thus far become number 13 holiday let of a owner occupied residential house and land property within a recent trend of invading gourmet Airbnb-profiting investment owners in this heritage residential only conservation area.’ 

An intro heads up:  Check out this and the pricing:  ^https://holidaybluemountains.com/properties/

 

This regrettably sanctioned ‘blind-eyed’ allowance by local Council continues to undermine and engulf our quiet heritage listed residential cul-de-sac (where we’ve owned and lived as a small family since 2001).  Our century-old home, which we are ongoing restoring in heritage sympathy with colonial cottages around us is listed as 1883 ‘North’s Estate’. 

One serious concern is that local tenants, once prominent in this precinct have simply been priced out of available rental accommodation by greedy distant investors of residential properties around us on the band wagon of holiday letting their residential properties for many times the rental market average.  Local tenants have nowhere to go but to relocate far flung from family way afar.  Indeed, its sad and bad times, all encouraged by government failure and lack of interest in their constituents and all three levels of Australian government – federal, state and local!

 

 

A case in point is an ongoing current over-development/overcrowding of a residential property In Katoomba situated close by us, situated within a designated heritage (historical) conservation area.  It is in breach of many Council development rules.  Yet, despite our expressed concerns, citing of legislative breaches (ignored), then our submitted complaint, Council has just turned a blind eye and wipes its hands, citing NSW state legislation supposed exempting legislation.   Council’s attitude, by some blow-in inspector from Sydney, is that property owners may do what they bloody well want, heritage be damned, neighbours be damned!

As a Conservation Consultant, this little black duck didn’t come down in the last shower!  

This is a non-public photo of the subject property, only to demonstrate the reality anonymously.  It is situated somewhere within a listed heritage conservation area and there exist multiple ‘rules’ regarding development for this area and this address. 

Firstly we know, because firstly we have ourselves gone through the property development rules, guidelines, red tape restrictions, respecting where we are, sensitive to the heritage amenity and to our neighbours.  We eventually succeeded in having our plans approved by Council way back in 2005 after much effort, research and personal cost.  Our renovation project is both a sympathetic restoration and quality classic home improvement to the long neglected cottage we purchased back in 2000. 

Secondly, Steven Ridd, this joint owner has spent many years since 2001 as a environmental/conservation activist  initially with The Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Inc.,  The Blue Mountains Conservation Society, The Colong Foundation for Wilderness Inc., and The Habitat Advocate – ongoing here since 2001.

 

---

 

PART  II.   Disclaimer

 

(1)   This article herein expresses the concerns of this author. 

 

(2)   This article is yes, political. 

 

(3)   The views, assumptions and opinions expressed in this article are the author(s) own. They do not purport to reflect the official policy of The Habitat Advocate or associates. Data references (images, documents, links, copyright, sources, etc.) appearing in this article are not necessarily controlled or monitored by The Habitat Advocate.

 

(4)   The information provided on this [Website/in this Article/Document] is for general informational purposes only. 

 

(5)   This article and its author hold absolutely no malice towards the example property developer which is anonymously used in this article simply to highlight the ongoing systemic failures of the Blue Mountains local government to respect local heritage conservation. 

 

(6)   This article is purely intended as a critical commentary on the injustice of due process, using this property development example as a sample case study only.  The property owner is irrelevant, rather it is about the failure of due process.

 

(7)   All information is provided in good faith for informational purposes only.  This article is not a guide or advice.  It is citizen journalism.  We make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided.

 

(8)   Under no circumstance shall we have accept any liability to any reader for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of the [site/article/document] or reliance on any information provided therein.  A reader’s use of the [site/article/document] and/or reliance on any information is solely at the reader’s own risk.  This article  is citizen journalism.

 

(9)  The [site/article/document] cannot and does not contain [medical/legal/financial/etc.] advice.  The information is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional advice.  Accordingly, before taking any actions based on such information, we encourage any reader to consult with the appropriate professionals. The use or reliance of any information contained in this [site/article/document] is solely at a reader’s own risk.

 

(10)  Due privacy is respected in this article.  No identifying information is provided in this article about the property or the owner which a member of the general public could recognise in any text or images included in this article.  However, we do photograph the builder – Wayne, and identify the Council inspector, both of whom have ignored all the development rules and need to be held accountable.

 

(11)  The purpose of this article is not about any individual property owner, but to critique and challenged an example the systemic wrong/illegal land use development approval process by Blue Mountains (City) Council over many years, and is clearly ongoing.

 

 

 

---

 

PART  III.   Issue Background

 

So, how does Blue Mountains ‘City’ Council’s heritage hypocrisy persist?   

Well, here’s an extract map of part of  North’s Estate Conservation Area in Katoomba dating back to 1883, as registered by Council, yet only on paper for starters since Council’s filed it for a decade:

 

 

Council’s repeated actions fail to comply with its very own policies, planning documents, bi-laws, and PR gestures.   

That this local government Council (‘BMCC’ acronym) patting itself on the back about in its quarterly community newsletter is blatant propaganda about all the so-called good it is doing for the Blue Mountains – its oxymoronic slogan “A City within a World Heritage Area” boasted claim.   

Yeah?   Like how all its stormwater and unbunded rubbish waste tips (Blackheath | Katoomba | Blaxland) up on the plateau tops seep their toxic effluent into the surrounding groundwater to watercourses and water catchments through World Heritage?   

Check the mapping.  Council’s Katoomba Tip (with a fancy name), situated on a ridgetop off Woodlands Road, has for decades received household garbage and an array of toxic contaminants that have been allowed to seep into the ground water and down into nearby Yosemite Creek, over Minnehaha Falls (and swimming hole) thence downstream into Katoomba Creek, Govetts Creek and into the Grose River through World Heritage.   It is therefore not a wise move to swim in that swimming hole. 

The same has been allowed at Council’s Blaxland Tip to contaminate adjacent Cripple Creek (appropriately named in hindsight), thence into Fitzgeralds Creek and into the Nepean River.  Similarly, it is therefore also not a wise move to swim at Penrith Beach adjacent. 

  

 

And yeah?  Like how its five public swimming pools (all chlorine saturated) respectively at Blackheath, Katoomba, Lawson, Springwood and Glenbrook each drain their entire contents each winter into the surrounding watercourses.   So is that why all the native aquatic wildlife (fish, eels, freshwater crayfish and macro-invertebrates) – no longer subsist in the Blue Mountains World Heritage creeks and rivers downstream? 

 

 

Long dead are all downstream creeks and the Kedumba and Grose Rivers of our World Heritage Blue Mountains.  Why are we still “World Heritage” listed with UNESCO if it’s just a political ruse to fuel a megalopolis snowballing Sydney’s drinking water supply?   Labor’s former Member for Blue Mountains Bob Debus never answered that question.  I wouldn’t drink the stuff, well knowing what goes downstream into Lake Burragorang above Sydney’s survival Warragamba Dam.

Council in its aloof chambers perched in a high rise away from the Katoomba community has thought of itself as running a “city” moreso than a regional municipality well beyond the big city high-rise and sprawl that is the metropolitan city of Sydney.   Most councillors, management, staff (the ‘Council mob’) and of course the plethora of senior management’s ring-in consultants have emanated from Sydney, muchly with an urban big city mindset.  

Quote: “Suburbs“?   So is NSW Tibooburra a quote “suburb” as well?   Wikipedia:  “Tibooburra is a town in the far northwest of New South Wales, Australia, located 1,187 kilometres (738 mi) from the state capital, Sydney.”  [read more]

 

 

Katoomba, for those not familiar, is not yet a suburb of megalopolis Sydney.  It’s just an equivalent well distant remote village like that of Shelby in Montana, USA ain’t yet a suburb of New York City!  [read more about Shelby]

Meanwhile, property investors across Australia are cashing in with Airbnb outsourcing and the NSW Government lets ’em… Check this in this subject area of North’s Estate Conservation Area in regional Katoomba, which confirms no tourist accommodation exists.  Crap! … Try more that 500 Airbnbs taking over the regional Blue Mountains !!!  Here’s an example…

 

 

 

“The average rent for a house in the Blue Mountains is around $600 – $650+ per week, with specific suburbs varying, but showing strong demand and low vacancy rates, meaning it’s a tight rental market with prices generally trending up, especially for larger homes“. 

[Source:  Google AI (2025) – so anonymous, so frankly who knows the truth online these days.]

 

Sydney is far from being an ideal city, so not an appropriate role model for any regional community.   The Blue Mountains village of Leura would be a far better role model, but visitors note, the streetscape and garden plantings down Leura Mall are not the work of Council, but rather by volunteer efforts and funding by local Leura residents and Leura small retailers.   

Whereas, Council loathes knowledgeable long-time locals because ex-Sydney council staff are blow-ins reaping self-interest paychecks.  Council prevails in its bubble mindset in ‘north Katoomba’ conjured up tarting up the footpath in nearby Katoomba and Bathurst Streets (‘south’ Katoomba).  That brain snap cost $3 million and did squat.  Of course Council outsourced it to some Sydney contractor again.  But it directly shut down many retailers retail for nearly a year causing many to go broke.  Nice one, lower Mountains Mayor Mark Greenhill!

More recently, self-anointed Blue Mountains councillors (100% Labor Party obedient disciples) have ramped up the ‘ECO’ zealotry thus…

 

 

Pull the other one, Council!  

This Council mob continues to remain aloof to the interests of locals and chronically blasé in attitude to respecting local Mountains heritage in all its genres.  The bureaucrats are so overpaid (out of local ratepayer rates and their NSW Labor mates’ NSW government grants) and so happily unaccountable, especially the higher echelons to a salary of $300,000+ per year.  Where’s the helicopter and helipad to fly in Council’s GM’s ring-in commute from Sydney to Katoomba chambers to show up for the odd (“yeah, we need you”) meeting?

As a long-time resident of the Blue Mountains region west of Sydney, The Habitat Advocate (read about us) has become accustomed with this local council’s ongoing contempt for heritage.  Heritage conservation in all its genres – natural/environmental, historical, built/architectural, village streetscape, Aboriginal, you name it.   

A case in point is comparing the ground-truthing reality with Council’s webpage entitled ‘Heritage Conservation Areas’ (Go to this link and read: ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/heritage/heritage-conservation-areas).

 

The spiel starts off as follows: 

“The Blue Mountains is well-known for the historic character of many of its towns and villages.  In some towns and neighbourhoods buildings from the Victorian, Federation, Edwardian, Inter-War and Post-War eras create visually interesting and layered streetscapes.  Many streetscapes are enhanced by mature street tree plantings and established exotic gardens. 

Council has established ongoing recognition and protection for the many early houses and the generally traditional streetscapes found in most towns and villages of the Blue Mountains. These important historic areas are protected as heritage conservation areas. The full list of heritage conservation areas is listed in Schedule 5 of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP).

The boundary and inclusions for each heritage conservation area are defined by an accompanying map, and the reasons for listing explained in the heritage inventory sheet for each area. 

On 19 July 2019, areas of older housing, formerly protected as Period Housing Areas, were converted to new heritage conservation areas as part of Amendment 6 to LEP 2015. Subsequently, the Period Housing provisions of the LEP were superseded by Clause 5.10 of LEP 2015.  Full details and timelines from start to finish on this planning proposal are under ‘related sites’.”

 

‘Propaganda‘ is generally defined as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular cause, doctrine, or point of view.”   That is what the above  extract is – Council propaganda.  Council says one thing yet does another.  Council is hypocritical.

 

Blue Mountains Heritage ‘knowledge’ does NOT reside with Council management and staff

 

So, why do Blue Mountains councillors seek out Sydneysiders as consultants so repeatedly?  Political links? Favours?  Bias?  Corrupt conduct?  All the above?   It is because the management are culturally fearful that by Council staff learning such skills, that the Council staff will gain more knowledge that the management.  So by Council management engaging distant contractors for one off research tasks, at ratepayers expense of course (else funded out of NSW Government grants) the management incumbent management cannot be replaced by more knowledgeable and competent staff.  Jobs for life.  Like, Council’s General Manager Dr Rosemary Dillon (not a medical doctor, and elevated in government to corporatised ‘Chief Executive Officer’) has been on management for 30 years, and now gets paid $421,535 per year.  Australia’s prime Minister gets $622,000 per year.

We note the tabulated list of these branded ‘Heritage Conservation Areas‘ and surprised to note that these are grouped under the tabulated heading of “Villages”.  Good!  This is correct!  It is in contrast to many amongst the Council mob (ex-Sydney) terming the villages as “suburbs” as if the Blue Mountains is a city.  It is that city-centric mindset being propagated to the Mountains locals.   

We focus specifically herein on Katoomba’s ‘North’s Estate‘ listing midway down the table.  By then clicking on that table’s Map and Inventory Sheet hyperlink  ‘K171‘ for North’s Estate, one is directed to another Council webpage to enable one to download a PDF document.   The full name of the North’s Estate “item” is ‘North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area‘ (Local ID: K171).  That document is eleven pages long in PDF and we supply a copy link, since it is in the public domain.

 

 

[SOURCES:  Not Blue Mountains own, but yet again more of Council’s outsourced ring-in consultants from Sydney – the likes of: 

1. 1. Paul Davies Heritage Architects Pty Ltd (of Drummoyne, Sydney)
   2. (Robyn) Conroy Heritage Planning (of Surry Hills, Sydney)
   3. Croft & Associates Pty Ltd (of Baulkham Hills, Sydney)
   4. Meredith Walker (of Rockdale?, Sydney),
   5. Tropman &Tropman Architects, of 55 Lower Fort St, The Rocks, Sydney.

 

Blue Mountains Council’s heritage knowledge resides not within its management nor staff.  Over the years as long-time employees leave or are asked to leave, no-idea ring-ins typically escaping Sydney take on responsible roles such as in heritage yet with no local knowledge and no handover nor training.  It’s like Council’s new recruit orientation going like this:  “Welcome aboard, there’s your seat and your shared desk, any questions?”  Indeed, we know of one of its legendary former employees Local Studies Librarian and Blue Mountains local historian, Mr John Low OAM who got ‘retired’ way too early by Council management in 2007.  

“John Low was Local Studies Librarian at the Blue Mountains City Library 1982-2007.  [Note: some 25 years]  An active member of the Blue Mountains Historical Society, he received an Order of Australia Medal (OAM) in 2012.”

John had more local knowledge about Blue Mountains history than anyone else at Council.  John has over the years written history books on the Blue Mountains and has delivered public presentations on various topics of Blue Mountains history.  He researched and prepared a history of this author’s house and street back in 2001.  Along with John Low, John Merriman has served as senior staff (but not management) on the Council payroll for almost as long, acquiring  details and extensive knowledge and insights into Blue Mountains heritage, particularly its history back to the first colonial crossing of 1813 and prior.  Like John Low, John Merriman is also an established author of Blue Mountains history, having written many books and academic papers and published online.   

However, Mr Merriman has, instead of being duly promoted for his ability, dedication and long service to say Heritage Manager, he has been relegated from his history office in heritage-listed Braemar House (c.1890 guesthouse) to a basement desk in a corridor below the new Springwood Library, more inaccessible to the public for research, as he was previously.   In 2024 the interior of the house was re-purposed as an art gallery featuring local visual art throughout the rooms.

Previously, during the 1980s – 2000s period, both John’s (whom this author knows well) worked under the guidance of Council’s qualified heritage architect Christo Aitken.   Mr Aitken probably has more details heritage architecture experience on Council (management and staff).  Alas, he was made part-time back in the early 2000s (Council senior management politics again?).  So he has since set up his own heritage advisory firm consulting back to Council.   

The only ones on Blue Mountains Council these days with heritage knowledge are young ring-ins from Sydney, with no local knowledge or experience – (not their fault per se) but its just as senior management wish to ensure.  It’s of course so senior management can maintain a disproportionate power and influence on Council to safeguard their self-interests.   Crikies, cynically Council’s heritage strategy and heritage constraints if duly respected and followed could stymie Council’s city-centric development projects, like Council’s Katoomba Falls Kiosk  “revitalisation project” of 2019.   Check these photos:

An original photo during construction back in 1921:

 

 

Yet, Blue Mountains CITY Council’s anti-heritage replacement plan of 2019:

 

 

 

Council’s destructive design for Katoomba Falls Kiosk was rejected by the local Blue Mountains community heritage panel.   

[AUTHOR’S NOTE:  We recommend that Council assess the bushland site and remove the long closed and dilapidated toilet block near the escarpment edge below the kiosk;  it’s overgrown by noxious covered in weeds.  Then to and undertake weed removal and bushcare to restore the native vegetation (with an aesthetic fire barrier – use Conservation Hut as a model amenity outcome].

This author went for a job on Council once, being a naïve new Blue Mountains resident (from Melbourne) in 2001.  In the author’s view the interview process was corrupt and underhand. 

The reason why we are writing this article is to cite yet again another example of Blue Mountains Council’s city-centric organisational culture of ignoring and acting contrary to its own policies, planning, rules particularly as they related to Blue Mountains heritage respect, conservation and sympathetic restoration.   This deals with a land use development within North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area  (Local ID: K171).   

 

 

This article’s writer, and The Habitat Advocate’s founder and Conservation Consultant, Steven Ridd, continues to be based in residence within the North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area since 2001. 

This area is also within what we refer to as ‘The Gully Water Catchment‘, otherwise more broadly known as Katoomba Falls Creek Valley for many decades.   Within this catchment is the small natural bushland valley, termed ‘The Gully Aboriginal Place‘.   In recognition that many locals (immediate locals) will not know or even be aware the specific location we are to focus upon, for introductory reference, given that we reach a wide audience, for clarity we supply the following maps zoom-in sequence to identify where we are: 

 

---

 

PART   IV.   Topic Location

 

[AUTHOR’S NOTE:   The ‘Issue‘ in this article is about Blue Mountains Council hypocritical treatment of heritage value of the Blue Mountains, in this case historical built heritage and colonial streetscape.   The specific ‘Topic‘ within this issue in this article  is ‘North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area’.  And then a specific ‘Case in Point‘ is the example of a current ongoing illegal and unapproved ‘backyard sauna‘ development that breaches many rules – heritage, zoning, Council approval process, etc. which adversely impacts this author.

 

[A]   A Global Location Map:

 

[B]   Katoomba- Sydney Location Map: 

 

[C]    Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Map: 

 

[D]   ‘North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area’ extract historic cartilage map (within):

 

 

So hopefully now as a reader to this article, you can find the location of where we are talking about.  

Prices per night under San Francisco based Airbnb…

 

 

---

 

PART   V.    Critique of Blue Mountains Council’s mistreatment of ‘North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area’

 

[AUTHOR’S NOTE:  A ‘critique’ is not just criticism, but also evaluation and judgment, with some constructive recognition of content of merit.  Whilst we do criticise certain aspects of this Council documented report, we also constructive when we consider content to be apt, based upon our own insight and research.   Such critique comes from this author’s personal background (academically, professionally, research, local knowledge and reasonable longevity from living in the subject area.   The author of this article is an Analyst by qualification and experience.  This article aims to provide thoughtful insight and feedback of the report (the oddly entitled ‘Draft Heritage Data Form‘).  We encourage a deeper understanding of the concept and details of what comprises a ‘Heritage Conservation Area’, that it be formally completed, enhanced to best practice standards, then displayed as a comprehensive draft #2 publicly freely, consulted publicly, before being legally gazetted and thereafter legally enforced.]

 

Here we focus on ‘North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area‘, being where we are based and reside.  Again, this is Council’s ‘Draft Heritage Data Form‘ pertaining to this heritage ‘item’:

 

This enclosed document, Council’s ‘Draft Heritage Data Form‘ pertaining to this heritage ‘item’ (or really ‘area’) warrants a few critiques, as follows:

 

[Our Critique #1]   The form is in 2025 dated 2016, making it in December 2025 being a decade old, so sending a message that it has been since ignored by Council.

 

[Our Critique #2]   The form is in 2025, remains a “Draft” a decade later.   Why?   Council does not care.  Council only prepared this document (or rather was legally required to do so because of NSW Government legislation in 2015 re-branding what was zoned ‘Period Housing’ to be ‘Heritage Conservation’.  Cynically, this effectively was just a tokenistic name change. 

 

[Our Critique #3]    Council has overlooked its own website concerning heritage conservation across the Blue Mountains local government area.  How so?  Well, its Development Control Plan of 2015 still continues to use the long obsolete term ‘Period Housing‘ (circled below).   This reflects Council’s disregard towards updating its heritage management records and rules.

 

Source: ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/development/planning-rules/development-controls-for-land-zoned-under-LEP-2015/DCP-2015

 

[Our Critique #4]    The form was not written by Council.  As highlighted above, it was researched and compiled by outsourced ring-in consultants from Sydney – the likes of  Paul Davies Heritage Architects Pty Ltd (of Drummoyne, Sydney), (Robyn) Conroy Heritage Planning (of Surry Hills, Sydney), Croft & Associates Pty Ltd (of Baulkham Hills, Sydney), Meredith Walker (of Rockdale?, Sydney), Tropman &Tropman Architects, of 55 Lower Fort St, The Rocks, Sydney.

 

[Our Critique #5]    The Statement of Significance at pages 1 and 2 requires factual historical correcting.   

Yes, we note that the ‘Level of Significance’ for North’s Estate is at both ‘Local’ Level (Blue Mountain Local Government Area and at ‘State’ Level (New South Wales).  So this is not insignificant.

The North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) in fact dates to 1876 when the then Government of the colony of New South Wales sold a large bushland parcel of the Blue Mountains plateau (western part of today’s Katoomba around the Katoomba Falls environs) to English immigrant, stockbroker, miner then property developer John Britty North (1831-1917).  North subdivided the northernmost part of his property for residential development in 1883 and it became known as North’s Estate, the very first (and so oldest) housing subdivision in the Blue Mountains region.

 

 

 

 

This is where The Habitat Advocate base resides.   It is also especially why, one takes a special interest in this matter.  We are here, home long located in North’s Estate of 1883 ‘SEC IX‘. 

Yes, we after 25 hard-working and costly investment renovation years, take a focused interest in what happens in our neighbourhood that could try to ever undermine it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

PART  VI.   A Case in Point

 

In 2006, an immediate neighbour of ours within North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) ‘SEC IX’ (per the mapping above) had purchased a residential property having a pre-existing heritage detached residential dwelling, so at the time of writing, close to 20 years ago.   Extensive renovations over the years in sympathy with the colonial cottage style character of the property and the HCA were undertaken, likely at substantial cost.  For ethical privacy reason, we choose not to identify the property herein, since the issue we raise is of a failed process by Council.

We became aware of a new third outbuilding being constructed in the backyard in November 2025 – an outdoor backyard sauna.  But by Sunday 6th December 2025, the scale of that build and its 350mm close proximity to our fence seemed to be an over-development of the site.  We’re talking about an under a 700m2 block in a low density residential zone in a designated heritage area. 

We’ve also learned subsequently that the property is to be yet another Airbnb-style holiday let investment, so no longer to be owner-occupied.  It will add to the more than an dozen holiday lets within the tiny (HCA) ‘SEC IX‘.   None of this this was previously communicated to us as an immediate neighbour.  We phoned and left a non-contextual voice message just for the owner to call one back.  Ignored.

Frustrated, here are the subsequent photos from our side of the fence of this new build in progress at the time of writing:

 

 

 

 

 

 

So,  inquisitive, one wrote to Blue Mountains Council (BMCC) by email on the Monday morning thus:

 

Correspondence #1:

Monday 8th December 2025, one phones Council and reports the matter to the Council’s Customer Service Department.

A CSR (Customer Service Request) is requested by self from Council for the record: #634961.

 

Correspondence #2:

Same day, one sends a followup email to Council with the details and including four relevant photos as evidence of work in progress, thus:

 

Attention: [Council’s Health & Building Surveyor]
Blue Mountains City Council
Locked Bag 5
KATOOMBA NSW 2780

8th December 2015

 

Dear Mr XXXXXXXX,

I wish to enquire with you at Blue Mountains City Council whether a current backyard construction adjoining my residential property has BMCC approval and is appropriate.

Currently, there is a building construction underway at (SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT SITE)  Katoomba over my back fence adjoining our property that has just become obvious to me, yet it would appear to be perhaps excessive?  I attach a few current photos of the work in progress from our property for your information for clarity.  This is a heritage residential precinct.

My property is located at (SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT SITE) Katoomba and in recent weeks I have noted that a sizeable building development is underway that is very noticeable and comes to being measured just 350mm from our back fence and looks to become well above our fence line once completed.  Our neighbour, whom we are otherwise amicable with, is currently in the process of having this construction become a new backyard sauna.  Of late we have noted that it is very dominant and close to and rises above our rear fence line.  It is unclear whether this will entail an associated noise impost once operational.

Is Council aware of this new construction development and does this have Council permission and approval?  Since I have received no such written notice of this development.

Kind regards,
Steven Ridd

 

Correspondence #3:

Two days later, on Wednesday 10th December 2025, one phones Council to followup the Monday request.

Council advises that as yet no ranger or investigator has been assigned to this matter.  One requests a documented ‘Customer Service Request reference number (CSR) and is advised of CSR #634109 about of this raised neighbourhood concern.

Council advises that the Health & Building Surveyor addressed in one’s email is not with Council (presumable he must have resigned and Council has deleted all records of his senior staff role existence).  One had dealt with him co-operatively for over a decade regarding one’s own legitimate and approved development application.

 

Correspondence #4:

On Friday 12th December 2025 four days later, one received its first reply from Council on this reported matter, thus:

 

“Dear Mr Ridd,

Council do not hold records of the development you have described at (SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT SITE) Katoomba.

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (‘Exempt Code’) outlines development that can be undertaken without requiring development consent.

The photographs you have provided show the structure will likely largely meets subdivision 9 of Part 2 of the Exempt Code when built, except perhaps the distance to the boundary.

Would you like this structure investigated for distance to the boundary? If so, please let me know.
Please be aware that Council does not disclose to a person who complained about them, but it may be very obvious to you neighbour that it was you.

Regards,

Judy Le Breton | Senior Investigations Officer | t:  02 4780 5000 |  e:  council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au
Blue Mountains City Council  |  council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au   |  www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au  |  Locked Bag 1005 Katoomba NSW 2780 ”

 

Some relevant observations at this juncture:

(i)  One’s presumption had been correct, that the owner had not sought nor obtained Council approval for the third outbuilding – the sauna;

(ii)  There are no plans or design drawings for the sauna.  As an immediately adjoining neighbour to this construction development, one is entitled to be notified in advance of such a development;

(iii)  How can this development (over-development) be exempt from planning controls such as the HCA  and Council’s rules – its Development Control Plan 2015, DCP 2015 Amendment 8 Part D – Heritage Management, and that this residential area is zoned ‘R2: Low-Density Residential’?;

(iv)  Why should one as a resident be required to research and interpret State Environment Planning Policy?  This is the task of Council;

(v)  Is this person Judy Le Breton, a supposed Senior Investigations Officer in any way qualified to assess this development for its compliance with Council’s planning rules? 

 

Correspondence #5:

Same day, on Friday 12th December 2025, one phone’s Council requesting to speak with Ms Le Breton, but she is not there and so leaves a message.

Another Customer Service Request number is issued to Mr Ridd: ‘CSR 634961‘.

 

 

Correspondence #6:

Same day, on Friday 12th December 2025, one emails Council referencing CSR 634961 and attaches a copy of the North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area document, obtained from Council’s very own website.  This is because Ms Le Breton in her email reply did not mention this very relevant document, nor mention Council’s relevant zoning requirements, nor Council’s the DCP 15 Heritage Management, but only state policy.

 

Correspondence #7:

 

Then on Friday 12th December 2025,  Mr Ridd emails Ms Le Breton as follows:

 

RE: (Subject address) Katoomba – new development adjoining (CSR 634961)

Hello Ms Le Breton,

Thank you for your email reply.

However, I reported this to Council by phone last Monday 8th December 2025, so some four days prior. It is disappointing that this is the first that I have had Council contact me about this. Had the weather not been rainy this past week, the neighbour ‘Wayne’ may well have finish the build by now.

I follow with Council by phone on Wednesday 10th December and was told that a ranger had not yet been assigned to the matter.

Yes. I wish to check due process and the legalities concerning this new development. I don’t mind in the slightest about the owner knowing it is me (over the corner side fence) raining my concerns.

I have known the previous owner (SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT SITE) for over the past 15 years on a very amicable basis, not just as adjoining neighbours but as good friends.
I have today followed up again by phoning Council after receiving your email reply below.

 

My Concern that should be addressed by Council in this matter:

(1)  I am concerned that you seem to be fobbing me off to research some state legislation online. Is that not your task or that of Council’s Development Monitor Team to check? This would seem lazy?

(2)   My wife and I had our own land use application submitted and approved by Council submitted back in 2005 (Reference X/XXX/2005). It subsequently gained substantial commencement status. We had to comply with the many rules for the renovations and extensions and the conditions of consent. So we are aware of the rules and restrictions for our own development which after many years remains ongoing.

(3)  One of the rules is that our building may not extend to within 1400mm from any boundary on the property land site. However, this new outdoor building measures just 350mm from our boundary.

(4)  I note that you say Council is not aware of this development at (SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT SITE) Katoomba (literally adjoining part of our back fence).

(5)   I point out that the fabrication is being made using pine timber, however this is in breach of the bushfire regulations since both properties are situated within a bushfire high risk zone (<50 metres) , so demanding non-combustive construction material (not pine) for all exterior cladding.

(6)   This build is a second one that adjoin this, (The “pavilion”) probably also in fabricated in pine.

(7)   In contrast, all our exterior materials are in approved Merbau hardwood or concrete sheeting (on a temporary basis). It has thus far cost us a considerable outlay over the years
trying to do the right thing by Councils rules and the legislation.

(8)  This residential area is a designated heritage conservation area known as North’s Estate heritage Conservation Area (Reference K171) (see attached copy and link to Council’s website ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/documents/map-and-heritage-inventory-sheet-k171 ) The heritage conservation assigns a high value to the amenity and streetscape to this rare purely residential area. It seems you are not aware of this special heritage conservation classification that include both xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxx Streets.

(9)  It is not supposed to have any tourism development, yet over recent years numerous homes have been converted to permanent Airbnb’s. It is my understanding that this is planned with (SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT SITE), with this new build become a outdoor sauna and shower in the garden.  Others include 4, 7 (x2), 10, and 8 Kundibar Street – none with local resident notification and probably nor Council notification, awareness, nor approval.  So they would thus be each in breach of the classification.  Quote at page 7: “it does not provide tourist accommodation or facilities.”

(10)  We have received no plans or written information from the owner about what is proposed in this “sauna” – such as a potential fireplace, noise, perhaps amplified music, hours of use. As such this would seem to be an illegal development.

(11)  I wrote to (Council’s Health & Building Surveyor) on this , however he seems to have retired or moved on from Council. We’ve dealt with him for many years he was very knowledgeable about development matters and quite helpful and responsive.

Please investigate this onsite ASAP and not after Christmas and New Year break, since the thing will likely be operational by then. Feel free to contact me to arrange access to our property for inspection from our side of the fence.

Yours faithfully,

Steven Ridd

 

Correspondence #8:

 

[On Friday 19th December 2025, Mr Ridd from his backyard happened to observe the subject owner talking with an unrecognisable man close to the back fence – presumably an inspector from Council.   Then on Monday 22nd December 2025,  Mr Ridd received to following email from Council]

 

(Subject Address) Katoomba (CSR 634961)

Dear Mr Ridd,

I have inspected the structure being built at the rear of (SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT SITE) Katoomba. I am satisfied it meets the provision of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (‘Exempt SEPP’), and no action is to be taken by Council.

These codes relate to development that can be undertaken without requiring the consent of Council. I have addressed your noise concerns with the owner of 5 Warriga Street. I am satisfied with the noise mitigation measures that will be employed, however should noise become an issue, you are able to seek a Noise Abatement Order via the Local Court.

The structure being built, whilst within a Heritage Conservation Area, is not a Heritage Item. This means that many of the Exempt SEPP development provisions (including those that apply to the structure being built at (SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT SITE) can be applied without seeking the approval of Council.

Assessing compliance with state legislation is a major part of my job. The legislation largely determines what is allowed and what is not.

In relation to your Airbnb concerns, the Department of Fair Trading changed the rules around short term rental accommodation and it is no longer regulated by Council.

Regards,

Judy Le Breton | Senior Investigations Officer | t 02 4780 5000 | e council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au
Blue Mountains City Council | council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au | www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au | Locked Bag 1005 Katoomba NSW 2780

 

Correspondence #9:

 

22nd December 2025

Hello Ms Le Breton,

I total reject your rejection of the rules.

You are acting in breach of Council’s own regulations.

You have offered me no justification for doing so.

 

So, I am going public on this issue, having first tried my best through normal channels unsuccessfully.

Yours faithfully,

Steven Ridd

 

Our Critique:

 

(1)   The sole person observed by Mr  Ridd who inspected onsite the Friday prior to Ms Le Breton’s email decision of the following Monday, was not female.

(2)   For a Council development compliance inspector to firstly admit that Council had not been notified of the development and then to approve it anyway is tantamount to incompetent conduct, if not corrupt conduct, in our view.

(3)   We deal with Ms Le Breton’s obfuscating reliance upon State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (‘Exempt SEPP’) further on, but frankly what is her job and is she doing it?  So Mountains backyarders don’t require the consent of Mountains Council these days?   Hey, well that sends a message!   May be I should build meself a backyard moonshine still – surely give Mountains Culture Brewing a run for its money, I reckon.   Got the room and all.

 

So, what a slack job Council Senior Investigator Le Breton as a compliance inspector quoting exempt State legislation by default.  Having the shallow interest of a politician and the skills of a Grade 3 school student in …our view.

 

(4)   Noise?  Council Senior Investigator Le Breton dismisses noise issues. Back on me:  She again cops out and quotes: “however should noise become an issue, you are able to seek a Noise Abatement Order via the Local Court.”  Her cost? Her involvement?  Nuh!  

 

(5)  Senior Investigator Le Bereton quoted response:  “The structure being built, whilst within a Heritage Conservation Area, is not a Heritage Item.”  Yes, so is that not a breach of the HCA?   What if this property owner constructs another six outhouses and houses a dozen holiday makers on his residential site.  Council to reckon: nothing to see here?  All EXEMPT?

 

(6)  Quote:   “In relation to your Airbnb concerns, the Department of Fair Trading changed the rules around short term rental accommodation and it is no longer regulated by Council.”

So no limit?  What does heritage management mean Senior Investigator Le Breton?  Nothing, a free for all?  Le Breton has the slackest job on Council – do nothing, roneo copy and email state legislation.  A eight year old could do that.     Go back to megalopolis Sydney!

 

---

 

PART  VII:   Blue Mountains Planning – Shed Development Rules 

 

[AUTHOR’S NOTE:  Council is treating this sauna (to be) as no more than ‘a shed’.]

“In the Blue Mountains, a shed may be considered “exempt development” and not require council approval if it meets specific size, height, and setback criteria under the NSW planning rules.  

The key setback requirement for an exempt shed is generally a minimum of 900mm from each boundary.”  [AUTHOR’S NOTE:  The owner’s setback of the sauna wall framing from Mr Ridd’s back fence is just 500 mm.  It will be less than that once the wall cladding is added.  The lean-to roof currently has one rafter 350 mm from the fence.]

 

Shed Requirements for Exempt Development in NSW

 

“If your shed meets all the following criteria (from the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008), it is exempt and does not need a  Development Application (DA):

 

“Size:   No larger than 20 square metres in floor area in residential zones (50 sqm in rural zones).” 

[Our Comment:  The owner has not disclosed the eternal dimensions of the build to anyone, including Mr Ridd or to Council.  It appears to be approximately 4m long (along tne fence), 2.5m deep and 2.5m high with a lean-to roof, so this make the overall floor area 10m², not allowing for the addition of the proposed outdoor shower.  But it seems to be being designed as it is constructed.  There are no known design plans.  Observations are that the owner and builder seem to be in regular onsite discussions as to what to do – making it up as they go along.]

 

“Height:   No higher than 3 metres above ground level, or 2.4 metres if built within 1 metre of a boundary.” 

[Our Comment:  The subject build is within 500mm of our boundary, perhaps the lean-to being 2m at the fence line, rising to 2.5m on the other garden side.]

 

“Setback:   A minimum setback of 900mm (0.9 metres) from each property boundary.” 

[Our Comment:  As mentioned above in this part, the owner’s setback of the sauna wall framing from Mr Ridd’s back fence is just 500 mm.  It will be less than that once the wall cladding is added.  The lean-to roof currently has one rafter just 350 mm from the fence.]

 

“Location:   Must be located behind the building line of the main house.” 

[Our Comment:   Yes, from a public ‘streetscape’ narrow perspective, it is.  Yet, it encroaches on the amenity of an adjoining neighbour, Mr Ridd.  Neither the owner nor Council has not engaged in any resident consultation process in relation to (A) the North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area, nor (B) Zoning of this R2 Low-Density Residential Zone, nor  (C) This particular Backyard Sauna development].   Council frankly couldn’t give a shit.

 

“Number of structures:   There are generally no more than two exempt development structures (e.g., sheds, carports) per property.” 

[Our Comment:  The subject owner has (1) a renovated carport, (2) a newly constructed (<4 years) pavilion (large entertainment shed – dimensions 5m (L) x 3m(D) x 3m (H) without any Council approval]

 

“Materials:   If the property is on bushfire-prone land, the shed must be constructed of non-combustible materials. (Much of the Blue Mountains is bushfire-prone).” 

[Comment:  The subject property’s backyard sauna is zoned within ‘Bushfire Prone Land – Vegetation Buffer’ under Council’s emapping software, yet the pinewood fabrication is highly combustible and so a prohibited material.]

 

 

“Other conditions:   It cannot be a shipping container and must not interfere with access or fire safety measures of another building.” 

[Comment:  The backyard sauna poses a fire risk due to the combustible construction materials used, the need for a heating device to make the sauna functional, and likely no planned allowance form first retardant measures such as a fire blanket and fire extinguishers.  In addition, the owner’s intention to soon dedicate the entire property to being an Airbnb holiday let would mean that such guests would likely not be trained in fire safety or fire supression in the event of a fire in the sauna.   The close proximity of the backyard sauna to Mr Ridd’s rear fence would severely restrict fire fighting access Mr Ridd’s property from the rear.]

 

Neighbour Notification and Disputes

 

“Exempt Development:   While there is no formal requirement to notify neighbours for exempt development, it is always recommended as a common courtesy to maintain good relations and prevent future disputes.” 

[Our Comment:  Council’s has advised that the property owner has not notified Council.  The property owner has not notified adjoining neighbour (property owner) Mr Ridd.  Mr Ridd has disputed Council’s lax interpretation that this backyard sauna is deemed ‘exempt development‘ under the the NSW SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Code) 2008.  Whilst physically minor in scale, compared with say a dwelling, the build fails to meet any definition of being a shed and breaches multiple rules as this article herein highlights and explains. is not a shed per se.   It does indeed require formal council planning or construction approval, as well as notification to adjoining neighbours likely to be adversely impacted, and there be an opportunity for such neighbours to raise concerns and possible objections about such likely impacts. ]

 

“Development Application (DA):     If your shed does not meet all the exempt development criteria (e.g., you want to build closer than 900mm to the boundary), you will need to submit a DA to the Blue Mountains City Council. In this case, neighbours will be formally notified during the exhibition period and have an opportunity to make submissions or raise concerns.”

[Our Comment:  Hello!  It ain’t just a shed.  Construction needs to be halted immediately. It does not meet all the exempt development criteria (e.g., it  is under 500mm setback from the side boundary).  A DA needs to be submitted to the Blue Mountains (City) Council.   Neighbours need to be formally notified during the exhibition period and have an opportunity to make submissions or raise concerns.]

 

“Actionable Steps

“Verify your property’s zoning and constraints:   Use the NSW Planning Portal Spatial Viewer to check your specific property’s zoning, bushfire rating, and other potential constraints.”   

[Our Comment: Been there with the bushfire rating, but more assessment is to be made about other zoning constraints herein in this article below in ‘PART IX.   Scrutiny of LEP 2015/ DCP 2015  Zoning Compliance’]

 

“Confirm the rules:   Review the full list of conditions in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 and the Blue Mountains Development Control Plan (DCP) 2015 on the Council’s website.” 

[Our Comment:   It would have been wise for the property owner to have done so in advance, or sought professional advice.  He would have saved time and money and effort and  dispute with Mr Ridd, who would have preferred to utilise his Christmas break doing better things than dealing with a unnecessary dispute.]

 

“Contact the Council:  If you are unsure whether your project is exempt, contact the Blue Mountains City Council’s planning department for advice.”  [Our Comment:   It would have been wise too.]

 

[AUTHOR’S NOTE:  Council is treating this sauna (to be) as no more than ‘a shed’.  However, this is incorrect.   Unlike a shed, a sauna is not for storage (such as for garden tools) but instead intentionally intended for people to sit in.  It requires a heat source (usually electricity).  That presents a fire risk if not correctly installed by a qualified electrician with experience with sauna installations who knows the risks and follows the rules and uses the factory approved heating device(s).  A sauna necessitates steam , so it requires a water source and water heater which creates noise.  This particular sauna of the owners is to also have an adjoining cold shower attached.  It will be part of a new Airbnb offering, one that has become popular overseas such as in Finland for decades.  This then will attract multiple guests to party right by one’s back fence, so replacing what has for decades been a quite back corner of that owner’s backyard.  It will risk posing a new annoying noise problem.  With the electricity supply, this will facilitate guests to play music – how late and how loud?   Council has abrogated it responsibility in controlling this unauthorised unplanned, unknown development in many ways.]

 

---

 

PART  VIII:   State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

 

2.17 Specified development

 

The construction or installation of a cabana, cubby house, fernery, garden shed, gazebo or greenhouse is development specified for this code if it is not constructed or installed on or in a heritage item or a draft heritage item, on land in a foreshore area or in an environmentally sensitive area.

[AUTHOR’S NOTE:   “In English, “cabana” refers to a small, often freestanding shelter typically found near pools or beaches. The term originates from the Spanish word “cabaña,” meaning hut or cabin, and has evolved to describe structures that offer a combination of shade, privacy, and leisure amenities in outdoor settings.”.  Such a structure  was recently built by the subject owner in his backyard, which he dubs ‘The Pavilion”.  The backyard sauna is to be a similar example of the build.]  

 

 

2.18 Development standards

 

(1) The standards specified for that development are that the development must—

(a) (Repealed)
(b) not have a floor area of more than—

(i) on land in Zone RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, RU6 or R5—50m2, or   [OUR COMMENT:  these are rural zonings] (ii) on land in any other zone—20m2, and

 

(c) be not higher than 3m above ground level (existing), and

(d) be located at a distance from each lot boundary of at least—

(i) for development carried out in Zone RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, RU6 or R5—5m, or
(ii) for development carried out in any other zone—900mm, and

 

(e) if it is not on land in Zone RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4 or RU6—be located behind the building line of any road frontage, and

(f) not be a shipping container, and

(g) be constructed or installed so that roofwater is disposed of without causing a nuisance to adjoining owners, and 

[OUR COMMENT:  There is as yet no indication that any guttering to the backyard sauna (to be) is to be constructed/installed.  As mentioned, no known design plans for this backyard sauna exist.   The lean-to roof area slopes back towards and very close to Mr Ridd’s fence.  The roof area is estimated to be 4m x 2.5 so an area of about 10m² . In the frequent event of heavy rainfall that roofwater would be sheeted on to Mr  Ridd’s back fence causing a nuisance and likely damage, including timber rot.  There is no know stormwater management known].

(h) to the extent it is comprised of metal components—be constructed of low reflective, factory pre-coloured materials if it is located on land in a residential zone, and

[OUR COMMENT:  The materials are unknown, since no known design plans for this backyard sauna exist.   However, what has been observed is the use of pinewood for the wall and floor framing].

(i) if it is located on bush fire prone land and is less than 5m from a dwelling—be constructed of non-combustible material, and

[OUR COMMENT:  What has been observed is the use of pinewood for the wall and floor framing, which is highly combustible and so prohibited in this bushfire prone zone].

(j) if it is constructed or installed in a heritage conservation area or a draft heritage conservation area—be located in the rear yard, and

(k) if it is located adjacent to another building—be located so that it does not interfere with the entry to, or exit from, or the fire safety measures contained within, that building, and

(l) be a Class 10 building and not be habitable, and

(m) be located at least 1m from any registered easement   

[Our Comment:  The subject backyard sauna is being constructed directly vertically above a Sydney Water Sewer main, which runs from the top via a manhole access on Mr Ridd’s side of the fence under the back fence and directly below the new backyard sauna construction.  This is illegal.  Mr Ridd became familiar with such a law during the process of his own renovation approved by Council back in 2005 involving stormwater management planning.]

 

 

(n) in relation to a cabana—not be connected to water supply or sewerage services.

[Our Comment:  The subject backyard sauna is to be connected to water supply for both the sauna heater and the shower.]

 

(2) There must not be more than 2 developments per lot.

[Our Comment:  The subject backyard sauna is to be the third outbuilding, following the new cabana adjacent (dubbed ‘the pavilion’) in addition to the carport] 

 

SOURCE:  ^https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/epi-2008-0572#sec.2.18

 

---

 

PART IX.    Scrutiny of LEP 2015/ DCP 2015  Zoning Compliance

 

We note the following zoning restrictions to this subject property and to ours, likewise.

This information is publicly available on Blue Mountains Council’s website’s Interactive Maps subdomain:  ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/property-search  (Click view our interactive maps link).

 

AUTHORS NOTES:

Of relevance: 

(1)   LEP 2015 Zone ‘R2 – Low Density Residential

(2)   LEP 2015 Heritage – K171 North’s Estate Conservation Area (General)

(3)   Bushfire Prone Land – Vegetation Buffer

   

---

 

References and Further Reading:

 

[AUTHOR’S NOTE:   Most references are publicly available at the time of publishing this article.  Each reference below was accessed by this article’s author at the time of publishing so the date of the reference is accurate of as that date.  Given that governments habitually change their websites, the included online links may die over time; in which case, where possible, we have also included a copy of the relevant document as an imbedded PDF document that is downloadable by readers of this article. ]

An example:  

SOURCE:  ^https://yoursay.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/periodhousing/widgets/190457/documents

 

[1]   ‘Draft Heritage Data Form – Blue Mountains Heritage 2016‘, 2014, external consultant report on North’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area, Local ID K171, by Paul Davies Heritage Architects Pty Ltd (Sydney), and by Conroy Heritage Planning (Sydney), 11 pages (file size 476KB), ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/documents/map-and-heritage-inventory-sheet-k171, a PDF copy embedded and downloadable below. 

 

[2]   ‘Heritage Conservation Areas‘, Blue Mountains Council website, 2015, ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/heritage/heritage-conservation-areas), 5 pages

 

[3]   ‘DCP 2015 Part D Heritage Management – Guiding the development of heritage properties‘, Revision: Amendment 8, November 2015, Blue Mountains Council, ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/documents/dcp-2015-part-d-heritage-management, copy in PDF embedded below for download and printing,  88 pages

 

[4]   ‘Development Control Plan 2015‘, 2015, Blue Mountains Council website, ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/development/planning-rules/development-controls-for-land-zoned-under-LEP-2015/DCP-2015, Full Version (916 pages) ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/documents/dcp-2015-full-version

 

[5]   ‘Fact Sheet – Period Housing Areas conversion to Heritage Conservation Areas‘, 2018-06-29, Blue Mountains Council website, ^https://yoursay.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/periodhousing/widgets/190457/documents, 2 pages

 

[6]  ‘Fact Sheet – Developing in a Heritage Conservation Area‘, 2018-06-29, Blue Mountains Council website, ^https://yoursay.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/periodhousing/widgets/190457/documents, 2 pages

 

[7]   ‘Blue Mountains Heritage Strategy 2021-2025‘, (undated), by Blue Mountains Council and probably mostly scribed by its external consultant from Sydney, 60 pages, ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/advanced-search?keys=The+Blue+Mountains+Heritage+Strategy+2021-2025

Part 1:  Strategy Background:

 

Part 2:  Strategy:

 

Part 3:  Implementation Plan:

[AUTHOR’S NOTE:  Hypocrisy in an aloof bubble on steroids – Blue Mountains would do better run from New Zealand.]   

 

[8]   ‘blue mountains shed development setback rules neighbours‘,  (an Internet web browser search phrase typed by yours truly in ‘Google Chrome’ software), Result per Google AI Overview):   See above Part VII above.

 

[9]   ‘Property Map Search‘, Blue Mountains Council’s website, ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/property-search

“Search for information about a property:

Use our interactive maps to identify the zoning and site characteristics of land. This property search tool is useful in establishing site constraints and development opportunities.

• • • Click on the link below and add the property address.
    • Click the ‘layers icon’ in the top right of the webpage, and then tick the maps to view.
    • More information is also available by clicking on the three dots to the right of the Lot and Plan number, on the left side of the webpage.
    • For the best user experience, please use Google Chrome to browse this website.”

View Our Interactive Maps:  ^https://emapping.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main?mapcfg=Locality&lang=en-au

 

[10]  ‘State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008‘, 2008, NSW Government,  ^https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/epi-2008-0572#sec.2.18

 

[11]   ‘Pictorial Memories – Blue Mountains‘, (book) by John Low OAM, 2ED, 1994, published by Kinsclear Books, 135 pages.

 

[12]   ‘Blue Mountains Council’s ‘love local’ hypocrisy towards small business‘, 2021-05-21, Nature Trail website (click link below)

 

Blue Mountains Council’s ‘love local’ hypocrisy towards local businesses

 

[13]   ‘Century-old Blue Mountains kiosk to get new lease of life‘,  2019-04-17, by Alison Cheung,  ^https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/news/century-old-blue-mountains-kiosk-to-get-new-lease-of-life-45705/     [AUTHOR’S NOTE:   the terms ‘revitalisation’ and ‘new lease of life’ are anti-heritage architectural values – think Hong Kong high-rise Alison Cheung].

 

 

 

---

 

References and Further Reading:

 

Blue Mountains {city} Council’s development madness – all “sheds” are auto exempt – so Council: “nothing to see here!”

 

[This article’s publishing last updated:  11th January 2026.]

 

[The following article has been borrowed from a section of a previous article on this website: ‘Blue Mountains copping government-arson‘, since this important message has ramifications beyond the natural areas of the Blue Mountains].

.

 

– – – – – –

.

.

From the frying pan…

.

When bushfire management can contrive no other excuse for setting fire to native vegetation, like when native vegetation is many miles away from human settlement and so poses no direct threat;  out comes a concocted academic theory called:  ‘ecological burning ‘.  Over how many beers?

When those in whom our community trusts to put out bushfires, decide instead to start setting fires to bushland, and descend instantly into a betrayal of that that trust, to whom can our community entrust to put out bushfires?  Government has been proven to suck.

What has happened to ecological values of the bush and the sense of urgency to put out bushfires that threaten both it and us?

.

‘Ecological Burn’ Theory

.

1. The ‘ecological burn’ theory starts with the premise that because humans have observed that the Australian bush ‘grows back’ (eventually) after a bushfire, it may be concluded that the Australian bush can tolerate bushfires.  This hypothesis relies on evidence that selected species of Australian germinate after smoke and fire and the example of epicormic growth of many Eucalypts after fire.
2. The deductive fallacy of this theory is that all the Australian bush is bushfire tolerant.
3. This deduction is then extended by unsupported assumption that since the Australian bush is bushfire-tolerant, bushfire must be an integral natural process to which the Australian bush has become adapted to bushfire.
4. The assumption is then extrapolated to assert that bushfire is indeed beneficial to the Australian bush.
5. The assumption is then stretched even further to conclude that without bushfire the Australian bush will be adversely affected.
6. The ecological burn theory then prescribes that by burning the Australian bush, whether by natural or unnatural means, the biodiversity of the Australian bush will be improved.
7. The deductive fallacy goes further, to suit the motives of the fire-lighters.   The outrageous generalisation is made that all the Australian bush must be burnt at some stage for its own ecological benefit.

.

So the ‘Ecological Burn’ mantra has become:

‘Go forth and burn wilderness.  It’ll grow back.  It’ll do it good.‘

.

---

.

Habitat ‘fuel’ gone…so it wont burn now!

.

The perverted irrational logic that Australia’s native vegetation has adapted to recover from bushfire is akin to claiming the human body is adapted to recover from injury such as burns.  A wound may heal but no-one seeks to be injured in the first place.   And not all wounds heal.  A third degree burn to more than 50% of a human body is almost a certain death sentence.   What percentage of a wild animal’s body can be burnt and the animal still survive? That’s a perverted question for the fire-lighters.

Broadscale hazard reduction is not mosaic patch-work fire.  It is not creating a small scale asset protection zone around the immediate boundary of a human settlement.  It is wholesale bush arson that is driving local extinctions.  Ever wonder why when bush walking through the Australian bush so few native animals are seen these days?   Their natural populations have been decimated through two centuries of human harm – mainly poaching,  introduced predation and habitat destruction including by human-caused bushfires and human-abandoned bushfires.

Broadscale incineration of native bushland across northern Queensland

by the Rural Fire Service Queensland.

Habitat ‘fuel’ gone ~ so it won’t burn now!

©Photo by Ann Jurrjens,  20090922.

(click photo to enlarge, then click again to enlarge again).

 

..

 

.

.

---

.

Likely Origins of the ‘Ecological Burn’ myth

.

The concept of the ‘ecological burn’ sounds like the academic contrivance that it is.  It is an outpouring from a handful of forestry academics who have successfully sold their consulting services to government under a similarly contrived expertise of being ‘fire ecologists‘ or ‘fire scientists‘.   Well, at least ‘garbologists‘ work for a living.

After a major bushfire, an affected and sometimes devastated public cries for answers and the media cash in with their newspaper-selling witch hunt.  The responsible government politicians and department directors of the bushfire management deflect accountability away from themselves by instigating a tried and tested ‘bushfire enquiry‘.  Those enquiries seek expert evidence and so the ‘fire ecologists’ come out of the woodwork, professing expert insight into the reasons for uncontrolled bushfire and contriving theories for better bushfire management.  They invariably proclaim ‘I told you so!

With the frequency of uncontrolled bushfires year after year, there have been so many enquiries across Australia, sufficient to fill bookshelves; each one wastefully gathering dust.  Yet with the almost annual disaster recurrence somewhere across Australia, the relevance of ‘fire ecologists’ has morphed fire ecology into an almost full-time occupation – generally on the payroll of the government agencies seeking to justify excuses why they didn’t put out the bushfires in the first place.

The origins of ‘fire ecology’ and to the ‘ecological burn’ theory may be at least traced back to Victoria, an Australian state with perhaps the worst record of bushfire management in the country.  During 1999 a series of ‘Fire Ecology Workshops’ were held at Country Fire Authority stations across the state.  In that year the ‘Interim Guidelines an Procedures for Ecological Burning‘ was published by Victorian Government’s departments: Natural Resources and Environment and Parks Victoria.   References to this and related documents may be found by following the links under References below.

It must have been like an evangelistic mission by these new ‘fire ecologists’, leveraging the common human terror of fire into a way of dealing with that fear once and for all.   The final solution would go beyond ‘back-burning‘, beyond the ‘controlled burn‘, beyond ‘hazard reduction‘.  It means burning the bush before it burns; but this time on a massive scale, taking the fire-fight to wilderness.

The ‘ecological burn’ theory has gone further.  It has brainwashed fire-fighters and natural land managers into believing that burning the bush is indeed good for the bush, good for biodiversity.   This is a paradigm cultural shift to a sense of ecological righteousness – by burning the bush you are doing biodiversity a favour.  And the fire scientists’ proof of their theory is down to the epicormic growth and the selected native plant species shown to be fire-tolerant, and with that fire-tolerance must be ecologically sustainability.  As soon as some green regrowth occurs, they are out taking photos to support and promulgate their theory. ‘Look it grows back’ they claim.   Except that these same species that recover from fire have ended up dominating the natural landscape.

Fire-Lighters’ bliss

.

‘A Firelighters’ Bliss‘:.

‘a state of profound satisfaction in lighting a bushfire, the equivalent happiness and joy in doing so, a constant pyromaniac state of mind, undisturbed by gain or loss, so long as the lit bush burns fiercely’.  i.e. the aroused state of ignition frenzy by either a closet, suspected or convicted bush-arsonist!

.

So forget Aboriginal traditional mosaic burning theory – so passé and so ineffective (below napalm baseline).   So the message is officially clear, if you want to avert calamities like Black Friday, Black Saturday and the demonising of the rest of the days of the week, burn the bush in swathes, lest it burn you first.  The theory is ecological satanism.  It is up there with the Y2K bug.  It has led a wholesale conversion of bush fire-fighters into fire-lighters on a grand scale akin to scientology’s hold on young people in the 1970s.   It has culminated in an escalation of  prescribed burning to an extent well outside any reasonable justification for protecting human life and property from the risk of bushfire.   The ‘ecological burning’ extremists evangelise is that burning should be ‘strategic’ and for strategic zones spanning thousands of hectares of wilderness to be targeted for burning.  What they avoid problem-solving is why they don’t put out the ignitions in the first place.

‘Ecological fire’ is a myth that has festered into the greatest ‘eco-crime’ in Australia’s history, second only to 19th and 20th Century widespread clear-felling. The ‘ecological fire’ myth is the most devastating driver of man-made extinctions plaguing Australia in the 21st Century.

.

A Test for ‘Fire Ecologists’:

.

Name one case study in Australia published in a peer-recognised scientific journal… in which independent wildlife ecologists have conducted proper before-and-after field tests of fauna-and-flora-biodiversity…where natural (pre-1788) biodiversity has been found to flourish… as a provable result of a broadscale ecological burn!

.

In August 2000, possibly the country’s chief druid of bushphobia, Kevin Tolhurst, produced a report seeking to justify the previous year’s setting fire to most of the Mount Cole State Forest, situated over 20km east of the town of Ararat in Victoria’s central west district.  At the time, Tolhurst was part of the School of Forestry at the University of Melbourne.

Part of the report included, Appendix 3: Guidelines for the Ecological Burning in foothill forests of Victoria, in which an overview of the Mt Cole Case Study was provided.   Notably, this report is provided not found on the University of Melbourne website, but that of the Department of Primary Industries of Victoria website.  Clearly the ‘ecological burning’ concept stems not from preferred prestigious academic credentials, but moreso from politically motivated Primary Industries exploitive expedience.

The primary vegetation types targeted were ‘grassy dry forest’ and ‘herb-rich foothill forest’ which had not been burnt for an estimated 35 years, according the Natural Resources and Environment (Vic) corporate GIS database.

.

Tolhurst’s report states:

“Mt Cole State Forest was selected on the basis of having extensive areas of long-unburnt vegetation.   A couple of areas within the forest had already been earmarked for prescribed burning from a fire-protection point of view.  Mt Cole is an extensive area of easily defined forest with a wide range (of) vegetation types, ages, uses and values.  The landscape management unit used in this example is about 32,000 ha in extent if which about half is forested and the other cleared for agriculture.  There is little functional connection between this forest area and any other forest.”

“..The broad ecological management objective for Mt Cole State Forest, as part of the Midlands Forest Management Area is to : ‘Ensure that indigenous flora and fauna and communities survive and flourish throughout the Midlands Forest Management Area.”

…Flora and Fauna Inventory:

“Species found in study area as a result of a ramble survey of approximately 20 minutes at each location.”

.

Clearly, the motive underlying the so-called ‘ecological burning’ was the irrational fire-lighting cult fear of  ‘long-unburnt vegetation’ daring to remain unburnt or so long – a symptom of bushphobia.  ‘From a fire-protection point of view’ is the real motive and so it was convenient to just set fire to the lot.  So some 32,000 hectares of a surviving island of native habitat was torched.  After decades of agricultural land clearing Mt Cole State Forest had indeed been sadly reduced to having “little functional connection between this forest area and any other forest.”  So why not just wipe the rest off the face the Earth?   It probably stood out like a sore thumb coloured red for ‘high risk on ‘strategic’ CFA maps anyway.

And the blanket ‘ecological burn’ would see to it to ‘ensure that indigenous flora and fauna and communities survive and flourish throughout the Midlands Forest Management Area.”

Perhaps, post-burn,  a similar 20 minute flora and fauna inventory was conducted in the CFA truck with a few tinnies, playing… ‘first-to-spot-the-first-bloated-blackened-wombat‘.

Dead Wombat

.

Defacto Hazard Reduction on the Grose Valley Escarpment, 2006

The fragile yet complex and vital soil biota of the escarpment built up over perhaps centuries,

gone after subsequent rain.

Habitat ‘fuel’ gone ~ so it won’t burn now!

(click photo, then click again for zoom details)

[Photo is ours, so free in public domain]

.

.

.

---

.

References

.

[1]   ‘Management of Fire for the Conservation of Biodiversity‘ – Workshop Proceedings, May 1999, Fire Ecology Working Group (Gordon Friend, Michael Leonard, Andrew MacLean, Ingrid Sieler), Natural Resources and Environment, Parks Victoria, ^http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/0F55F0F75BFB3FCECA257231000D9F4D/$File/Mgt+of+fire+for+Cons+and+Biodiv.pdf.

.

[2]  ‘Appendix 3: Guidelines for the Ecological Burning in foothill forests of Victoria’, Department of Primary Industry (Victoria) website, ^http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/CC122443185E3E38CA257231001076A7/$File/MgtofCons_MtCole_CaseStudy_p21-27.pdf.

.

* Above references accessed 20110526.

.

---

.

 

 

– end of article –n

 

Native Badger (Meles meles)

Reilly and Gole Woods Nature Reserve

(Northern Ireland Environment Agency)

 

.

…Native badgers are under threat across the United Kingdom from misguided State-sanctioned poaching.

 

---

.

“People come–they stay for a while, they flourish, they build–and they go.

It is their way.

But we remain.

There were badgers here, I’ve been told, long before that same city ever came to be.

And now there are badgers here again.

We are an enduring lot, and we may move out for a time, but we wait, and are patient, and back we come.

And so it will ever be.“

.

~ Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows, Chapter 4.

.

---

.

The Badger – a native to Britain

.

Most people in Britain only know of badgers as road kill mess from their cars and trucks as they drive fast along country roads.  Most people in Britain live in the warmth, convenience and security of an urban environment closely in their urban social groups.

Badgers live closely in their own social groups in the warmth, convenience and security of their underground ‘setts‘.  Badgers live a whole world away from people, or would if they could – they have become nocturnal in places with high human populations.  Over the centuries, as human numbers have exploded across Britain, people have spread further and further taking over and destroying wildlife native habitats, including the world of the native badger.

Few people in Britain will know much about the badger and its ecology, save of course wildlife ecologists, zoologists and the growing number of dedicated ‘badger watchers‘.

Badgers remain one the largest wild animals left across the British Isles.  They are beautiful animals.  They are native and deserve human respect.

.

---

.

Says wildlife photographer from Lancashire, (Michael S):

“As a wildlife photographer, I’m lucky enough to spend a good portion of my time observing the wildlife of this country. Nothing – and I mean NOTHING – is as magical to me as the moment, after much silent waiting around in cold, damp woodland, that the first badger tentatively emerges from its sett, shortly followed by the rest of the family (presumably once the “all clear” has been given).   I’ve often been so transfixed just watching them interact and play that I forget to take photos.”

[Source: BBC website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11380921 [Viewed 20110318]

.

---

.

‘The European Badger (Meles meles) belongs to the family of mammals known as Mustelidae (possessing musk glands), otherwise known as the weasel family and includes the otter, stoat, polecat, ferret and pine marten.  The badger is indigenous to most of Europe including the British Isles, with the largest abundance found within southern England.

‘The name ‘badger‘ is believed to come from the French word ‘becheur‘, meaning digger.  Across Britain, badgers occupy a large range of habitat types and they are often found in what’s left of Britain’s native woods and copses, as well as in scrubs, hedgerows, quarries, moorlands, open fields and even in housing estates as the developers encroach on pastoral areas.  They are however more abundant in areas where a mosaic of features are present such as deciduous woodland, pasture and arable habitat types.  Remember that the badgers and their native habitat existed before the property developers.

Badgers live in setts, a network of underground tunnels, which they dig using their strong claws.  Badger density increases with hilliness and a survey undertaken by the Mammal Society has found that 92% of setts in Britain were dug into slopes.  Badgers prefer slopes for a variety of reasons.  Firstly slopes help the excavation of soil, which can spill down the slope as it is dug.  Sloping land is also well drained and more likely to be warm and dry.  In colder climates badgers can easily dig to a depth with is frost proof.

As social group has about five badgers in winter and is typically headed by a dominant male and female.  Male badgers patrol their territory boundary during the early spring breeding season (February – March) and mark the borders of the territory with dung.  If a stray boar (head male) from another colony is encountered the ensuing fight can be particularly fierce.

Although badgers are members of the order carnivore, they are in fact foraging ominvores, meaning they eat a wide range of plants and animals.  This has aided their adaptability, as humans have destroyed the natural landscape.  Badgers have a varied diet depending on what food available and on the time of year.   A badger’s diet mainly consists of earthworms and a large boar can eat as many as 200 earthworms in a single night.  Their diet is supplemented with insects, birds, small mamals, fruits and berries, cereals , reptiles and amphibians.

[Source: The Badger Trust, November 2008]

.

---

.

Badger – a history of human persecution

.

Badgers have an excellent sense of smell and can find human scent particularly disturbing.  Badgers have an elusive nature, inculated from centuries of human persecution.

In England prior to the 19th Century, the badger is believed to have had a wide distribution, but heavy persecution in the 19th Century caused numbers to drop dramatically and by the end of the 19th Century badgers were considered rare.  Badgers were largely poisoned, trapped and shot by game keepers and farmers who mistakenly saw the badger as a threat to livestock.  Between 1960 and 1972 numabers also were in decline due to increased road construction and vehicle numbers as well as trains causing escallating roadkill of badgers aand other wildlife.   In addition, badger persecution has extended to gassing of badger setts, shooting and increased overuse by farmers of pesticides causing badgers to be poisoned and causing reduction in fertility rates.

The passing of the Badger Act 1973 (and amendments in 1981, 1991, and 1992) has helped badger number to recover and today across Britain there are an estimated population of 300,000.

.

Badger Baiting

.

‘Badgers were also cruelly persecuted through the 18th Century by the wicked blood practice of ‘badger baiting‘ .  Badger baiting was outlawed in the United Kingdom as early as 1835, with the introduction of the Cruelty to Animals Act and the Protection of Animals Act 1911.   Badger Baiting was made illegal in 1835 and is currently an offence under the  but it has never died out.   Sadly, it is the badger’s tenacity, its apparent ability to absorb almost any punishment and still go on fighting, which has made it a target for people who get their kicks from inflicting cruelty upon animals, even today.

Every year, hundreds of badgers meet a horrific death in the name of ‘sport’ in the UK at the hands of terriermen. Many of those who have been caught digging into badger setts have used the excuse that they were after foxes – and many have escaped prosecution by so doing.  More than 10,000 are caught, tortured and killed in the UK each year by huntsmen with terriers – with almost a third of these illegal acts being carried out in Wales. Alarmingly, this figure is rising constantly. Terry Spamer, a former RSPCA inspector, believes that there are around 2,000 people involved in badger baiting currently. However, only around three people are caught and convicted of badger baiting each year, while the majority carry on breaking the law.

Small terriers, such as Lakelands, Patterdales, sometimes Jack Russells or a cross-breed are sent down into a badger sett to locate a badger and hold it at bay. The men then dig their way down to their quarry and drag the badger out of the sett. Many diggers attach a radio transmitter to the dog’s collar before sending it below ground then all they have to do is use a radio receiver/locater to determine the exact location of the dog.

There are essentially two types of badger baiters. The first who do it just for the pleasure of killing the badger on the spot and no money is involved. If it’s lucky the badger will be shot but usually the men will set their snarling terriers on the badger and watch it suffer a long and agonising death stabbing it with shovels for good measure. At times, the dogs and the badgers may die when the sett collapses and suffocates them.

The second type of badger baiting involves gambling where large sums of money can change hands. The badger is dug out of the sett in the manner described above and then it is put in a bag and taken away to be baited later on. The badger is taken somewhere quiet for example a barn, shed or cellar and placed into a makeshift arena, a ring or pit, from which it cannot escape. Dogs are then set upon it. Even if the badger is lucky enough to get the better of one dog, the owner may hit or otherwise injure the badger in order to ‘protect his pet’. Ultimately, no matter how well it tries to defend itself, the badger’s fate is sealed. The badger, through injury and exhaustion, will not be able fight any longer. Its back legs are held by a chain to prevent escape. The animals multilated head, minus nose and lower jaw, finished up mounted on a plaque. The baiters will then kill the badger usually by clubbing or shooting it. Gambling is always involved and a winning dog’s value will rise – along with the price of its puppies. An anonymous letter received by Badger Watch & Rescue Dyfed states that badgers are being caught and sold for about £500 for baiting.

Badger Baiting, London, circa 1824

[Source:  Henry Thomas Alken, this image is free in the public domain due to its age,

Wikipedia, ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Badger-baiting3.jpg]

.

Badgers are shy and peaceful animals and not normally aggressive, but will defend themselves if cornered or provoked. A badger has great strength and a blow from one of its vicious claws can do serious harm. Many dogs seriously injured during badger digging and baiting go untreated as their owners are more concerned vets will become suspicious of the owner’s illegal activity.’

(Read More)

.

Badger Hunting

.

‘People kill more badgers than predators and natural causes. In most of the countries where badgers live, they are hunted in great numbers for several reasons. Several thousands of badgers are targeted for their fur, meat or just a cruel ‘sport’. In some countries like Germany, USA and Canada, the hair of badgers are used in shaving and painting brushes. In Britain, Badgers are legislatively protected. However, killing badgers in Britain rather continues secretly.

Badgers are hunted in several ways. Through illegal and cruel methods, people dig out badgers from their setts. In several cases, badgers are also snared, shot or poisoned to death. Very often, badgers also accidentally get trapped in snares set up to catch foxes. Quite a many times, the snares are left unchecked for hours or days and the badgers caught up in them are left to their cruel fate of suffering a long agonizing period of capture, starvation, and dehydration, eventually facing a horrible death.

Urban sprawl and intensive agriculture are two main threats to the life and population of badgers. Badgers are creatures of rather a set habitual pattern and are not good in adapting to any change. Under disturbances from people or developments, badgers are forced to quit their habitat and move on or just die out in a helpless state. Quite unknown to people, badgers can also come to the gardens, cultivations and parks of the suburban area in search of food.

Badger hunting in the name of fun or sport or under the belief that they damage livestock has seriously devastated the badger population in some areas like South Yorkshire. In certain regions like Essex, agricultural intensification has resulted in the decline of badger population.

Some people use modern technology to hunt badgers. Night vision equipments enable the poachers to trace the poor animals in the dark, at the same time evading from the eyes of gamekeepers and police personnel. The other technology used in hunting is lighting. In this method, the criminals carry a high-intensity searchlight and locate the animals. Once the animals are disoriented at the sight of bright light, they either shoot the animals or capture them using hunting dogs.

There are also cases of poisoning the badgers, both accidentally and purposefully. Quite often when the poison is meant for killing other wilder life and pests, many poor badgers become unfortunate victims and die. Badger hunting is a serious offense. Unintentional killings of badgers can invite heavy fines and warnings, while intentional killings can lead to jail sentences.’

[Source: http://www.savethebadgers.co.uk/badger-hunting.shtml]

.

---

.

Badgers and British Law

.

Why are badgers protected?

.

Badgers and their setts are legally protected from intentional cruelty, such as badger-baiting, and from the results of lawful human activities, such as building developments. The legislation, mainly the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (the 1992 Act), has provided a useful tool in deterring the abuse of badgers and in prosecuting those who continue to break the law.

.

However, it is a sad fact that many thousands of badgers are still killed illegally each year, and the incidents appear to be increasing. Also, due to the nature of the crimes, there are relatively few successful prosecutions.
These notes are intended to provide some background to the law relating to badgers. However, the issue is complex and more detailed information can be obtained by contacting Badger Trust

.

Threats to badgers

.

Badgers in the UK are threatened by both legal and illegal activities.
Legal activities, subject to compliance with conditions in the 1992 Act, include:

.

• Road and housing development;
• Forestry and agricultural operations; and
• Badger culling by the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Assembly Government in relation to bovine TB in cattle;

.

Illegal threats to badgers include:

• Badger-digging and baiting
• Snaring
• Poisoning (including the misuse of pesticides)
• Lamping,  and
• Sett interference

.

.Relevant legislation

.

The main legislation protecting badgers in England and Wales is the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (the 1992 Act). Under the 1992 Act it is an offence to:

• wilfully kill, injure, take or attempt to kill, injure or take a badger;
• possess a dead badger or any part of a badger;
• cruelly ill-treat a badger;
• use badger tongs in the course of killing, taking or attempting to kill a badger;
• dig for a badger;
• sell or offer for sale or control any live badger;
• mark, tag or ring a badger; and
• interfere with a badger sett by:
• damaging a sett or any part thereof;
• destroying a sett;
• obstructing access to a sett;
• causing a dog to enter a sett; and
• disturbing a badger while occupying a sett.

.

The 1992 Act defines a badger sett as: “any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”

.

---

.

DEFRA’s position on Bovine TB and British cattle as at 6 April 2011

.

[NOTE: This data has been extracted, rather than referenced as a link, due to the changeable habit of DEFRA changing its website.  If DEFRA wishes to retain public access to its referenced documents, then members of the public ought to be able to access these freely from DEFRA’s website ].

DEFRA’s website (as at 6 April 2011): http://www.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/animals/diseases/tb/

.

‘Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is an infectious disease of cattle. It is caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis), which can also infect and cause TB in badgers, deer, goats, pigs, camelids (llamas and alpacas), dogs and cats, as well as many other mammals.

Bovine TB is a zoonotic disease, which means it can be transmitted from affected animals to people, causing a condition very similar to human TB. However, the risk of people contracting TB from cattle in Great Britain is currently considered very low.

This page aims to provide a comprehensive introduction to our work to tackle the disease.’       ~   DEFRA.

Latest news

• 31 March 2011 – Cattle testing positive for TB to be DNA tagged
• 28 March 2011: Bovine TB surveillance reports for Great Britain compiled by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA)
• 18 March 2011: Provisional TB statistics for Great Britain are now available for December 2010
• 28 February 2011: Bovine disease compensation payable during March 2011
• 31 December 2010: Statistics for TB in non-bovine species are now available
• 11 November 2010 – Defra launches new support service for TB affected farmers
• 8 November 2010 – the following material has been made public:

* Safety and efficacy data from the studies used to license the injectable badger vaccine, BadgerBCG
* Computer modelling comparing badger control strategies for reducing bovine TB in cattle in England.
To view this material, and supporting information, please see the Research section of this page

15 September 2010 – the following material has been published:

• Government’s approach to tackling bovine TB and consultation on a badger control policy (this consultation has now closed. We will be announcing a comprehensive and balanced TB Eradication Programme for England as soon as possible)
• Changes to cattle testing policies
• Review of the pre-movement testing policy in England and Wales – April 2006-March 2009
• Bovine TB and the use of PCR: Summary of 12 July meeting chaired by Defra’s Chief Scientific Advisor

.

Key facts and figures

• Bovine TB is a largely regional problem, concentrated in the West Midlands and South West of England.
• 91.9% of cattle herds in England were officially bTB-free on 31 December 2010.
• 24,899 cattle were slaughtered for bTB control in England in 2010 (compared with 25,557 in 2009).
• Government spend on bovine TB in 2009/10 was about £63 million in England.
• Monthly statistics are published

.

What is the case for government action?

Alongside maintaining vigilance over risks to public health, the main rationale for government intervention is to mitigate the economic impact of the disease on the farming industry and to meet EU legal requirements.

The original reason for government’s involvement in tackling the disease was to protect public health. Pasteurisation of cows’ milk, together with a comprehensive cattle testing/slaughter programme, and inspection of cattle carcases at slaughterhouses, have significantly reduced (to a very low level) the risks to human health.

Bovine TB is having a serious impact on many farm businesses and families, especially in the West and South West of England. Thousands of cattle are slaughtered each year at huge financial and emotional cost to farmers. The area of England affected by bovine TB has grown from isolated pockets in the late 1980s to cover large areas of the West and South West of England. The costs to the taxpayer are rising year by year and there is a strong case for early effective action to turn this around.

No single measure will be enough to tackle the disease on its own. We need to use every tool in the toolbox. There is a significant reservoir of infection in badgers and evidence suggests, without addressing the problem in the badger population, it will not be possible to eradicate bTB in cattle. Cattle measures will remain the foundation of our bTB eradication programme but we also need to deal with the disease in badgers. The farming industry, the veterinary profession and government need to work in partnership if we are to eradicate the disease.
Current situation and background

There has been a long-term (over 25 years) increasing trend in bTB incidence in cattle, driven by both cattle-to-cattle and badger-to-cattle transmission.

A wide range of measures is in place to tackle, and reduce further spread, of the disease, including:

• Regular cattle herd surveillance testing
• Slaughter of test positive ‘reactor’ cattle
• Herd movement restrictions on bTB breakdown herds
• Zero tolerance of overdue herd tests
• Use of additional, more sensitive diagnostic tests
• Pre-movement testing (paid for by farmers) of cattle from high risk herds
• Farmer advice, including husbandry guidance

.

Badgers and bovine TB

The Coalition has committed, as part of a package of measures, to developing affordable options for a carefully-managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine TB.‪‪‪

Defra has been looking at all the key relevant evidence, including published scientific evidence from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) and subsequent post-trial analyses, to draw up proposals, which have been published for public consultation.

The government’s proposal is to issue licences to farmers/landowners who wish to cull and/or vaccinate badgers at their own expense. These licences would be subject to strict licence criteria to ensure badger control is done effectively, humanely and with high regard for animal welfare.

We welcome your comments and responses to the consultation (our website also contains details of how to submit your response):

* Consultation documents

As part of Defra’s commitment to tackling the issue of bovine TB, government has invested in a significant research programme looking into the development of vaccines for both cattle and badgers.

* More information on vaccination

A Badger Vaccine Deployment Project (BVDP) is being funded by Defra to assess and maximise the viability of using injectable badger vaccine and to help us move towards the long-term goal of an oral badger vaccine. Badgers on up to 100km2 of land in Gloucestershire are being trapped and vaccinated over 5 years using the injectable badger vaccine licenced in March 2010. The deployment project aims to build confidence in the principle and practicalities of vaccination.

.

Testing for bTB

The primary screening test for bTB in cattle in Great Britain is the Single Intradermal Comparative Cervical Tuberculin (SICCT) test, commonly known as the tuberculin “skin test”.

This is used throughout the world to screen cattle, other animals, and in a modified version, people for bTB. It is the internationally accepted standard for detection of infection with M. bovis. All cattle herds are subject to regular ‘routine’ testing, the frequency of which is based on the local disease incidence e.g. herds in high bTB risk areas are tested annually.

The more sensitive gamma interferon blood test (g-IFN test) is used in addition to the SICCT test in prescribed circumstances. In addition, Pre-Movement testing is a statutory requirement: cattle 42 days old and over moving from a 1 or 2 yearly tested herd must have tested negative to a bTB test within 60 days prior to movement.

.

Cattle Compensation

Government compensation is paid to owners of cattle compulsorily slaughtered for bTB control purposes. Since February 2006 compensation in England has been determined primarily using table values, which reflect the average sales price of bovine animals in 47 different categories. The categories are based on the animal’s age, gender, type (dairy or beef) and status (pedigree or non-pedigree).

* Cattle compensation table values
.

Other farmed/domesticated species

In England, bTB is rarely self-sustaining in most species other than cattle and badgers. Nevertheless, DEFRA has controls in place to deal with suspected or confirmed cases in other species.

TB in wild and captive deer is a notifiable disease under the Tuberculosis (Deer) Order 1989 and suspicion of disease should be reported to Animal Health (AH). Following investigation, movement restrictions can be imposed on farmed animals. Defra is currently reviewing the controls for non-bovine species, in particular South American Camelids (llamas and alpacas), goats and deer.

Bovine TB occasionally affects cats and dogs and owners should seek advice from their vet. More about TB in other species.

.

Research

A significant amount (over £8.7 million in 2009/2010) is spent on a wide-ranging bovine TB research programme with a portfolio comprising projects looking at vaccine development; licensing studies; new diagnostic tests and disease epidemiology to support vaccine use.

Vaccination of either cattle or wildlife is considered a potential long-term policy option for reducing the risk of bTB in Great Britain. As such, a substantial part of the Defra research programme focuses on this.

The injectable badger vaccine, BadgerBCG, was granted a Marketing Authorisation by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in March 2010 to be used for the active immunisation of badgers to reduce lesions of tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium bovis. The safety and efficacy data required for licensing the vaccine were generated from the following studies:

• SE3216 Development and testing of vaccines against badger tuberculosis (Project report to Defra on GLP captive badger safety study)
• An investigation into the safety of BCG vaccine in badgers (Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) captive badger study) (PDF 393 KB)
• Vaccine Efficacy Study with Bacille of Calmette and Guérin (BCG) Vaccine Administered Parenterally to Badgers (PDF 1.22 MB) – Safety data (Captive badger studies)
• Vaccine Efficacy Studies with Bacille of Calmette and Guérin (BCG) Vaccine Administered Parenterally to Badgers (PDF 4.83 MB) – Efficacy data (Captive badger studies)
• CB0116 Research Project Final Report – Efficacy testing of BCG vaccine in badgers (Project report to Defra on captive badger studies) (PDF 505 KB)
• Field trial to assess the safety and efficacy of Bacille Calmette Guérin (BCG) vaccine administered parenterally to badgers (Good Clinical Practice (veterinary) study on wild badgers) (PDF 630 KB), plus additional supporting data in Appendices (PDF 1.89 MB)

The laboratory studies with captive badgers demonstrated that vaccination of badgers by injection with BCG significantly reduces the progression, severity and excretion of Mycobacterium bovis infection.  A key finding of the field study, conducted over four years in a naturally infected population of over 800 wild badgers in Gloucestershire, was that vaccination resulted in a four-fold (74%) reduction in the proportion of wild badgers testing positive to the antibody blood test for TB in badgers. The blood test is not an absolute indicator of protection from disease so the field results cannot tell us the degree of vaccine efficacy.  While the findings indicate a clear effect of vaccination on badger disease, data from the laboratory and field studies do not lend themselves to giving a definitive figure for BadgerBCG vaccine efficacy.

A scientific paper summarising the results of the injectable BCG badger vaccine research has been published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Computer modelling (PDF 478 KB) by the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), completed since the publication of the consultation document, examined the strategies contained in the consultation proposals.  These were using badger culling combined with vaccination (i.e. ring-vaccination around an area of culling) and comparing these to culling-only, vaccination-only and do-nothing strategies.  The Fera modelling assumed a vaccine efficacy of 70%.

.

The results of the modelling were that:

a) A combined strategy of vaccination in a ring around a culling area was more successful than the cull-only strategy, which in turn was more successful than the vaccination-only strategy, both in reducing the number of TB infected badgers and cattle herd breakdowns.  Ring vaccination partly mitigated the detrimental effects of culling.  However, the combined strategy requires about twice as much effort than either single approach done in isolation.

b) Culling of badgers should continue for at least four years to realise a clear benefit.  However, low rates of land access for culling, or low culling efficiency, or the early cessation of a culling strategy was likely to lead to an overall increase in cattle herd breakdowns (whilst this is not the case for vaccination).

An injectable badger vaccine was authorised for use in March 2010. Work to develop useable cattle and oral badger vaccines is ongoing. Cattle vaccines are currently prohibited under EU legislation as they are based on BCG, which interferes with the statutory primary diagnostic test, the tuberculin skin test. Vaccinated cattle would therefore react as if infected and herds could not be declared Officially TB Free (OTF).

We are therefore developing a diagnostic test to differentiate between Infected and Vaccinated Animals (a so-called ‘DIVA test’). Changes will be required to EU legislation to allow this test to be used in place of or alongside the tuberculin skin test to confer OTF status.

.

Further details of Defra’s TB research projects:

• Current research projects (PDF 210 KB)
• Completed research projects

The Bovine TB Eradication Group for England (TBEG)

TBEG was established in 2008 to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on bovine TB and its eradication. The membership of the group includes representatives from the farming industry, the veterinary profession, Defra and Animal Health.

* More information about the Group
* Highlights of the thirty-first meeting on 15 December 2010

.

Advice and support for farmers

The provision of better support for bTB-affected farm businesses has been identified as a priority by TBEG. In October 2009 TBEG recommended a number of new measures aimed at helping owners of bTB restricted herds to maintain their businesses and avoid some of the practical problems created by movement controls.

Farmers wishing to find out more about bTB should contact their local AH office and/or refer to any of the TB In Your Herd publications.

For bTB affected cattle farmers we are also developing a package of government-funded advice (based on the latest scientific evidence) covering veterinary; biosecurity; and business issues. Farmers can now access free business support, through the Farm Crisis Network (FCN). FCN agents will provide practical support, sign-post businesses to sources of other more specialist advice, and for those in greatest financial need a dedicated FCN Business Support Group will advise farmers on their options.

Working in partnership, Defra, NFU, Animal Health and Fera have developed TB biosecurity training events for farmers which will be rolled out, across England, later this year.

We are also working with the profession to deliver enhanced private veterinary support. A pilot scheme has been launched in the South West where farmers under TB restrictions for 12 months or more, as well as those experiencing their first breakdown, will qualify for a visit from private vets trained in all aspects of TB: the vets will provide tailored advice to help farmers understand how TB spreads and what can de done on their farm to reduce risks. Joint TB meetings for private vets and their farming clients are also being trialed with two events held in the Midlands so far.

.

Support provided under the advice scheme complies with EU state Aid rules.

* England support/advice scheme for TB affected farmers (PDF 125 KB)

Defra has worked with NFU and Animal Health to develop a series of ‘quick guides’ for farmers affected by TB, sign-posting them to a range of additional support and providing contacts for further TB advice. These form part of the ‘TB In Your Herd publications’

.

Relevant legislation and regulations

* EU Directive 64/432/EEC (consolidated version) (PDF 600 KB)
* The Tuberculosis (England) Order 2007 SI No 740
* The Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 SI No 168

.

Key publications and documents

• Government strategic framework
• Krebs report: Executive summary Government’s response
• TB Eradication plan 2010 (PDF 8 MB)
• Independent Scientific Group final report (PDF 2.5 MB) on the Randomised Badger Culling Trial
• TB Eradication Group progress report (PDF 800 KB)
• TB guidance published by Animal Health

.

---

.

Slaughter risk to badgers in Wales [2010-2011]

.

“On 13th January 2010, the Welsh Assembly Government announced that they had given the final go-ahead for a “cull” of Badgers – we use the word “cull” here, but we feel murder, kill, or slaughter would be more accurate words to describe their plans.  The Badger Trusthas mounted a legal challenge to this outrageous decision, but despite opposition from some Welsh Assembly Members, who wanted to at least respect the judicial process and halt preparations until the latest challenge is resolved, the Rural Affairs Minister, Elin Jones decided that the slaughter of badgers in Wales will go ahead, regardlessIt seems there is no doubt, Eldin Jones and those in the Welsh Assembly Government who support this action are determined, bullish even, to carry out the slaughter of badgers in Wales.Why? Well, you may rightly ask. Would it possibly be because a number of Welsh AM’s live in rural constituencies and want to appease the powerful farming lobby – a life of a badger, for a vote, perhaps!?Or, could it be that the WAG are anxious to “flex their muscles”; to “show the world” that they can do what theywant; to grab attention and put themselves in the media spotlight by making a massively controversial decision like this?Of course the Welsh Assembly Governments appear to have chosen to ignore a huge amount of scientific opinion and study which shows that such action is not only unjust, as badgers are not the main problem in relation to bovine TB, such a policy would also be incredibly expensive, extremely cruel, and would not work!Rather bizzarely, they have seemingly also chosen to ignore the results the Westminster Governments own research into this matter who concluded that a cull of badgers was not the best way to deal with bovine TB. As a result of their research, the Westminster government have advocated a programme of the vaccination of badgers and the enforcement of stricter controls of cattle as the best methods to deal with the problem.

News of the Welsh Assembly Government’s decision has shocked the world, and reaction from leading animal welfare and wildlife organisations has been swift.

The RSPCA has condemned the Welsh proposals saying that: “a badger cull could cause enormous suffering and actually increase the spread of disease.”

[Source: ^http://www.savethebadger.com/]

.

---

.

‘Badger Culling in the Intensive Action Area ‘

.

On 9 March Elin Jones, the Minister for Rural Affairs, laid the Badger (Control Area) (Wales) Order 2011.

‘This Order allows for a Government managed cull of badgers, alongside stricter cattle measures, in the Intensive Action Area in west Wales as part of the Welsh Assembly Government’s TB Eradication Programme.

If eradication of bovine TB is to be achieved in areas where the disease is endemic, and where the majority of cattle are slaughtered in Wales, need to be addressed. Stringent cattle controls alone will not achieve eradication and need to be implemented with effective badger intervention to deal with that source of infection.

The evidence presented to the Minister to help her make this decision is available here. This included a report on the responses to the Consultation on Badger Control in the Intensive Action Area (IAA)  and the scientific evidence that is available on the options considered.’

[Source: Welsh Assembly Government,  http://cymru.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/disease/bovinetuberculosis/intensiveactionpilotarea/badgercullingiaa/?lang=en (viewed 20110411).]

.

---

.

.

“The evidence is that a badger cull on a scale or level of efficiency that seems feasible will not solve cattle farmers’ problem – that problem is truly serious. Understandably, the feeling is that something must be done, but the evidence is that it should not be a badger cull.”

–  Sir David Attenborough.

.

“It is shameful that the Welsh Assembly Government proposes the protracted slaughter of thousands of badgers apparently with no clear idea of what benefits, if any, could be expected.  Even the latest apology has no foundation in science.  The broad policy proposals have been missold to the public and, crucially, to farmers.   The subject, and the badgers, deserve careful science, not the politics of blunderbuss.”

– David Williams (January 2010), The Badget Trust

.

---

.

‘Wales to press ahead with badger cull’

[9th March 2011, The Guardian]

‘Welsh rural affairs minister Elin Jones gives go ahead to much-delayed move intended to control bovine tuberculosis

A badger cull in Wales to curb tuberculosis in cattle could finally be launched, just weeks after the Welsh assembly government said the necessary powers would come into force from 31 March.

The controversial cull was delayed last year after wildlife campaigners won a legal battle over previous plans, but rural affairs minister Elin Jones has always intended to press ahead – mainly in north Pembrokeshire – despite recognising what she called the “genuine concern” of opponents.

About 1,400 of the estimated 35,000 badgers in Wales are likely to be trapped and shot by contractors, the government has said previously, while insisting population levels would recover. TB-infected badgers are seen as prime conduits for TB in cattle, prompting Queen guitarist Brian May to attack “an apparently insatiable lust to take revenge” on the animals.

Separately, ministers in England are gearing up to licence farmers to kill badgers in specified areas, including the south-west, where many dairy farms have been hit by bovine TB, but there have been delays in announcing finalised plans..

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Bovine TB is a devastating disease and tackling it is complex, so … we need to make sure we get it right. We will be announcing a comprehensive and balanced TB eradication programme for England as soon as possible.”

Expressing “extreme disappointment” at the Welsh decision, the RSPCA said the cull could lead to the “virtual elimination of badgers” from an area of nearly 300 square kilometres. “We believe that this is a dead end policy in every respect,” said Colin Booty, one of its wildlife scientists. “Not only will it result in the death of at least 70% of badgers from the cull area, but it will not resolve the problem in other areas of Wales.”

The Badger Trust, which successfully challenged the original plans, also criticised what it called the Welsh government’s “misconceived and counterproductive proposals … despite significant reductions in bovine tuberculosis over the past two years.” It would study the evidence presented to Jones and “will seek legal advice in relation to the latest decision, which may also be subject to a challenge in the Welsh assembly”.’

[Source: ‘Wales to press ahead with badger cull‘, by James Meikle, The Guardian newspaper (UK) 20110309, , http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/09/wales-press-ahead-badger-cull-tuberculosis)

.

---

.

Slaughter risk to badgers across England [2011]

.

‘Badger cull decision faces delay’

[BBC News, 18th February 2011, by Richard Black,Environment Correspondent]

 

The UK government’s decision on whether to allow badger culling to curb cattle TB in England is to be delayed.   The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had planned to announce its completed policy around the end of this month.But BBC News understands it could come as late as May – raising doubts over whether a cull could begin this year.

One source said DEFRA did not want to “mess up” again after abandoning its plans to sell some public forests.  Defra came under heavy fire over the plans for England and announced on Thursday that it was scrapping them.

The latest government figures suggest that numbers of cows infected with tuberculosis are falling in England and Wales, which campaigners say makes the case for culling more difficult.

Agriculture Minister James Paice told the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) conference this week that there would be a delay.   Sources suggest a number of factors make an announcement before May unlikely.

There are practical issues to be sorted out over how farmers would be licensed to conduct the cull – details that may be crucial to the chances of culling reducing bovine TB, and to the government’s chances of surviving any legal challenge to its plans.

But one source close to the issue said the department’s experience with its plans for the forests were also behind the delay.

“They’ve messed up on forests – they don’t want another one,” the source said.

On Thursday, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman was forced to apologise to MPs over plans to transfer 258,000 hectares of state-owned woodland in England into private management, acknowledging the government had “got this one wrong”.  What’s happened does demonstrate that the disease can be controlled without the necessity of killing wildlife”   – Jack Reedy, Badger Trust.

The government launched a consultation on bovine TB management in September, Mr Paice telling reporters: “Bovine TB is having a devastating effect on many farm businesses and families… we can’t go on like this.”
Before and after the election, he assured farmers that his government would introduce badger culling.

The NFU is keen to see it begin.  But Kevin Pearce, the union’s director of regions, told BBC News it was important that the government took time to get the details right.

“Clearly we want a decision as soon as possible, but this has to be done properly,”

“Defra has to consider all of the responses and all of the facts before making any announcement in response to its consultation.”
Badger cubs playing A “closed season” for shooting would aim to protect badger cubs

The government’s interpretation of the scientific background is that to be effective, culling would have to be done over large areas with as many landowners as possible taking part in a co-ordinated way, and must sustained regularly for five years.

Critics suggest this will not be possible, and that some farmers are likely to drop out if they find they are spending money to hire marksmen without seeing a benefit.   The science suggests that fragmenting the cull in this way would lead to a rise in TB incidence, as badgers scatter from their habitual runs and infect new herds.

The NFU wants groups of landowners to form into collective legal entities and apply for collective licences.  This idea is under discussion, as is what measures the government could use to force farmers to finish the job if they tried to withdraw.

A further issue that Defra wants resolved is security, with the NFU’s submission to the consultation acknowledging: “There is concern within the industry that by participating in a cull, farmers and landowners will be targeted by activists wishing to disrupt a cull by damaging property and/or by harassment of farming families”.

Delaying the announcement until May could put the chances of beginning to cull this year in jeopardy.

The NFU says it could be done.  Cattle screening Opponents say more frequent testing of cattle and curbs on their movement are tackling the disease

But opponents such as the Badger Trust are likely to seek a judicial review, which could mean substantial delays.  And if data continues to indicate a reduction in the numbers of cows contracting TB, that would boost the trust’s case that culling is not scientifically merited.

Provisional figures for the first 10 months of 2010 show that for the UK overall, a smaller number of cattle confirmed as TB carriers were slaughtered than during the same period a year earlier – 25,924 compared with 29,243.

England and Wales separately show a similar trend; and this follows a fall between 2008 and 2009.

“If culling had been introduced two years ago, everyone would now be leaping to the conclusion that the reduction was down to culling and saying ‘we told you so’,” said Badger Trust spokesman Jack Reedy.

“Plainly, what’s happened does demonstrate that the disease can be controlled without the necessity of killing wildlife.”

The English delay may also have implications for the Welsh Assembly Government, which – in a separate move under a different law – also wants to introduce culling this year.

[Source:  BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12500468 [Viewed 20110411]

---

.

‘Sussex farmers in call for badger cull’

[BBC Sussex, 18th March 2011]

‘Sussex farmers have called for a badger cull after eight cases of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle last year.   Farmers want a badger cull to tackle bovine TB but wildlife

groups say it will not eradicate the disease.  Sussex farmers have called for a badger cull after eight cases of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle last year.  The National Farmers Union (NFU) said each outbreak cost farmers thousands of pounds and the national herd was being “devastated”. Wildlife groups have objected to any badger cull and have argued the move will not affect levels of bovine TB.

Defra issued a statement which said an eradication programme would be announced as soon as possible.‘Reservoir of infection’The statement said: “Bovine TB is a devastating disease and tackling it is complex, so we need to make sure we get it right.”We will be announcing a comprehensive and balanced TB Eradication Programme for England as soon as possible.”

James Mulleneux, from the NFU, said: “Despite a huge amount of cattle controls in terms of testing and culling, we still have this reservoir of infection within badgers.”

He said the average cost to the individual farmer was £30,000 per confirmed outbreak, which was “huge” for any farming business.

He also said the disease cost the taxpayer £90m a year.

‘Larger herds’

He added: “It’s not just the financial cost, it’s actually the numbers of animals that are being taken out of the national herd.

“In 2008, we lost 40,000 head of cattle. In 2009-10, an average of 30,000. That’s not sustainable.”

But Colin Booty, a senior wildlife scientist from the RSPCA, said: “Defra’s own estimates suggest that even if culling could be undertaken according to a strict set of criteria, the best that one might achieve would be a 16% reduction in disease, not an eradication of the disease.”

And Jack Reedy, from the Badger Trust, said there were more cattle than badgers and cattle were being kept in closed conditions and larger herds, which was “a perfect prescription for passing round highly infectious diseases”.

He said: “In most of the past decade, there was a randomised badger culling trial that cost £50m.

“The main conclusion of that was that killing badgers could make no meaningful contribution and cattle measures were sufficient to do the job.”

[Source:  http://www.save-me.org.uk/news/badger/article/sussex_farmers_in_call_for_badger_cull, [Viewed 20110411]

.

---

.

A badger ‘cull’ is an ignorant perversion.

It will only result in mass slaughter of native badgers.

It won’t control the spread of bovine tuberculosis throughout Britain’s cattle.

There are more effective smarter solutions.

If only the handful of backward badger biggots in DEFRA, the NFU and the WAG wised up.

.

---

.

.

Vaccinate the badgers!

.

According to an article of The Royal Society ‘Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccination reduces the severity and progression of tuberculosis in badgers’  published in September 2010, ..

‘the Control of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle has proven particularly challenging where reservoirs of infection exist in wildlife populations.

In Britain and Ireland, control is hampered by a reservoir of infection in Eurasian badgers (Meles meles). Badger culling has positive and negative effects on bovine TB in cattle and is difficult, costly and controversial. Here we show that Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination of captive badgers reduced the progression, severity and excretion of Mycobacterium bovis infection after experimental challenge.

In a clinical field study, BCG vaccination of free-living badgers reduced the incidence of positive serological test results by 73.8 per cent. In common with other species, BCG did not appear to prevent infection of badgers subjected to experimental challenge, but did significantly reduce the overall disease burden. BCG vaccination of badgers could comprise an important component of a comprehensive programme of measures to control bovine TB in cattle.’

[Source:  The Royal Society, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/24/rspb.2010.1953, (viewed 20110411)]

.

---

.

Stop the dodgy farmers spreading TB!

.

Repeated reports continue to emerge of some unscrupulus cattle farmers hiding and spreading TB infected cattle.  These criminals are the ones destroying Britain’s cattle industry and reputation, not the poor old badger.  Read the following articles on the problem.

.

‘Farmers accused of cheating on TB slaughter rule by swapping cattle tags’

[by James Meikle, The Guardian, 31st March 2011]

‘Defra plans DNA tests for TB-positive cattle after farmers ‘disguised affected cows’ identity to avoid sending them to abattoir.

Tagged cows at a Leeds slaughterhouse. Some farmers have hidden the identity of TB-infected stock by switching ear tags, says Defra. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian

Farmers in England face DNA checks on their cattle to prevent illegal swapping of their animals’ identities, an action the government says increases the risk of TB spreading to other herds and wildlife.

The environment department, DEFRA, said evidence was emerging that some cattle farmers in the south-west and Midlands could have been changing cattle ear tags to prevent TB-positive animals being sent to slaughter.

It is alleged that tag-switching has allowed farmers to send less productive cows to the abattoir in place of TB affected cattle.

A spokesman said three cases were already on their way to prosecution and investigations were continuing.

Cattle carry ear tags so that authorities can track their movement across the country, but from mid-April any that test positive for bovine TB will also have a DNA sample taken which will be retained by the government agency Animal Health. These samples will be cross-checked at random, or, where fraud is suspected, against the DNA of animals sent to slaughter.

The agriculture minister, Jim Paice, said: “I am absolutely appalled any farmer would deliberately break the law in this way. The vast majority of farmers with TB in their herds are doing the right thing, and it’s reprehensible that anyone should be trying to get around the tough measures helping to control TB in cattle. Anyone doing this sort of thing will be caught and have the book thrown at them.

“We are introducing this extra safeguard to minimise spread of this devastating disease to other herds and wildlife.”

The alleged evidence of fraud has emerged from an investigation instigated by Gloucestershire trading standards officers who reviewed TB cattle sent to two slaughterhouses. Investigations there and at slaughterhouses in the south-west and Midlands are continuing.

People convicted of such offences face fines of up to £5,000 and six months’ imprisonment under orders to prevent spread of TB, or 10 years’ jail and unlimited fines if prosecuted for fraud.

In 2010, about 6,000 of the 57,000 registered cattle herds in England were under TB restrictions. The new DNA measures come as controversial culls of badgers are threatened in parts of England and Wales as a means of trying to stop cattle contact with the wild animal, which is said by some observers to be an important factor in the spread of bovine TB.

Harvey Locke, president of the British Veterinary Association, said: “This fraudulent activity by a small number of farmers is shocking. Worryingly, it puts the national TB eradication strategies at risk, and urgent action is required to prevent it happening in the future.”

.

[Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/31/farmers-cheating-tb-swap-tags (viewed 20110411)]

.

---

.

‘Fines for bovine TB offences’

[BovineTB.co.uk, 22nd Feb 2011]

‘In January 2010 the largest dairy herd in the west country, Wills Bros Ltd, was put under movement restrictions following the discovery of an inconclusive reactor on their premises at Pawton Dairy, near Wadebridge, Cornwal during a pre-movement TB test. This restriction should have prevented any unlicensed movements onto or off the premises until a second and negative TB test had been obtained at least 60 days after the initial test. However, Defra vet, Cliff Mitchell, noticed an article and photo in the local paper, The Cornish Guardian, showing the Wills family with show results from the National All-Breeds Show at Stoneleigh, Warwickshire. This prompted a joint investigation by Defra vets and Cornwall Council’s Trading Standard’s animal health team. They discovered a range of errors in the herd’s records.

During the investigation it came to light that cattle had been moved between premises run by Wills Bros Ltd without appropriate TB pre-movement testing, in contravention of TB restrictions, without passports being completed and without the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) being informed of the movements.

Also 58 passports were found on the premises for cattle which had died more than seven days previously, the time limit for registering deaths.

In relation to the inconclusive reactor animal, it was discovered that at the time of the pre-movement test it had no official identification, and at the re-test 60 days later the animal was still not identified.

Trading Standards arranged for a DNA test of this pedigree animal and it was found that there was no biological link between it and the animal that was registered as its mother with both the BCMS and Holstein UK, the pedigree society.

John Pascoe, of Cornwall Council’s Trading Standards, said: “During the investigation of this case, serious deficiencies in the recording, reporting and monitoring of cattle births and deaths were uncovered. It is vitally important for the farming industry to adhere to these controls, which enable rapid tracing of animal movements. Non compliance, such as those found, can have devastating effects for the whole of the farming industry if a disease situation develops.” He also said it had not been the first time his inspectors had found problems with cattle passports. They should be returned within seven days of the death of an animal under the Cattle Identification Regulations 2007

Investigators from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Cornwall Council Trading Standards found:

• Cattle had been moved between premises run by the dairy without TB pre-movement testing; passports had not been completed;
• 58 cattle passports were found on the premises for cattle which had died more than seven days previously;
• The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) had not been informed; · DNA tests of the suspect animal found no biological link between it and the animal registered as its mother;
• At the re-test 60 days later the animal was still not identified.

In February 2011 Wills Bros pleaded guilty to seven offences under the tuberculosis and cattle identification legislation of 2007, which is part of the Animal Health Act. The company was fined £7,200 and ordered to pay costs of £7,140 at Bodmin Magistrates Court after a report about a prize-winning cow appeared in a local newspaper when the herd was under a disease movement restriction order

The only comment we have found on the case comes from the Badger Trust. Patricia Hayden, Vice Chairman of the Badger Trust, said:

“These offences were committed in the heart of a major bTB hotspot. They risked the health of prime stock at a major cattle show and the wellbeing of pedigree herds and farm businesses all over the country. The discovery of so many passports overdue for return to the British Cattle Movement Service also raises serious questions about the reliability of the system. Transparency is crucial when bovine tuberculosis is causing serious economic harm to farm businesses.

“If other cattle at the show had been infected, unthinking advocates of culling badgers would have been quick to claim their case had been proved. As it is, many farmers in Cornwall could yet be licensed to shoot badgers in the mistaken belief that it will help to eradicate the disease.

“We have been warning the industry for almost 30 years about the danger of moving untested cattle and we have welcomed the belated controls of the last five years. As happened 50 years ago those controls now seem to be succeeding without killing any badgers.”

.

Source: http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=77, (viewed 20110411)]

.

---

.

Our Value Judgment:

.

Britain’s national problem of Bovine Tuberculosis infecting cattle is one of a contagious disease caused by Mycobacterium bovis.  The solution lies in controlling the disease in cattle, through vaccination, thorough and frequent testing and strict controls on cattle movement.

That the disease has spread from cattle to wildlife, reflects an ineptitude of the farming community to self-regulate and weed out the criminal cattle operators amongst them and the failure of governments to control and eradicate the disease across Britain’s cattle industry.  It also reflects an ineptitude of Britain’s environmental authorities to prevent the spread of the contagion amongst Britain’s wildlife.

That the native badger has been singled out and targeted for mass slaughter is pointless and senseless.  Science has demonstrated that mass slaughter of badgers will not control bovine tuberculosis.  A few backward terriermen with cruel 18th Century mindsets continue to demonised the badger.  What these handful of badger bigots propose is nothing short of a hate crime against Britain’s wildlife.  The union dues used the National Farmers Union and the British taxpayers funds financing DEFRA are being grossly misused to pursue this perverted policy.

Those public servants doggedly advocating mass slaughter of Britain’s badgers, Welsh Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones, UK’s Agriculture Minister James Paice, and NFU president Peter Kendall should be sacked for incompetence and for inciting hate crime against protected wildlife.

Leave the badgers alone!

Stop the senseless slaughter of badgers!

.

---

.

Badger Protection League

.

“For me, Badgers represent everything that I love about the English Countryside and I am saddened and appalled that the slaughter of thousands of badgers is planned for England and Wales from May 2011. Whilst I have empathy with farmers struggling to control the spread of Bovine TB it has been irrefutably proven that culling badgers will not resolve this issue.  A more cost effective, and certainly more humane, way of managing this disease would be to trap and vaccinate badgers before releasing them back into the wild but instead they are to be culled. Farmers/landowners are to be given licenses to cage trap and shoot badgers, or to shoot free running badgers.”

[ Anthony Head, Badger Protection League, UK, 20110328, http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/article.php?id=34)]

.

The Badger Protection League ‘is an independent website supported by many societies, groups, VIP’s and Celebrities. We need you to help us in fighting against the proposed killing of thousands of badgers in England and Wales. Unless we make our voices heard, badgers will be killed from May 2011. They will either be cage trapped and shot or shot free running despite the protection legislation afforded to them.

It cannot be emphasised enough as to how important each of these actions are in the fight against badger culling – Please show that you care.
Badgers need you more than ever TODAY!’

Visit their website:    ^http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/

.

---

.

The Badger Trust

.

“Letters sent to David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Caroline Spelman and James Paice. Defra’s sudden, massive and expensive response to the scandal of farmers switching ear tags to foil bovine TB (bTB) controls suggests these crimes are widespread rather than local. Following the disclosure of these frauds the Badger Trust has called for all plans to kill badgers in England and Wales to be abandoned.

 

 

An investigation instigated by Gloucestershire Trading Standards exposed the deceptions when reviewing TB cattle sent to two slaughterhouses. As a result of the switching of ear tags, infected animals were being retained in herds. Claims by agriculture industry organisations that only “some” farmers were involved are clearly optimistic with the Midlands and the South West already implicated.”

.

[Source:   The Badger Trust,  ^http://www.badger.org.uk/Content/Home.asp]

.

Badger Trust ‘promotes the conservation and welfare of badgers and the protection of their setts and habitats for the public benefit. We are the leading voice for badgers and represent and support around 60 local voluntary badger groups. Badger Trust provides expert advice on all badger issues and works closely with Government, the police and other conservation and welfare organisations.’

Visit their website   ^http://www.badgertrust.org.uk/

Native Badgers

~ a diet of earthworms

.

---

.

Footnote

.

‘Until recently badgers did little to damage the hedgehog population because the smaller animals had plenty of places to hide.

However, the loss of hedgerows and the spread of intensive farming has reduced cover.

Although badgers prefer a diet of earthworms, they will eat hedgehogs when they are hungry enough.

The study found that the eastern counties of England are the best place in Britain for hedgehogs.

Fay Vass, of the British Hedgehog Preservation Society, said badgers were only part of the problem.

“The main reason numbers are falling is the loss of habitats and the fragmentation of their habitat,” she said.

 

Native Hedgehog

~ diet of earthworms

“They like to roam two miles each night, but there are more walls and fences to block their way.”

.

Preferred badger food …if the badgers are left alone.

.

---

.

Somerset badgers fall victim to poisoning campaign

.

‘SECRET World Wildlife Rescue carers are astounded by the amount of badgers admitted to the charity showing signs of poisoning in recent days.

.

---

.

References and Further Reading:

[1]   The Badger Trust ^http://www.badger.org.uk/

[2]   Save the Badger  ^http://www.savethebadger.com/

[3]  Protection of Badgers Act 1992,  ^http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents

[4]  Worcestershire Badger Society  ^http://www.worcestershirebadgersociety.org.uk/

[5]  Badger Protection League  ^ http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/

[6]  ‘NFU publishes position on badger culling‘, Farmers Guardian,  13th Dec 2010, http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/livestock-news/nfu-publishes-position-on-badger-culling/36166.article

[7]  ‘Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccination reduces the severity and progression of tuberculosis in badgers’, The Royal Society, 10th September 2010, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/24/rspb.2010.1953

[8] DEFRA on bTB  http://www.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/animals/diseases/tb/

[9]  Badger Watch and Rescue Dyfed   http://www.badger-watch.co.uk/

[10] Scottish Badgers   http://www.scottishbadgers.org.uk/

[11]  Essex Badger Protection Group  http://www.essexbadger.co.uk/

[12]  Herts and Middlesex Badger Group  http://www.hmbadgergroup.org.uk/

.

– end of article –