Prosections for destruction of roof-nesting gulls' nests

I don't think any species' nests and eggs can even be interfered with, let alone destroyed, without a licence.

I notice you say one of your planners - where are you?

Hi Matt

I've found this guidance on the site - hope this is of some help 

Do we know what species of gull are involved?  The most frequently occurring ones around here are herring (red listed) and lesser black backed (amber listed).

LBB Gulls are on this year's General Licence though Herring Gulls aren't. Obviously any lethal control or egg "sabotage" would need to be carried out within the terms of the licence. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wild-birds-licence-to-take-or-kill-to-prevent-damage-or-disease

The destruction of nests and eggs of both LB-b Gulls and Herring Gulls (but no other gull species) is allowed under the terms of the current general licences, but Herring Gulls cannot be killed under the terms of this licence.

Naturally though, the destruction of nests should be as a last resort and only used if there are no practical alternatives (I believe that it would be up to the person destroying the nests,or possibly the landowner/occupier, to provide reasonable evidence that this was the case if challenged).

If there is a plan to destroy nests during the forthcoming breeding season, then the obvious first step would be to consider, and perhaps trial, methods of preventing the gulls from breeding in the first place. If this isn't done, and there is no good reason why not, then the terms of the general licence are not being met and any destruction of nests may potentially be considered illegal.

The destruction of the nests of any other species of gull requires a licence application, and in all cases (including when the general licence is used) there needs to be a valid reason for the nest destruction. General licences only allow nests to be destroyed for reasons such as public health and safety, and the prevention of destruction of crops and/or livestock, they do not allow nests to be destroyed simply because it will prevent delaying building work or similar.

Edit:

Herring Gulls only appear on the 'Health & Safety' licence: here

Thank you for your responses, but just to re-iterate my original post, what I'm looking for is caselaw i.e examples of previous prosecutions in relation to damage/destruction of gull nests while in use or being built, whether this be through non-compliance with the conditions of a general licence, or relating to gull species which aren't covered by such a licence.

There was this case a few years ago - I'm looking for others as well.

Unknown said:

...but just to re-iterate my original post, what I'm looking for is caselaw i.e examples of previous prosecutions in relation to damage/destruction of gull nests while in use or being built...,

And to reiterate what I originally posted:

Unknown said:

Are you considering a case where nests have already been destroyed and a prosecution is under way, or being threatened, or is the planner considering the destruction of nests in the future?

I apologise if I'm being overly sceptical, but It could sound like you are looking for precedent that might be helpful in a court case if the legal requirements are intentionally ignored (or already have been), or to assess the likelihood of a successful prosecution and/or the likely penalty.

If there is a need to consider the destruction of gulls nests then stick to what is legally permitted and then there won't be any need for caselaw. If you have other legitimate reasons for wanting case law, then why not find out and provide more details?

THanks for that Clare, that's the sort of thing I was looking for.  If there are any more such examples (I haven't been able to find any), then please let me know and I'll pass them along.