AGENDA

Gull Forum 11 September 2019 at 17:30
Guildhall, Worcester.

1. Introduction and apologies

Attendees

Cllr Joy Squires - Chair of Environment Committee (Chair)
Cllr Andy Stafford - Vice Chair of Environment Committee
Cllr Alan Amos - Councillor Bedwardine Ward
Cllr Marc Bayliss - Leader of Worcester City Council (from item 3.5)
Mark Cox - Worcestershire Regulatory Services
Sue Horrobin - Worcester City Council
Dan Walker - Worcestershire Re
Shelley Simpson - Worcester BID
Sarah Matthews - Royal Porcelain works
Konrad Szymanski - K2 businesses and residents representatives
Wal Groves - Britannia Square Resident
David Greenhill - Britannia Square Residents Association
Susannah XXX - Whitehouse Hotel
Resident - Resident Lowerwick
Resident - Resident Lowerwick

Apologies

Mike Lloyd - Crowngate
Alice Davey - Worcester City Council
Claire Neville - Worcester City Council
Lindsay O’Hara - Worcester News

2. Notes from previous forum;

Previously circulated. Agreed as true record.

3. Outstanding actions from previous Forum:

3.3 Circulation of information provided by BID to extend as far as possible (BID and ALL)
SS provided an update on the marketing campaign Worcester BID had completed over the summer including flyers, posters and window stickers to all businesses in centre. Ran a digital marketing campaign in centre during Worcester Food market event. Basic message: don’t feed the gulls, don’t encourage them. Request all spread this message. Gull proof sacks still available. Bunting has been successful over summer. Being taken down today.

3.4 Speak to food lead to request advice is provided on appropriate food waste removal by business during visits by EH officers. (WRS)

WRS confirmed this advice is given during food inspections. Raised priority for Worcester City businesses. Should anyone identify that a business is not disposing of waste appropriately or a food business not clearing food away promptly.

3.5 MC to liaise with SH regarding use of cherry picker and suitable operative. (WRS and WC)
Confirmed with WC that we have a cherry picker. Limited in extent with no operative available. Meeting with firm next week to investigate ability to reach hard to reach nests and the logistics of doing that.

AA raised concern that hard to reach nests had been raised previously. What percentage is it currently that can not be reached. If we are using egg replacement as the main action if will not be effective. MC responded that aim is to prevent where possible birds breeding. The numbers of inaccessible rooves not likely to have dropped, potentially increased as egg replacement work in city centre has pushed birds to nest in suburban areas around.

3.6 Visit to the Hive to establish (WRS)
a. If it is accessible
b. What the roof is like, hot/reflective/flat
c. Are there any nests or sign of Gull’s using it
d. If not why it may be less attractive to them

An update was given on the cladding material used at the Hive by DW. The building is clad in a Golden Copper alloy (Tecu ® Gold). From anecdotal evidence and observations on the roof of the building the gulls avoid perching, nesting and flying over the building. There have been no nests reported on the building. Another city centre building made from copper also have reported that they have never had an issue with gulls nesting on their roof. WRS to investigate other sites with this material.

3.7 Circulate further information when available on the status of the general licence (WRS)
MC confirmed that information had been circulated to Councillors previously. JS reminded the group that there was an issue with the General Licence.

4. General Licence Update, Explanation of Individual Licence & difficulties in being able to cull.

MC set out the implications of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 restrictions and how historically, individual licences and (as in Worcester) General Licences were used to control gull species under specific exceptions. The exceptions applied to specific species, in specific circumstances for (in relation to gulls) the protection of public health and safety.

The General Licence was withdrawn in April 2019 by Natural England due to a legal challenge by Wild Justice. The only way Worcester City Council and any pest controller or landowner could undertake control of gulls from that point was by applying for an Individual Licence. Which our contractor did do. Commencing egg replacement in June 2019.

An explanation was given on why an Individual licence would not be given by Natural England. The requirements of the Act, Natural England’s guidance and interpretation of the act was discussed with the level of evidence required to support any application paid.

A licence may be more readily granted for culling of specific birds where an aggressive bird has been identified and to support the effectiveness of non-lethal methods of control.

MB indicated he was disappointed that the General Licence issue had not been escalated through the Council back in April and felt that to fully comply with Natural England’s criteria was impossible. MB and KS indicated frustration with the legal situation.

There was a call for evidence to be gathered to support an application to NE for the ability to cull and that weight could be brought by Councillors on the local MP to support this and if necessary look at revisions to legislation. The legalities of what can be achieved within the Act was raised. JS confirmed the evidence is being collated by WRS on the wider action being taken and the impact of that action. WCC legal advice to be sought on the interpretation of the act.

- Wider Discussion on Gull Control methods

AA stated he believed the population had grown from 5 years ago and what had been done to date to control gulls had not worked. In particular the suitability of bin replacements and issues with food waste was raised as concerns. AA called for a map of all nesting sites so that the nests can be removed. Concerns were raised by SM concerning breeding gulls not being tackled by Berkerley Homes who are developing an area around the former Porcelain site. DG suggested a publicity campaign and hotline be launched to report lack of action by landowners. However, the lack of ability to enforce non-action to proof or undertake egg replacement was discussed for any that were notified. The possibility of a By-law to require action to be taken was raised by MB. Legal advice to be sought from WCC.

DG suggested residents might be willing to pay for gull control work to be undertaken on their properties. It was recognised that residents need support and can receive this by calling the Gull Officer for advice.

A request was made for technological improvements to be investigated. JS and MC clarified that drones had been experimented with but they can not undertake egg replacement themselves yet and the logistics of using them (due to civil aviation authority rules) makes it expensive and the situation when they are suitable to assist very restricted. Drones will be used when appropriate.

The Whitehouse had experienced an improvement since they had started flying a hawk twice a week.

5. AOB
a) KS raised feeding of birds down at fountains and along river as an ongoing issue. An update was provided by SH on progress with the proposed PSPO: That the ability to fine individuals for feeding birds in public places was included as one of the proposals but that would be subject to approval at Committee later this year.

b) Date of next meeting proposed for early next year and details to be circulated.