Councils & Local Planning Authorities with Swift Brick Policy.

120 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Priaulx

unread,
Aug 24, 2023, 3:51:54 AM8/24/23
to Digest recipients
Hi all, there are new adopted Design Guides in Bromley, and Lambeth, so taking the number of local councils & planning authorities with adopted planning guidance,

which makes a clear reference to integral bird bricks specifically, rather than external nestboxes,

up to 11 (listed below).

NB does anyone have contacts in Greenwich or Harrow?

Let me know if you have, as those boroughs have a couple of important deadlines coming up and it would be good to get some local input.

Here are the eleven, starting with the best worded policies in my opinion; I have split the following into those applying best-practice in terms of numbers, e.g. reference to BS 42021 or CIEEM, and those that don't state specific numbers - 

as mentioned previously Brighton & Hove is the closest to a model clause due to the high numbers of bricks required and clear guidance, that's the one I suggest using as a good example for wording.

(SPD = Supplementary Planning Document.)

1. Brighton & Hove: guidance note - 

2. Greater Cambridge: Biodiversity SPD - 

3. Cornwall: Planning for Biodiversity & Net Gain SPD - 

4. Plymouth & SW Devon: Local Plan - 

5. Exeter: Residential Design Guide SPD -

6. London Borough of Bromley: Urban Design Guide,
& Species Action Plan: Swifts

7. London Borough of Lambeth: Design Guide Part 2,
& Biodiversity Action Plan:

Above refer to best-practice guidance for numbers, e.g. BS 42021 or CIEEM.

The following do not state specific minimum numbers:

1. London Borough of Wandsworth: Local Plan - 

2. Dartmoor: Local Plan -

3. Broxbourne: Local Plan -

4. London Borough of Bexley: Local Plan -

All the best,
Mike

Member of SLN Swifts & Planning Group
To: "Digest Recipients" <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 at 18:42

Hi all,
Wandsworth have adopted their Local Plan this week, so taking the number of local councils & planning authorities with adopted planning policy 

which makes a clear reference to integral bird bricks specifically, rather than external nestboxes,

up to nine (listed below).

Amanda Randall

unread,
Sep 23, 2023, 9:02:16 AM9/23/23
to swiftslocalnetwork
Hi All,

I have been in correspondence with the Ecologist at Warwickshire County Council.  He assured me that WCC works with Stratford-on-Avon District Council to get swift nesting provision built into new developments. He tells me they take a targeted approach (his words), aimed at settlements in the district where swifts are known to be present, particularly if there are known nest sites nearby. They try to ensure nesting provision is built into the walls of new buildings, i.e. swift nest bricks, rather than externally mounted boxes.

Stratford-on-Avon District Council have produced a Development Requirements Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which has a section on swifts and a link to the swift-conservation.org website:

I hope this information can be added to Mike's table.  Although the document is entitled a draft SDP, this section has been adopted.

Best wishes,
Amanda
Harbury Swift Village
Warwickshire
 

Andy Broadhurst

unread,
Sep 23, 2023, 9:19:49 AM9/23/23
to swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com
Hi Amanda

Out of interest, how do they know where Swift nest sites are located?

Thanks

Andy Broadhurst
Derbyshire Swift Conservation Project



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "swiftslocalnetwork" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to swiftslocalnetw...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/0fae4b7d-18bc-4a95-bbb0-1da60f932c9cn%40googlegroups.com.

Amanda Randall

unread,
Sep 23, 2023, 10:31:23 AM9/23/23
to swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com
Hi Andy,

A good question, which he does attempt to answer elsewhere in his reply.  He has carried out a number of swift surveys himself, but also uses "swift nesting records from other sources", by which I presume he means the RSPB SwiftMapper website, which has been mentioned by me (to him) in previous correspondence.  I would imagine the Warwickshire Biological Records are used, too.

Amanda
Harbury Swift Village


To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/CAGR2RoS2YVWD%3DUHy%2BL98fSqt7UkgDUKB5HM-O8xeY_BQtw5vPw%40mail.gmail.com.

Mark Smyth

unread,
Sep 23, 2023, 12:35:58 PM9/23/23
to swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com
Some myths in there regarding the position of boxes

Mark

--

Graham Knight

unread,
Sep 23, 2023, 2:15:24 PM9/23/23
to swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com
Hi Mark

I agree with you, and there are plenty of examples of Swifts nesting below 5 metres, but I think we need to remember the audience for this document - planners, architects and even some ecologists who will have little knowledge of where to place Swift bricks, and also that the houses will not be owned by Swift enthusiasts.

I would always want a document to say the kind of things that this one does as guidelines need to be simple and clear.  If it said 3 metres was a suitable height for example the end result would be a lot of inappropriately placed bricks or boxes.  I have seen Swift boxes required by a planning condition installed 3 metres up on a 5 storey block of flats!

Another issue is that the lower that Swift bricks are placed, the more temptation there may be for the owner of the house to block the entrance hole. This would especially be the case if it is within reach with the help of a short ladder, whereas they wouldn't bother doing this for bricks high up on a gable end (in my view always the best place in new-build housing developments)

Best wishes

Graham Knight
East Hertfordshire

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/CAMHCcYwyzrbU-jXzpSvDnvsRiBNWZZO_ZTWYT9ZpGh%2BPFm7HdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

an...@tali.me.uk

unread,
Sep 24, 2023, 4:21:30 AM9/24/23
to swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com

An interesting thread but missing one element, that of the “universal” nest site concept.

 

Integrating swift bricks in new-builds was always going to be problematic if they only benefited one species; planners/developers could argue “what about other red-listed urban species such as house sparrow and starling?”, so work showing that swift bricks were also used by house sparrows, starlings and other species was significant as it allowed swift bricks to be reclassified as “universal” nest sites, making them far more difficult to argue against. This, of course, led to the publication of the British Standard BS 42021:2022 “Integral Nest Boxes – selection & installation for new developments”, a game-changer when it comes to getting swift, sorry, universal bricks conditioned.

 

In Derbyshire, if the biodiversity officers request compliance with BS 42021:2022 in their consultation response, then this is automatically conditioned. Relying on the presence of swift nest sites to justify swift bricks is not optimal and ecologists doing this should be gently guided towards BS 42021:2022.

 

Finally, if we accept the universal nest site concept, then surely the stipulation that bricks should be 5 metre high or more becomes less relevant as many of the species that may use these bricks are less choosy about height than swifts…    

 

Andy Broadhurst

 

 

Member of SLN Swifts & Planning Group

 

image001.png

an...@tali.me.uk

unread,
Sep 24, 2023, 4:21:34 AM9/24/23
to swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com

An interesting thread but missing one element, that of the “universal” nest site concept.

 

Integrating swift bricks in new-builds was always going to be problematic if they only benefited one species; planners/developers could argue “what about other red-listed urban species such as house sparrow and starling?”, so work showing that swift bricks were also used by house sparrows, starlings and other species was significant as it allowed swift bricks to be reclassified as “universal” nest sites, making them far more difficult to argue against. This, of course, led to the publication of the British Standard BS 42021:2022 “Integral Nest Boxes – selection & installation for new developments”, a game-changer when it comes to getting swift, sorry, universal bricks conditioned.

 

In Derbyshire, if the biodiversity officers request compliance with BS 42021:2022 in their consultation response, then this is automatically conditioned. Relying on the presence of swift nest sites to justify swift bricks is not optimal and ecologists doing this should be gently guided towards BS 42021:2022.

 

Finally, if we accept the universal nest site concept, then surely the stipulation that bricks should be 5 metre high or more becomes less relevant as many of the species that may use these bricks are less choosy about height than swifts…    

 

Andy Broadhurst

 

 

Member of SLN Swifts & Planning Group

 

in...@derbyshireswiftconservation.co.uk

www.derbyshireswiftconservation.co.uk

07941 349002 / 01629 640841

 

 

 

From: swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Graham Knight
Sent: 23 September 2023 19:15
To: swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SLN] Re: Councils & Local Planning Authorities with Swift Brick Policy.

 

Hi Mark

image001.png

Mike Priaulx

unread,
Sep 25, 2023, 8:55:25 AM9/25/23
to Digest recipients
Hi all, I agree with using the universal nest brick concept where possible.

Regarding height, the key line of BS 42021:2022 states:


"at a suitable height above ground... at the highest possible point,"

This is a good way to word it I think, if you're suggesting planning policy, because I have seen developers & architects proposing boxes/ bricks at 5m height or less for tower blocks.

The highest possible point is usually a decent location.


All the best,

Mike


Member of SLN Swifts & Planning Group 


+++

Amanda Randall <a.l.ran...@gmail.com>: Sep 23 06:02AM -0700

Stephen Fitt

unread,
Sep 25, 2023, 10:52:51 AM9/25/23
to Digest recipients
Hi Mike

not sure about highest possible point, I've always wondered what the optimum height might be particularly if you are taking other species/universal option into consideration.

Anything above twelve stories might not be ideal !!

Stephen F.
From: 'Mike Priaulx' via swiftslocalnetwork <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 25 September 2023 13:55
To: Digest recipients <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [SLN] Councils & Local Planning Authorities with Swift Brick Policy.
 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "swiftslocalnetwork" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to swiftslocalnetw...@googlegroups.com.


This email and any attachments may contain material that is confidential, subject to copyright and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is a registered charity in England and Wales no. 207076 and in Scotland no. SC037654.

The RSPB is committed to maintaining your data privacy. We promise to keep your details safe and will never sell them on to third parties. To find out more about how we use your information please read our online Privacy Policy:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages