Formal complaint to IPCO and Surrey Police regarding Nest 1. Pound Road Colony, Banstead, 12 May.

[Banstead Swifts]

Formal complaint to the IOPC and Surrey Police on Banstead Swifts, Pound Road Colony, Nest Site 1. 

This was the scene of a wildlife crime on 12 May 2026. Scaffolding was erected and obstructed an active established nest site:

Surrey Police handled this case almost identically to how they are handling the Regent House, Swifts of Dorking case.  Appallingly: a dereliction of duty as the law is not being interpreted or applied accurately and swifts are suffering as a result.

We didn't receive a report from an officer of this case until yesterday, 5 June 2026, after reporting the active crime on 14th May. This regarded an active red listed swift nest site that had been obstructed by scaffolding whilst swifts were actively using it. Surrey Police failed to attend the active crime site at the time and at all, Raven Housing Trust appear to not have been contacted at all and the Wildlife Officer failed to update me in a timely manner. So wildlife crimes will continue to be repeated all the time that this is allowed to continue. Her report was left on the system until another officer returned from annual leave. 

The wildlife officers response: nothing to see here, no dead birds or physically damaged nest. 

So lets look at the facts and law:

The issue and reason for reporting the wildlife crime was the erection of scaffolding which was placed up on the morning of Tuesday 12 May, unannounced by Raven Housing Trust. Raven assured us that the flue pipe work would be fully completed the following day 13th May. Our report has been changed and misinterpreted by the police officer.

The swifts were repeatedly taking 15 minutes or so to be able to access their nest through the scaffolding. It was distressing to watch. They were hitting the poles and planks of wood.

The flue pipe was moved, in a 10 minute job on 13th May and we expected the scaffolding to be removed immediately, as Justin Chamberlin of Raven Housing Trust had led us to believe. It was not removed that day.

We called, emailed, and texted Raven Housing Trust to remind them that obstructing the nest was a wildlife crime and yet still nobody told us when the scaffolding was due to be removed. We were watching swifts suffering in trying to access their nest. They did access on some occasions after protracted attempts.

On the 14 May, we reported this as a wildlife crime after a wildlife crime officer in another part of the country contacted us anonymously and advised us to report it to Hollie Iribar, as obstructing an active nest site is a wildlife crime under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981.

The scaffolding was not removed until Saturday 16th May by which time the birds had not been seen since Friday morning (and then only 1). The scaffolding removal was only discovered when receiving intimidating emails from Joanne Silner, Customer Service Assistant Dir at Raven Housing Trust, who said the scaffolding ‘might be removed on Saturday’. They had no respect for the law at all.

In the meantime we had 2 nesting birds, loyal to the nest site struggling and sometimes failing to enter the nest site. On the Thursday, one entered after repeatedly trying, the other gave up and was not seen again for 3.5 days and the second bird not seen for 4 days. The last bird was seen on the Friday morning, then the nest abandoned until the following Monday when one bird returned. On the Tuesday, both birds were recorded leaving the nest so we knew both had returned. However although they are still using the nest, we do not believe they have laid eggs due to the disruption. We can tell this by their behaviour but we continue to monitor.

===========================================

The complaint to IOPC and Surrey Police , some text with personal details have been excluded:

1.       The officers report mis-states what the law prohibits:

She claims that it is only an offence to damage or destroy a nest, that it is not an offence to obstruct a nest.  This is arguably wrong, and at best incomplete.

Under Section 1 (1) it is an offence to:

Intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while in use or being built.

Blocking access to a nest can amount to ‘damage’ for the following reasons:

It interferes with the nests function (pair bonding, breeding, brooding and rearing young)

It can render the nest unusable, even if physically intact.

‘Damage’ is not limited to physical breakage.

Functional impairment: such as obstructing the nest site with scaffolding can qualify.

This is a fundamental weakness in Hollie Iribars’ interpretation of the Act.

2.  The officer has set the threshold too high for an offence

The report says:

That there is no offence unless birds die or eggs fail to hatch.

This is not what the Act requires and I would argue that:

·        The offence occurs at the point of intentional damage or interference.

·        Actual harm in the form of death or failed hatching is not required by the Act.

It is very clear that the Act does not require you to kill a bird for it to be an offence, you just need to damage the nest while in use.  Therefore the officers threshold that it must result in death or failure is legally incorrect.

3.“Obstruction” can still be unlawful depending on intent

The officer treats the scaffolding obstruction as irrelevant. However intent matters and Raven Housing Trust were well aware of the active swift nest for many years. They failed to carry out a building survey before any work and failed to ask for advice on how best to adjust the flue pipe without erecting scaffolding which created an even worse obstruction. RHT also failed to act quickly in removing the scaffolding.

RHT knowingly installed scaffolding and boarding across the active nest site.

The scaffolding blocked and restricted access to an active nest.

This was intentional interference which amounts to damage under Section 1 of the Act as the swifts were actively using the nest. The nest is in use, even if eggs are not yet laid. 

4.  The officer oversimplifies ‘nest in use’

 The report assumes:

·        “in use” includes periods of regular occupation or breeding activity

·        for species like swifts (which return to the same nest annually), repeated attempts to access the nest indicate use in this case. The swifts are monitored closely in this nest and were seen entering the nest from the end of April 2026.

·        This nest is also used by red listed sparrows as roosting and breeding site around the year between the swifts occupation.

 

5. Disturbance-related offences are ignored

The officer states correctly that swifts are not Schedule 1 birds, however they have completely ignored:

Whether the actions could still constitute reckless interference.

6. Internal inconsistency in their own reasoning

In the report, it is stated that:

Blocking a nest could be an offence, if it leads to abandonment or death, but then the officer also says:

no offence exists until that happens.

This is contradictory.

If blocking can lead to an offence, then the act of blocking itself may already fall within ‘damage’ or ‘interference’.

Summary:

·        The report misinterprets’ damage; too narrowly

·        It incorrectly requires actual harm from death or failure of the nest.

·        It fails to consider functional damage from obstructed access.

·        It underestimates what counts as a nest in use.

The report adopts an unduly narrow interpretation of “damage” under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Preventing access to a nest can constitute functional damage even where the structure remains intact. The Act does not require proof of death or breeding failure for an offence to occur. Given that swifts are repeatedly attempting to access the nest, there is a credible argument that the nest remains “in use,” and that intentional obstruction may therefore fall within the scope of Section 1. We have video evidence of the swifts repeatedly trying to enter the nest 2 nights running along with photographs of the scaffolding in situ.

·        I feel that the Wildlife officer has shown a dereliction of duty in their failure in applying the law to a Wildlife Crime.

·        No attempt was made to investigate or visit the site of the wildlife crime whilst the scaffolding was present and the swifts were struggling and then left.

·        PC xxxx was very helpful, however nobody else was. The wildlife officer did not once make contact, I was not given her name, her report was put on the system and there was a failure to alert me to when that report was submitted, I still do not know the date now. I received it in full on 5th June 2026.

I would like to link this complaint with other swift wildlife crimes and the way they have been dealt with, such as the Regent House demolition in Dorking. I shall be submitting a separate complaint on that case, but the same misinterpretation of the Act is repeated.

[Peta Sams]

We had the same problem in Shropshire last year with the WCO saying that destroy/destruction was physically breaking the egg so scaffolding stopping HMs getting to incubate their eggs wasn’t a problem 

Sophie Streeter waded through the WCA and found that the definition in the act is

“destroy”, in relation to an egg, includes doing anything to the egg which is calculated to prevent it from hatching, and “destruction” shall be construed accordingly;

Still wouldn’t accept it. 

Peta

[alofanglia]







Here’s the link for the legislation the words intentionally and recklessly are included 

Alistair 

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Jun 2026, at 08:22, 'Peta Sams' via swiftslocalnetwork <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

We had the same problem in Shropshire last year with the WCO saying that destroy/destruction was physically breaking the egg so scaffolding stopping HMs getting to incubate their eggs wasn’t a problem 

--
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, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/3944c0fd-05cd-4dd8-861a-67987f9d2206n%40googlegroups.com.

[Graham Knight]

Hello all

The use of the word "recklessly" only appears in the Scottish version of section 1(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and so this is not applicable in England and Wales.

The other reference to recklessness relating to birds are in section 1(5) of the Act and only apply to schedule 1 species. Swifts are not on this list.

Regards

Graham Knight

Sawbridgeworth Swifts

Swifts in Hertfordshire

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/E04BE423-1D3D-40FA-9BF0-D4B77B92169C%40alofanglia.plus.com.

[Banstead Swifts]

Thanks Alistair, that will be helpful for anyone else reading this thread. 

Graham: thanks for clarifying that swifts are not Schedule 1, but are still afforded legal protection under the Act. The Police use swifts as  not being schedule 1 as one of the reasons not to respond to reports of nest crime. I think we also need to consider that many swift nests are also occupied by sparrows as roosts throughout the year, until the swifts invite them to relocate for 3 months a year. So I think we can expect the nest site to be protected by their presence year round too. 

We also need to clarify that if swifts return to a nest site after obstruction that it discounts as a wildlife crime and negates any grounds to pursue a case legally: because damage is not only physical damage.

I am probably now going to open a hornets nest, but this needs to be discussed: I apologise if this upsets anyone, but my focus is purely on the swifts and why the law in place to protect them, is not being used by The Police. If my communication appears blunt I apologise, I am autistic and direct communication is a trait. My heart and intentions are always in the right place and I am extremely committed, loyal and determined on the issue of swifts.

 Context: I am using my experiences and awareness of:

1. Knighton Road, Earlswood - a whole colony of up to 12 swift nests lost due to re-roofing of open eave properties in August 2021/22 by Raven Housing Trust  (lots of communication followed between Reigate Swifts and us to Raven - even a document on how to survey for swifts before building works)

2. Pound Road Colony - autumn 2022 - we believe sparrows were blocked in hole filling in which some were swift nest sites, yes out of season, and yes swift nests are not protected out of season, but we assume sparrow roosting sites are? Raven Housing Trust. (lots of communication followed between us and Raven).

3. Pound Road Colony, nest site 1, May 2026, active nest, partially obstructed by new flue pipe fitted at odd angle. Request to move pipe to the original upright position in March, when the pipe was first replaced, ignored twice, then answered on our 3rd email as: no we will not move the pipe. May, swift seen colliding the pipe. Campaign commenced. No response to advising of the situation and a petition had been set up. Pressure increased with other independent support: still no reply from Raven, then scaffolding is erected over the nest site, making it even worse. Swifts struggle for long periods of time to access the nest, sometimes accessing it, other times giving up, eventually disappear for 3.5 and 4 days only to be reunited at the nest site after obstructions were removed. Raven deny they committed a wildlife crime, they have instead made 'us' the problem. Raven Housing Trust.

5. Burgess Hill, roofing starts in the swift season where around 6 active nests are. Spotted on Burgess Hill Swift Supporters FB page. Work is halted till October but only due to residents and an intervention by a contact of Graham Knights. Clarion Housing

6. Regent House, Dorking, up to 22 swift nests in a colony of at least a decade old. Well documented and presented to planning in the application to demolish and rebuild. Clarion Housing

7. St Peter's Hospital (?) Maldon, Essex. Undergoing renovation. Estimated up to 6 nests, obstructed by scaffolding. Reported on here. John had emailed the NHS 2 weeks prior with no response.  I advised John, and he has told us that they have now agreed to move the scaffolding asap and are willing to allow the swift group to go in and map out the swift nest sites on the buildings prior to further work (a positive response, eventually). By NHS.

This list will miss many out, I know, but even this list tells you something about why we are now at over a 70% decline in our swift population. It is a national disgrace that it is allowed to continue and I now see the Police not enforcing as enabling that decline.

BUT...on every single one of the cases above, where was the required building survey that should have been carried out 48 hours before? 

Nobody is learning. They simply throw a couple of nest boxes if you protest at their actions enough and secure some positive PR, that they pay for themselves, out of being nature lovers as a result. Then they repeat the same scenario just a few months or year later.

I don't know why but there is a lot of confusion around swifts and the law and I think that is largely down to the Police narrowly interpreting the law, to find any excuse not to enforce, when we have the sad occasions of being given no option but to report a wildlife crime and expect help. Unfortunately it seems that the majority of the reportees on swift crime receive anything but help. They are more likely to be gaslit and intimidated.

We are all very good at saying 'Swifts are protected by law' and they are, but when things go wrong, it seems 'swifts are protected by law' only on paper.  Then the understanding of that protection seems diluted, lost and not discussed.

Either we start saying 'swifts are protected by the law, on paper, but jolly good luck in getting the protection in practice' or perhaps we should stop saying it at all and just let society do it's things to swifts and hope that the next generation of swifts move into a nest box 10 years later.

So when a wildlife crime happens to swifts, where we lose a nest/s or birds what should be done?  This does need to be addressed. We need to hear what can be done, which parts of the law do protect them, not which parts do not. We need to be brave and bold with legislation in our hands.

My point is: if we are all happy to quote the law around swifts before a crime, we should certainly be brave and bold enough to challenge when swifts are victims and have not received the protection and service from the Police they are afforded under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981. This is why we are challenging the Police. Protect the Wild are doing the same.

We know there are some who are working relentlessly on trying to get organisations, businesses and individuals to stop committing or repeating wildlife crimes against swifts, but collective action is required and I feel from this community. Many of these offenders are repeat offenders. They never learn to take the law and responsibility seriously and are  not enforced to. We want to change that.  

• I would like to propose that incidents are collected and kept on a database as a part of SLN as a data collection project. This could be perhaps a one person role, where an individuals searches FB and other social networks aswell as log those shared in this group. This will create a good source of data on the crimes that are occurring and outcomes, we will be able to see how Police responses vary around the country, who are the repeat offenders etc etc. 

We never, ever want to see a site where 22 established and well known swift nests were demolished, where just one small corner wall stood, and whilst there 7 swifts were overhead. 2 swifts dropped down and screamed twice around the remains of that corner, in what we believe was the act of looking for their nest site. 

It was the most distressing experience along with just 10 days prior, watching our own 2 resident swifts hitting scaffolding poles, brickwork and planks when trying to access their nest. Thedis stress and trauma that it puts the swift, what we consider a highly intelligent and sensitive bird go through, is just too painful to consider.

With kind regards

Annie & Barry

[Banstead Swifts]

It is just so disgraceful Peta.

[Banstead Swifts]

EDIT for clarity:

We wrote:

We also need to clarify that if swifts return to a nest site after obstruction that it discounts as a wildlife crime and negates any grounds to pursue a case legally: because damage is not only physical damage. - this sentence is muddled, so we correct:

We were told after our swifts returned to the nest after abandoning it for 4 days, that now meant there was no legal recourse. We believe this is incorrect and reflects a too narrow interpretation of the law . 

'Damage' is not only physical damage, eg: if the birds return but do not lay eggs, then that is damage and there are likely many other examples. It is clearly not acceptable to create a situation where swifts are forced to abandon their nest for days in the middle of the breeding  season.

In addition, just because there has not been a case pursued in court, or they have and not won, it does not mean a swift wildlife crime will never win in court. It does not mean it is not worth trying. If there is a 50% chance of success it is worth the challenge. A landmark case is needed to benefit the whole population of swifts in this country.

[Louise at Bolton and Bury Swifts]

I completely agree with everything you have written Annie. I have been involved in similar incidents but with no so quite tragic outcomes. There is no support for individuals dealing with crimes against Swifts. Making a point of pursuing your case as far as possible is the right thing to do but not without a lot of stress, time and anguish for those of you involved. 

Thank you for taking this forward I feel and hope it will ultimately benefit all Swift groups and people who are fighting for nature.

Best Wishes,

Louise

 

      

 

Bolton & Bury Swifts

Facebook  Instagram  

House Martin Conservation

Bolton Green Umbrella

 

---

From: swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Banstead Swifts <banstea...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 11:27:19 AM
To: swiftslocalnetwork <swiftsloc...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SLN] Re: Formal complaint to IPCO and Surrey Police regarding Nest 1. Pound Road Colony, Banstead, 12 May.

 

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/49500479-4c6e-407e-8067-358f58fb15a5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alistair]

I agree with Lousie and it is a stressful activity David against Goliath…

I have just been listening to the Law Show on radio 4 maybe they’d be interested in the case or the case of wildlife law…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006tgy1

Alistair

On 10 Jun 2026, at 15:05, Louise at Bolton and Bury Swifts <super...@outlook.com> wrote:

I completely agree with everything you have written Annie. I have been involved in similar incidents but with no so quite tragic outcomes. There is no support for individuals dealing with crimes against Swifts. Making a point of pursuing your case as far as possible is the right thing to do but not without a lot of stress, time and anguish for those of you involved. 

Thank you for taking this forward I feel and hope it will ultimately benefit all Swift groups and people who are fighting for nature.

Best Wishes,

Louise

 

<jpeg-img-8c05916e-1280-4be7-a73f-0dff0ef48a32.jpeg>   <png-img-a0a4e622-c5e0-4b47-b922-a96a93c6c395.png>   <jpeg-img-3b58297c-6232-4056-bf68-9152dd9e3625.jpeg>

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/swiftslocalnetwork/VI0P195MB32246AE15AB1C00FEFE99B70B11A2%40VI0P195MB3224.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.