More time given for Cambridgeshire wildlife hospital to address concerns
Suffolk Hedgehog Hospital argues it needs the hospital to continue its care
Councillors have agreed to give the people behind plans to build a new wildlife veterinary hospital more time to address concerns about the project.
Planning officers at East Cambridgeshire District Council had recommended that the application to build the hospital on land off Water Lane near Kirtling should be refused.
However, those behind the plans said if given more time they could provide more information to try and address the concerns raised.
Sue Stubley, who founded the Suffolk Hedgehog Hospital, asked the district council for permission to build the new wildlife hospital in order to be able to continue to care for injured and sick wildlife.
Over 100 comments of support for the plans were shared with the district council.
One neighbour who said they supported the project said the creation of a new wildlife hospital in the area was “long overdue”.
They said it would be an “amazing asset” for wildlife and that people should be trying to help animals “as much as we can”.
However, objections were raised by other neighbours, who argued that many of the comments made in support came from people who did not live in the area.
One neighbour said they “strongly object” to the application and said they had “serious concerns” about the noise and visual harm of the development in the countryside, and the traffic impacts of people travelling to and from the site.
They claimed that allowing the development to go ahead “threatens to set a dangerous precedent for rural expansion”.
Officers at the district council said there were a number of issues with the proposed development, highlighting that both the highways authority and the ecology officer had objected.
Concerns were raised about the impact of the development on a nearby badger sett, and highways officers said not enough information had been given to them to show there would not impact highways safety.
Officers also said the development went against the authority’s planning policy by proposing to build the hospital in the countryside with “insufficient justification” as to why this specific location is needed.
Angie Curtis, speaking on behalf of Sue Stubley, told a planning committee meeting this week (July 2) that there was an “undeniable risk” Ms Stubley might be “forced to close her doors and move away” if the new hospital does not go ahead.
She said Ms Stubley had spent years searching for a site to build the hospital and had found nowhere else in the area that was suitable.
Ms Curtis said: “Contrary to opinions expressed within the reports, this veterinary wildlife hospital plan is well thought out and it is supported by wildlife experts.
“National planning policies and the local development plan make virtually no mention of the impact people have on wildlife.
“From road casualties to loss of habitat, the indigenous wild animals with whom we share this district are losing the battle to survive against human incursion.
“That is why the Suffolk Hedgehog Hospital has continued to grow in the types and numbers of animals it helps, especially as other rescue centres continue to close.
“The hospital has taken over every part of Sue’s life and home, every year she takes in over 1,000 animals.
“Alongside hedgehogs this year Sue has treated a leveret, a badger cub, a fox cub, ducks and ducklings, baby birds, baby rabbits, a stoat, an owl, and today a buzzard.
“Shepreth only takes hedgehogs, it’s 29 miles away, wildlife hospitals are even more distant.
“Smaller rescue centres refer their most serious cases to Sue and they rely on her expertise to guide their care.
“The revised ecology report changed its opinion from no objection to a variety of arguments of why this site is unsuitable, with the greatest of respect, we would argue that this opinion is wrong.
“The site is perfect for its planned purpose, the arrangement of buildings is designed to enable the animals to be treated appropriately, healed and prepared for release.
“Predators and prey will not be close.
“Hedgehogs are never released in this type of location, most are returned to the location where they were found to continue their lives in a familiar environment, or returned to a release site which will meet their needs.
“The badger sett will not be disturbed and confirms the suitability of the site.”
Ms Curtis recognised there were outstanding questions and concerns about the plans, and said they “would be more than happy to go away and address all the questions”, but claimed they had not been given this option.
Officers said they had not allowed amendments due to council policy as the changes needed to make the plans acceptable would essentially mean the application would “have to be redone”.
Councillor Julia Huffer proposed the committee should defer the application for two or three months to give the applicants time to provide the extra information needed to potentially address concerns.
Councillor Christine Colbert said she also supported a deferral, although she was not sure about the timescale.
Cllr Colbert said they “desperately need help for our animals” and told the meeting how she had travelled “miles” in the past to take baby hedgehogs to people who could care for them.
She said she “believed wholeheartedly in this type of project”.
However, Councillor Keith Horgan said he was worried that by delaying making a decision they could be “setting false expectations” that it would be possible for the applicants to make the development acceptable in a few months.
He said he suspected the application had already been in the works for a while and highlighted that the information needed had not been provided during that time.
He suggested that refusing the application would be better and said if the applicants are “passionate” about the project, they could go away and possibly come back with a new scheme that addressed the outstanding concerns.
Councillor James Lay said he also thought the application should be refused.
He said he was not against this application, but was against any development that was outside the “stop lines” of villages.
When a decision was put to a vote the majority of the committee agreed to defer the application in order to give the applicants more time to address concerns.