2023-08-02 11:49:25
It is perhaps the textbook example of a sustainability dilemma. On the one hand, better insulation of old houses is urgently needed to reduce energy consumption. On the other hand, pipistrelle bats often live in those cavity walls. The legal obligation to protect flying mammals should not be taken lightly by insulation companies. Even though the necessary ecological research is expensive and time-consuming. This is evident from a ruling by the Council of State in a case between the province of Utrecht and insulation company IsoSun.
IsoSun mainly insulates homes of private owners. In doing so, the company limited its bat efforts to an endoscopic examination. A hole in the wall is used to see what the cavity wall looks like from the inside. According to the province, which must monitor compliance with the Nature Conservation Act, this is insufficient. IsoSun only meets the legal obligation if an additional ecological study is also carried out, stated the Utrecht provincial government.
Investigate radically for private individuals
Such an ecological study can now be fitted into larger projects, and is often also customary. But for a private homeowner with good intentions, it means quite a bit. An ecologist will then have to come several times, at different times. If there are actually bats, the province must grant an exemption. And homeowners must take measures to offer the bats an alternative.
The bill then quickly rises to thousands of euros, a multiple of the insulation costs. Moreover, a homeowner will then be a year and a half later, while the government’s insulation ambitions are high. The Council of State presented this dilemma – incidentally it is quite exceptional for the highest administrative court to do so – to various parties involved. From governments to insulation companies and nature clubs.
Looking for alternatives
They generally seemed to agree with each other. For example, about the fact that an endoscopic examination alone is not enough: a one-time and brief look in the wall is not enough to conclude that there are no bats. But most parties also believe that the costs of ecological research are very high in relation to those of insulating a cavity wall.
‘Given the scope and urgency of the insulation task, an approach in which ecological research is carried out per home will not be feasible’, writes the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) for example in its response. That is why governments and market parties have been looking for an alternative for some time now.
Utrecht is – partly as a result of this case – the furthest along. The idea is that a municipality commissions an ecological study for all homes at the same time. And, if necessary, takes measures at municipal level to protect bats. All private homeowners will then receive an exemption to insulate their cavity wall.
Is this working method careful enough to comply with the Nature Conservation Act? The Council of State has not yet issued a ruling on this; these new developments do not play a role in the dispute between IsoSun and the province of Utrecht. For the time being, therefore, today’s ruling mainly puts in black and white that ecological research is unavoidable. As a result, the threshold for private individuals to insulate their home seems to be slightly higher, at least for the time being.
Read also:
Professor Kees Bastmeijer: ‘Stop legal tampering in natural and environmental law’
This week, Professor of Nature Conservation and Water Law Kees Bastmeijer will leave Tilburg University. ‘We make a mess of it legally, in nature and the environment.’
1691142279
#Insulate #cavity #wall #bat #research #expensive