A FOUR Marks conservationist is at her wits end over what she claims to be the failure by the developer of the controversial Medstead Farm estate to preserve the habitat for native hazel dormice.

Rare and vulnerable to extinction in the UK, dormice are a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

According to Diana Tennyson, lead ecologist for Four Marks and Medstead Neighbourhood Plan and a member of Wildlife Support and Conservation, dormice are known to be present on the adjoining Barratt estate and in the hedgerows on the adjacent Waterbrook site, as well as on the Medstead Farm site behind Brislands Lane and, as such, it was a condition of planning that provision should be made to protect them.

This includes the construction of dormice nesting boxes, as well as bridges and runs to allow the animals to access the surrounding countryside but, says Mrs Tennyson, these are lacking in connectivity.

Furthermore, Mrs Tennyson points out that dormouse bridges, of the type erected around the Medstead Farm estate, have not yet been monitored, although this is a specific requirement for the dormouse licence granted by Natural England.

The crunch came, however, when the developer, Charles Church South Coast (Persimmon plc), destroyed part of the hedgerow habitat along the boundary with Four Marks Recreation Ground, breaking the connectivity, and crossed the Dormouse corridor with a public footpath.

Having monitored the well-being of these animals for the past three years since development began on this controversial site, Mrs Tennyson is “furious”.

“The impact of this on the dormice population could be devastating,” she said.

Trained in dormouse ecology with the Mammal Society, Mrs Tennyson is on the case. She said: “All we can do is hope that the developer will remove this section of pathway in the best interests of dormice and other wildlife. Trees, shrubs and grass would obviously be preferable here, rather than a path with Tarmac. A gate of some description is apparently also proposed. However, gates usually have a purpose, and so do pathways.

“The section of pathway now resembles a very small parking space, perhaps just adequate for parking a Fiat 126. It is also a perfect spot for predatory cats to sit and wait for dormice to risk running the gauntlet, from one narrow section of hedgerow to another.”

According to Mrs Tennyson, her understanding was that Persimmon had not asked or requested access at this point.

She said: “During the liaison panel meetings I have attended for almost three years in order to help create wildlife access around the site, I continued to ask the developer about protecting this vulnerable hedgerow by erecting suitable fencing, and the parish council also made exactly the same request. Time and again contracts managers (there have been several) at Persimmon confirmed that this would be done. I also asked about a dormouse bridge at this point, clearly marked on the documents.

“This hedgerow has had a chequered history. Initially, the developers destroyed some of their own planting when siting a soak away earlier this year, so the gap in the hedgerow grew larger, and I became very concerned over connectivity for dormice. At Easter, councillors and residents met to plant saplings donated by the Woodland Trust.

“Unfortunately, perhaps due to a misunderstanding between the developer and enforcement at East Hampshire District Council, contractors began to create a pathway for access on October 26 but were, fortunately, prevented from continuing the work and most of the saplings we planted at Easter were rescued, and finally replanted.

“Unfortunately, this does not bode well for (EPS) dormouse, as their connectivity has again been compromised.”

Commenting on behalf of Four Marks Parish Council, clerk Sarah Goudie has confirmed that while the Medstead Farm developer has been “very remiss” in its compliance with planning conditions relating to protection of existing wildlife, and while there are “serious concerns over the removal of a hedgerow, belonging to the parish council, which has resulted in the lack of dormouse connectivity”, this breach in planning does not come under the jurisdiction of the parish council and is being dealt with by the relevant authorities.

But Mrs Goudie added: “There has been an on-going dispute between the parish council and Charles Church/Persimmon Homes over the damage to the hedgerow belonging to the parish council and encroachment onto parish council land, which to date has not yet been resolved, and the parish council is seeking advice on its next course of action.”

A spokesman for Charles Church South Coast said that the footpath link to the adjacent public open space has been built in accordance with the planning approved, adding: “We are liaising closely with both our ecologists and East Hampshire District Council to ensure mitigation works are complete allowing the continued safe passing of the hazel dormice.”