European Union can affect cat ownership in UK
This is an example of how the European Union can affect cat ownership in the UK. We know how European Union regulations can invade all parts of our life here in the UK and many people don’t like it; this is another example.
There are two aspects of this. Firstly, everybody has heard about what most people consider to be too much immigration into the UK. This puts pressure on housing. Houses need to be built and sometimes the only place you can build houses is next to wildlife habitat which is protected, which is what happened in Hampshire on a part of Farnborough Airfield.
Five hundred houses were built on the site. Permission to build houses was granted by the local county council. In granting the right to developers to build houses they imposed a condition that homeowners could not keep cats or dogs.
That specific condition of owning a home on this development was forced upon the council by European Union. The condition for home ownership in this instance was imposed by the the European Habitats’ Directive which, as mentioned, projects special areas in respect of wildlife conservation.
| Useful links |
|---|
| Anxiety - reduce it |
| FULL Maine Coon guide - lots of pages |
| Children and cats - important |
In this instance the area of importance is the unspoiled heath, Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, near to Farnborough airfield which is home to rare birds including the endangered ground nesting nightjar and warblers.
I’m very surprised that dogs were banned from this estate, and even cats, although cats have a very unfair reputation for being hunters of birds. Even the RSPB said they did not support the ban despite the area having an international reputation for wildlife habitat. It should be noted that dogs and cats are not specified in the EU directive, so that decision must have been made by the council in trying to comply with the directive.
The mistake was building houses alongside this special wildlife habitat. The RSPB said that it was the equivalent of putting up an apartment block next to a rainforest.
This housing estate should never have been built in the first place but due to pressure from immigration, I suspect, it had to be built in an unsuitable location, so you can see that it was a double whammy; both open EU borders creating housing pressure and then the EU creating restrictions on dog and cat ownership.
The difficulty will be in enforcing this ban because once houses are sold and new owners move in, these conditions (covenants) are likely to fade away due to a lack of enforcement.
The photo is by Roger H Goun on Flickr
For Gods sake!! I despise the European Union and I despise the British Government even more! I totally agree with what Barbara has just said and I don’t care if I offend you’re worth nowt in this country unless you have children and you are on benefits then you get free housing and you can afford to dress your kids in designer gear when I know people who work who really struggle to make ends meet! Do they really think those people in those houses will respect the wildlife around that area? I think not!
Sorry to appear ignorant; but, I don’t know a lot about the European Union except that it is a political and economic force across many European countries.
I don’t know how this could have even happened really or why it is tolerated. Are the members elected, appointed, etc.? Can a country withdraw?
It sounds a whole lot like a massive dictatorship.
Not critical, just dumb.
God knows that we have more than enough agencies telling us how to live our lives.
If my civil rights can’t be protected, I should at least expect my human rights to be.
So, housing was insanely built next to a wildlife habitat. They’re tough luck, I say. Companion animals shouldn’t have to suffer for poor planning.
It’s probably just as well cats and dogs ARE banned there because their lives would have been pure misery and confinement. My gripe is with the building of the houses in the first place, laws are made and used to restrict, and take, the lives of animals, but when it comes to people, oh yes they have to have houses, they have to build wherever and whenever they can because of not only immigrants but because everyone and his uncle is entitled to free fertility treatments nowadays, get kids, get more kids, don’t worry about paying for their upkeep, get homes built for them before they too double or treble or quadruple themselves, cater for all humanity, but whatever you do don’t allow cats and dogs to live there. Huh!
Exactly Babz, as always you speak sense and the truth.
Well I for one am glad that it’s not only cats banned but dogs too, for once cats are not second class citizens not deemed as important as dogs.
Yes, good point, I suspect all “pets” are banned unless caged or something like that. Dogs barking and/or roaming probably upsets nesting rare birds.
“I’m very surprised that dogs were banned from this estate, and even cats, although cats have a very unfair reputation for being hunters of birds. …”
hmm what should i say, i have seen much more cats hunting birds than dogs! not very pleasant to pet lovers but in direct neighborhood to an wildlife habitat i call it correct.
there are so many studies that prove the bad influence of roaming cats to native wildlife i am for a law against roaming in general. not without any reason there are already placess hunters can shoot every cat they see. we need to accept to be responsible, not for our pets only also for our native wildlife!
Native wildlife is more in danger of humans than any cat.
The ill thought out decision to build on that site is down to the local council who granted planning permission.I think the RSPB summed it up perfectly by likening it to building next door to a rainforest 🙁
When you complain about EU Directives you should look to warmonger & professional schmoozer Tony Blair. Not all of these Directives are mandatory, but he willingly signed us up for everything. (The indoor smoking-ban being just one example of a ruling not accepted or implemented by every member nation.)
There are pros and cons to being a member of the EU. Without the Pet Travel Scheme, I would have had to have put my cats into quarantine for 6 months when I returned to the UK. Then again, it wouldn’t have been so easy for me to move and live in another country in the first place.
Moaning about “immigrants” and the “problems” they cause is not specific to Britain. Having been one of those “immigrants” I know first-hand what it’s like to be an ex-pat working and paying taxes in another country, yet still being blamed for domestic problems which were there before I arrived.
Immigration is fine and normal but it needs to be controlled so the UK can build infrastructure fast enough to accommodate the new citizens. At present we are not coping on housing, NHS and schools.
I agree that the housing in this instance is in the wrong place but it must have been a compromise and the cats lost out.
I dont agree with the housing being built there, but I have no personal problem with the ban on cats and dogs in those homes.
If I lived next to a nature reserve, I would restrict my cats outdoor activities. Not because they would necessarily be killing everything in sight, but their mere presence may be enough to deter some of those creatures from living there. Habitat is already scarce enough for our wildlife, so we should protect it.
Just one more good reason to get out of this dictatorial invasive neo-Marxist run EU,.
Yes, I think we have the same opinion about the EU. A nightmare for the UK. We’ve lost our culture.