Gulls and Other Wild Birds

All wild birds in Scotland are given protection under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Some rare, threatened or vulnerable species are given extra protection, for instance against disturbance during the breeding season – but this doesn’t mean that action cannot be taken when birds are causing a problem.

The Moray Council has no statutory duty to take action against gulls and cannot force the owners or occupiers of buildings to take appropriate action to reduce gull numbers. However, where the Council is the occupier of a property where gulls are causing nuisance the Council does have a responsibility to resolve the issue

The Law on Gulls and Other Wild Birds

Under the Act, certain birds may be killed or taken by an Authorised Person under the terms of a General Licence. These Licences are in force to permit certain actions which would otherwise constitute offences under the Act.

Birds which can be killed or taken by an Authorised Person, according to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981:

• Great Black-backed Gull - Larus marinus
• Herring Gull - Larus argentatus
• Lesser Black-backed Gull - Larus fuscus
• Collared Dove - Streptopelia decaocto
• Feral Pigeon - Columba livia
• Woodpigeon - Columba palumbus
• Carrion Crow - Corvus corone
• Hooded Crow - Corvus cornix
• Jackdaw - Corvus monedula
• Magpie - Pica pica
• Rook - Corvus frugiligus

The owner or occupier of the land on which the action authorised is taken or their agent is an “Authorised Person” for the purposes of the General Licence.

The General Licence can only be relied on:

When killing or taking of birds or destroying nests and/or eggs to protect public health, public safety and to prevent the spread of disease.
Before any such action is taken, the authorised person needs to be satisfied that non-lethal methods of control, such as scaring or proofing, are either ineffective or impracticable.
Where any action is taken against the lesser black-backed gull or herring gull, the person taking the action must advise Scottish Natural Heritage, as soon as the action is completed or by the end of January of the following year at the latest of the number of birds or their eggs taken, killed or destroyed in each month along with the reason why. The methods of control used against these birds in each month, and the locations of any such actions shall also be detailed.

Advice for Residents on Sea Gulls PDF

Gulls and Other Wild Birds Information Sheet - Moray Council PDF

Gulls and Licensing Information Sheet - Scottish Natural Heritage PDF

Gull Prevention Measures, Moray Wide

The Moray Council has no statutory duty to act against gulls and cannot force the owners or occupiers of buildings to take appropriate action to reduce gull numbers. However, where the Council is the occupier of a property where gulls are causing nuisance, the Council does have a responsibility to resolve the issue. In such cases, action will be in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which allows authorised persons (the building owner) to act against the great black backed gull, the herring gull, and the lesser black backed gull where there is a threat to public health and safety and all other possible solutions have been tried.

To fulfil these obligations, our appointed specialist Contractor will act in the Councils interests to ensure that after all deterrent measures are taken, any gulls causing a threat to public health and safety are limited by actions such as nest and egg removal, with the removal of chicks only to be carried out in exceptional circumstances as guidance below.

Such measures should be done under licence from Nature Scot with materials disposed in accordance with SEPA guidelines. The new 2024 Nature Scot guidance should be followed as below, prior to any application to remove nesting gulls or chicks.

Gull Preserving Public Health or Public Safety licensing Process.

Understanding the differences between a risk to public health or safety and what is nuisance behaviour can be difficult. Managing behaviours which present a clear and obvious risk to public health or safety may require a licence to be issued in addition to preventative measures. However, for general nuisance behaviours, there is no licensable purpose. However, if the nuisance behaviour is directed at a particularly vulnerable group or individual then the impact of that behaviour can become such that it presents a risk to public health or safety, below is some guidance on what we consider to be a risk to public health or safety and what a nuisance behaviour is.

Dive bombing

Under most circumstances we would expect an employer or property owner to provide PPE (headwear or umbrella) or take necessary precautions to limit the frequency of dive bombing (provide an alternative access route), as an alternative solution to a licence. We would only consider this behaviour as a risk to public health or safety when the recipient of the dive bombing is a vulnerable person or group of persons, for example someone who is unable to defend themselves due to working at height, or due to certain forms of disability.

Aggression resulting in direct strike

In most circumstances we will consider this behaviour to be a risk to public health or safety. However, clear justification detailing why suitable alternative precautions to limit direct strikes have not been taken. For example, gulls are dive bombing staff and visitors entering a building, the employer or property owner has not provided any suitable PPE (e.g. protective headwear, or umbrella), resulting in injury because of direct strikes.

Noise disturbance

We will only consider this to be a risk to public health or safety under exceptional circumstances and will require clear well evidence reasoning why there is no other suitable alternative to licencing.

Droppings contaminating foodstuffs

This qualifies as a risk to public health or safety where the gull droppings are directly falling into or on food processing or preparation areas or accumulating in high quantities in dining areas. However, applicants will be required to justify why the gulls have been allowed to access areas such as these in the first place.

Small quantities on open air picnic benches will be considered a nuisance which can be remedied by maintaining good site and personal hygiene.

Build-up of nesting material in gas flues, air-conditioning units, active chimney pots or drainage systems.

All old nests and nesting material are to be removed after each breeding season. This is only considered a risk to public health or safety where nest is built directly on or adjacent to gas flues, air-conditioning units, active chimneys, or drainage systems and where the build-up of nesting material in drainage/ ventilation systems is new (i.e. built in the current breeding season).

Disturbance or aggression on sites where people are working at height or with machinery.

This will only be considered a risk to public health or safety when combined with other factors such as emergency repairs to roofing or lineman for power companies, provided that all appropriate PPE and H&S protocols are being followed, or for the operation of machinery at a waste disposal site where large congregation of gull directly in front of the driver may obstruct their view and so risks causing an accident. It is unlikely that gulls would present a health and safety risk to operators of machinery where gull numbers are small/minimal (e.g. forklift drivers in a warehouse or garden centre).

Lethal Control

Applications for the lethal control of chicks and adults will only be considered as a last resort. It must be clear that all suitable alternatives have been tried or legitimately ruled out, or that there are significant welfare concerns for the bird.

Here are some examples of what would and would not qualify:

Would qualify:

An adult or chick has been found in a location where it poses a risk to public health or safety and cannot be removed without significantly harming the bird.
A nest containing newly hatched chicks is at severe and likely risk of starting a fire, however in this case a licence for relocation within close vicinity of the nest site would be preferable to lethal control.

Would NOT qualify:

A licence to kill chicks without any prior efforts being made to prevent nest building or hatching of the eggs.
While carrying out the licenced removal of nest and eggs, a nest with chicks is discovered and appears to have been missed during previous visits.
A licence is issued for nest and egg removal, but chicks are discovered upon carrying out the first site visit.

These cases would be refused on the basis they do not pass the 2nd legal test of no other satisfactory alternative.

Nuisance Gulls - Reporting and Response Timescales

If gull behaviours meet the above criteria, then calls from either Council tenants or concerned building users (e.g. schools) are to be passed to dlo.schedulers@moray.gov.uk

DLO Schedulers will then contact our specialist Contractor (SVC) by an initial telephone call followed by a confirmation email highlighting the following information: -

The property address and location.
Tenant/Building user contact details.
Brief report of issue (e.g. swooping gulls etc.)
Response timescale - default response time is to visit within 24 hours of each report, however, Emergency situations to be responded within 4 hours of call.

The Contractor (SVC) will then provide the following information within three working days after each call is attended: -

Details of any action taken. (e.g. No Action/Nest Removed/ Nest & Eggs Removed/ Other Actions)
A copy of the Nature Scot licence application, if required.
A record of the date and time attended, and action taken