I made a comment on your previous blog on this subject.
I broadly agree that there are too many and too severe reasons for delaying planning on the construction of projects in the national interest. France puts the priority firmly on national interst and is why they can build so quickly.
However, as I said before, the project must be suitable and effective which far too many government projects and aims are not. Making them quicker and hence cheaper does not alter the fact that they are the wrong things to build.
M.P.s and the government are not experts but act as though they are, and the civil service who should be advisors are no better.
While I can't see parliament relinquishing their belief in their competence, we do need parliament to do no more than say that this particular aspect of whatever infrastructure it is needs X and leave it to real experts in the field to suggest how. This also need scrutiny and differing expert opinion needs analysing and debating. Easy to say, I know but must be better than the system we now have?
For example, if experts were allowed to argue the case for net zero or not, we would perhaps not have that target, set, not by the U.K. but by the United Nations, supported by the E. U. when we were in it.
The fact that our government was so stupid as to pass a law on it is beyond belief.
Should it be that the argument for net zero is passed then how to achieve it is another debate, and I for one, would be extremely surprised if a single wind turbine or solar panel was grid connected.
It is so obvious that only one source of non CO2 emitting generation fits the bill of reliability, stability and having the necessary technical attributes for U.K. grid supply; Hobson's choice is nuclear, nothing else is available with the right criteria.
I am in total agreement that it needs to be made easier to build housing and other infrastructure. However I’m not sure you’re arguing against the other sides best arguments.
From what I’ve heard the main issue from non-profits and NGOs etc is that the because they are doing away with site specific assessments there is potential for huge harms.
For instance if you are doing some large project that is home to a huge population of protected badgers developers will not have to mitigate to protect the badgers.
Even if you don’t particularly care for badgers you must see that there are some sites in which the environmental harms are so high that we wouldn’t want to allow development there.
Without site specific assessments we won’t be able to protect any such site
Even as a paying Wildlife Trust member, I agree almost entirely with Sam on this one. The fact is the environmental charities are single-issue bodies, and that is fine, but they are taking a zero-tolerance approach which is actually leading to incredibly costly missed opportunities. With just a fraction of the bat tunnel money a new woodland could be planted which, in 20-30 years, wold be suitable for reintroducing new bat colonies. I really don't think they are seeing the true cost of their zero-tolerance proposals.
I do think it is sensible for EDPs to implement a biodiversity net gain principle to some extent. The fact is our biodiversity and access to nature is too low to meet people's needs; ecological recovery and increased access to natural spaces needs to be planned in. A net gain approach will also counter the fact that inevitably imperfect studies will tend to underestimate the value of local natural capital assets as not all information can be economically captured. Biodiversity net gain reduces the need for excessively detailed studies and the thousands of pages of bureaucracy that come with them. The question is how "significant" should the net gain be, in this world of finite resources?
Great essay.
Sam,
I made a comment on your previous blog on this subject.
I broadly agree that there are too many and too severe reasons for delaying planning on the construction of projects in the national interest. France puts the priority firmly on national interst and is why they can build so quickly.
However, as I said before, the project must be suitable and effective which far too many government projects and aims are not. Making them quicker and hence cheaper does not alter the fact that they are the wrong things to build.
M.P.s and the government are not experts but act as though they are, and the civil service who should be advisors are no better.
While I can't see parliament relinquishing their belief in their competence, we do need parliament to do no more than say that this particular aspect of whatever infrastructure it is needs X and leave it to real experts in the field to suggest how. This also need scrutiny and differing expert opinion needs analysing and debating. Easy to say, I know but must be better than the system we now have?
For example, if experts were allowed to argue the case for net zero or not, we would perhaps not have that target, set, not by the U.K. but by the United Nations, supported by the E. U. when we were in it.
The fact that our government was so stupid as to pass a law on it is beyond belief.
Should it be that the argument for net zero is passed then how to achieve it is another debate, and I for one, would be extremely surprised if a single wind turbine or solar panel was grid connected.
It is so obvious that only one source of non CO2 emitting generation fits the bill of reliability, stability and having the necessary technical attributes for U.K. grid supply; Hobson's choice is nuclear, nothing else is available with the right criteria.
This is brilliant Sam. Well-researched, well-argued and alerting us where the danger that it will be watered down is coming from
I am in total agreement that it needs to be made easier to build housing and other infrastructure. However I’m not sure you’re arguing against the other sides best arguments.
From what I’ve heard the main issue from non-profits and NGOs etc is that the because they are doing away with site specific assessments there is potential for huge harms.
For instance if you are doing some large project that is home to a huge population of protected badgers developers will not have to mitigate to protect the badgers.
Even if you don’t particularly care for badgers you must see that there are some sites in which the environmental harms are so high that we wouldn’t want to allow development there.
Without site specific assessments we won’t be able to protect any such site
Even as a paying Wildlife Trust member, I agree almost entirely with Sam on this one. The fact is the environmental charities are single-issue bodies, and that is fine, but they are taking a zero-tolerance approach which is actually leading to incredibly costly missed opportunities. With just a fraction of the bat tunnel money a new woodland could be planted which, in 20-30 years, wold be suitable for reintroducing new bat colonies. I really don't think they are seeing the true cost of their zero-tolerance proposals.
I do think it is sensible for EDPs to implement a biodiversity net gain principle to some extent. The fact is our biodiversity and access to nature is too low to meet people's needs; ecological recovery and increased access to natural spaces needs to be planned in. A net gain approach will also counter the fact that inevitably imperfect studies will tend to underestimate the value of local natural capital assets as not all information can be economically captured. Biodiversity net gain reduces the need for excessively detailed studies and the thousands of pages of bureaucracy that come with them. The question is how "significant" should the net gain be, in this world of finite resources?