It was never intended that certain Trusts, especially Wildlife Trusts, should bankrupt the economy. They were intended to protect habitats and conditions under which wildlife survived. I appreciate mission creep as it is a natural phenomenon, give them an inch and they will take a mile. It is time these bodies were restricted to certain limits of intervention and the limit is the one used in France for nuclear developments and river crossings. When we eventually start installing the Small nuclear reactors I hope some sense prevails and that government places restrictions on environmental reports in the interests of the tax payer.
@John Woods [sorry I can never seem to get my replies to 'stick' to the original comment] I am unsure here as to what extent you (and many others, really) think that the taxpayers are really penalised by environmentalism and organisations like the Wildlife Trusts. There are millions of taxpayers (and I mean that - simply start with the number who are members of environmental organisations, for instance) who are concerned that the environment is not given enough consideration in development decision-making. And even if there aren't enough surely it is clear from examples such as the recent sewage, water quality and flood defence issues (more particularly the costs of 'cleaning up after environmental underinvestment' or 'paying for the after-costs of inappropriate development') that the interests of the taxpayer are not being adequately served by the current and continued under-consideration of the environment when planning for (sustainable and economically equitable) development. The lessons of the past and current times are that environmental austerity in the present will only lead to a more bankrupt future taxpayer/economy (witness the contents of the recent security risk report).
Interesting stuff, here, Sam, but I think your arguments are often times factually incorrect or aimed at a point not actually being made....for example starters, the WT are factually correct that the DETERRENT is only £50M (the clue is in the word - the other two mechanisms are not deterrents but are forms of mitigation/impact reduction); and as a second example, you refer to the LURA 2023 duty and what the WT are saying is that it provides CLARITY, not that there is SUPPORT (those are two very different things...though you can support the clarity and still disagree with the intent!) and clarity does not necessarily mean a reduction in contestable decisions, does it...in the bigger picture, the WT are saying that to move the goalposts yet again so early into the adoption is likely to ('may well', in my words) lead to even less certainty (and therefore even more contest). ...Just two examples, but I think the same problem can be applied to each other point. Sorry.
The WT talk about the £700m figure, which the Fingleton Review is clear on being the cost of the three measures and not just the acoustic fish deterrent.
And the LURA Duty isn't clear. There is a clear lack of clarity over what it implies should be done and extensive haggling over compensation. It's hard to argue something that's generated so much legal paperwork counts as improving clarity.
Hi Sam, that's fine but neither of these latter points are actually what I read your article to say, I'm afraid. Your quotes from WT and the Fingleton Review both point out that the deterrent is £50M...if you are actually saying that the dishonesty lies in only pulling out that £50M as being fish-protection-required (as opposed to water-cooling-operation-required...the distinction is important, but there is some degree of overlap, of course), then I didn't find that clear in your (albeit concise) report. And I'm afraid that as I read it I don't think that you really discussed the clarity issue originally - at least it didn't come across that way to me...(without knowing the actual details behind the legal paperwork and challenges) I would argue that increased clarity can indeed lead to lots of paperwork (hence the distinction between clarity and intent) - the challenges may arise because of, for instance, arguments around the fairness and validity of 'moving the goalposts by the process of increasing validity' (I'd need to know the details of the cases).
It was never intended that certain Trusts, especially Wildlife Trusts, should bankrupt the economy. They were intended to protect habitats and conditions under which wildlife survived. I appreciate mission creep as it is a natural phenomenon, give them an inch and they will take a mile. It is time these bodies were restricted to certain limits of intervention and the limit is the one used in France for nuclear developments and river crossings. When we eventually start installing the Small nuclear reactors I hope some sense prevails and that government places restrictions on environmental reports in the interests of the tax payer.
@John Woods [sorry I can never seem to get my replies to 'stick' to the original comment] I am unsure here as to what extent you (and many others, really) think that the taxpayers are really penalised by environmentalism and organisations like the Wildlife Trusts. There are millions of taxpayers (and I mean that - simply start with the number who are members of environmental organisations, for instance) who are concerned that the environment is not given enough consideration in development decision-making. And even if there aren't enough surely it is clear from examples such as the recent sewage, water quality and flood defence issues (more particularly the costs of 'cleaning up after environmental underinvestment' or 'paying for the after-costs of inappropriate development') that the interests of the taxpayer are not being adequately served by the current and continued under-consideration of the environment when planning for (sustainable and economically equitable) development. The lessons of the past and current times are that environmental austerity in the present will only lead to a more bankrupt future taxpayer/economy (witness the contents of the recent security risk report).
Interesting stuff, here, Sam, but I think your arguments are often times factually incorrect or aimed at a point not actually being made....for example starters, the WT are factually correct that the DETERRENT is only £50M (the clue is in the word - the other two mechanisms are not deterrents but are forms of mitigation/impact reduction); and as a second example, you refer to the LURA 2023 duty and what the WT are saying is that it provides CLARITY, not that there is SUPPORT (those are two very different things...though you can support the clarity and still disagree with the intent!) and clarity does not necessarily mean a reduction in contestable decisions, does it...in the bigger picture, the WT are saying that to move the goalposts yet again so early into the adoption is likely to ('may well', in my words) lead to even less certainty (and therefore even more contest). ...Just two examples, but I think the same problem can be applied to each other point. Sorry.
I disagree.
The WT talk about the £700m figure, which the Fingleton Review is clear on being the cost of the three measures and not just the acoustic fish deterrent.
And the LURA Duty isn't clear. There is a clear lack of clarity over what it implies should be done and extensive haggling over compensation. It's hard to argue something that's generated so much legal paperwork counts as improving clarity.
Sam, the long and the short and the tall of it is that I read your words differently and have obvs not properly seen the points you were making.
Hi Sam, that's fine but neither of these latter points are actually what I read your article to say, I'm afraid. Your quotes from WT and the Fingleton Review both point out that the deterrent is £50M...if you are actually saying that the dishonesty lies in only pulling out that £50M as being fish-protection-required (as opposed to water-cooling-operation-required...the distinction is important, but there is some degree of overlap, of course), then I didn't find that clear in your (albeit concise) report. And I'm afraid that as I read it I don't think that you really discussed the clarity issue originally - at least it didn't come across that way to me...(without knowing the actual details behind the legal paperwork and challenges) I would argue that increased clarity can indeed lead to lots of paperwork (hence the distinction between clarity and intent) - the challenges may arise because of, for instance, arguments around the fairness and validity of 'moving the goalposts by the process of increasing validity' (I'd need to know the details of the cases).