It's the primary legislation. "Natural England's general purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
(2)Natural England's general purpose includes—
(a)promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity,
(b)conserving and enhancing the landscape,
(c)securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment,
(d)promoting access to the countryside and open spaces and encouraging open-air recreation, and
(e)contributing in other ways to social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment.
(3)The purpose in subsection (2)(e) may, in particular, be carried out by working with local communities."
That's all one sided: max conservation. Sustainable development and economic well-being are afterthoughts. Taken literally, it's absurd. One weird bug counts as "biodiversity", an errant weed deserves "conservation".
Juniper is petrified by the chance of judicial review by activists, so NE go as hard as they can to protect against it. They retreat to "it's just advice", but if the Secretary of State ignores them, then they get flayed by the courts. And EDF are looking at interests rates go to the moon and want to get things operational ASAP, so they decide the years and millions of fights aren't worth it, and build the silly disco.
It's ridiculousness all the way down. Because the primary legislation is bad. It's not a practical guide to how to balance humans and our shared planet, it's a wishcast to make the zealot feel heard and accomplished. The frustratingly unclear standard is by design!! People wanted this!
This is insane. Natural England has gone rogue. This is all so ludicrously disproportionate, and of course, as you point out actually deeply negative for nature!
Oh look, Dumitru's ignoring the concept of hierarchy of mitigation again! With the added bonus that the creation of new salt marshes is exactly the sort of thing he's continually called for as supposedly better than direct mitigation. Apparently this is too specific and the money should instead have no guarantee that it in any way mitigates the harms the project makes to specific species.
Also worth noting is that no point does Dumitru actually, you know, prove that Natural England's assessment of the adequacy of the mitigation measures is inaccurate.
It's the primary legislation. "Natural England's general purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
(2)Natural England's general purpose includes—
(a)promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity,
(b)conserving and enhancing the landscape,
(c)securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment,
(d)promoting access to the countryside and open spaces and encouraging open-air recreation, and
(e)contributing in other ways to social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment.
(3)The purpose in subsection (2)(e) may, in particular, be carried out by working with local communities."
That's all one sided: max conservation. Sustainable development and economic well-being are afterthoughts. Taken literally, it's absurd. One weird bug counts as "biodiversity", an errant weed deserves "conservation".
Juniper is petrified by the chance of judicial review by activists, so NE go as hard as they can to protect against it. They retreat to "it's just advice", but if the Secretary of State ignores them, then they get flayed by the courts. And EDF are looking at interests rates go to the moon and want to get things operational ASAP, so they decide the years and millions of fights aren't worth it, and build the silly disco.
It's ridiculousness all the way down. Because the primary legislation is bad. It's not a practical guide to how to balance humans and our shared planet, it's a wishcast to make the zealot feel heard and accomplished. The frustratingly unclear standard is by design!! People wanted this!
The galling part is that the tax payers foot the 300M+ bill for NE. We pay for it to cost us billions more.
Miliband is the threat to Britain's energy security. Not fish and salt marshes.
This is insane. Natural England has gone rogue. This is all so ludicrously disproportionate, and of course, as you point out actually deeply negative for nature!
Oh look, Dumitru's ignoring the concept of hierarchy of mitigation again! With the added bonus that the creation of new salt marshes is exactly the sort of thing he's continually called for as supposedly better than direct mitigation. Apparently this is too specific and the money should instead have no guarantee that it in any way mitigates the harms the project makes to specific species.
Also worth noting is that no point does Dumitru actually, you know, prove that Natural England's assessment of the adequacy of the mitigation measures is inaccurate.
Thanks for making me really really angry pre 11am this morn...!
At this point one has to ask: is Natural England a tool of the fossil fuel industry?
Great article, as always. You might find this paper useful - it discusses the use of Parliamentary mechanisms to expedite nuclear power construction amongst other reform ideas: https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/expediting-civil-nuclear-power-in-the-uk/