As with any statement on the economy, the devil is in the detail and it is worth delving to see what is being proposed.
In addition to reopening debates about an airport in the Thames Estuary, announcing a £250 million package to help energy-intensive industries meet the costs of their carbon emissions targets and reviewing the Habitats Regulations, the Chancellor proposes further reforms to the role of statutory consultees including Natural England and Environment Agency.
The National Infrastructure Plan makes a number of proposals for ‘improving’ the planning and consenting regime, on the grounds that it results in delay and costs for building infrastructure in the UK. Many of these proposals seem to be designed to give developers more power in the planning process in relation to statutory bodies such as Natural England, which play a vital role in advising local planning authorities on the environmental impact of development projects.
As reported in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, under the plans, the Environment agency, Natural England and English Heritage will have a new “remit” to promote “sustainable development”. The Government said this would mean that the agencies would have to “contribute to a competitive business environment”. I am not sure that is really why we have these agencies. We want independent champions of the natural environment.
One of the more worrying proposals is to make it easier for developers to obtain an award of costs if a statutory body has acted ‘unreasonably’ (para 6.15, p109). At the moment, if a local planning authority has refused permission for a development and a public inquiry is held, a developer can apply for costs if the authority, or a statutory body which is advising it, has acted unreasonably. This can cover a range of issues from spurious reasons for refusal, to over-enthusiastic requests for information. It also applies the other way round where a developer has behaved unreasonably, perhaps by submitting new information at a very late stage in inquiry proceedings. Ultimately it’s for the courts to decide what is unreasonable. Successful awards for costs are rare, but developers often use the threat of costs as a tactic to ensure their proposals are favourably considered.
Making it easier for developers to get costs will mean that bodies like Natural England will spend their time looking over their shoulder, fearful that they’ll be burdened with the developer’s legal fees if they mount robust objections against damaging development. Like local authorities who give developments the nod, frightened of bullying and deep-pocketed developers stinging them for costs, they may be tempted to take the easy way out and not object to damaging development.
What’s more, the Government talks about extending this approach from the inquiry stage (normally at the end of the planning process) to the pre-application phase of planning for major infrastructure.
There may be more, but this is surely enough for us to cope with for now.
I agree with your point about the Agencies, Peter. I think that we need strong, independent champions of the natural environment. Whatever we, as a charity, say will always be interpreted as having an ulterior agenda. Science based organisations which can offer truth to power are still needed.
From what I have seen of new the barrage ideas for the Thames it would seem an essential proposition to me; London being flooded is simply a No No; not outlined in the budget but the airport was certainly integral to the newspaper copy !
More widely plainly this government has no idea as to what "green" is ? If it was nt untrue as to what Cameron and Co said on the NHS and "the greenest government ever" prior to this election; can someone tell me what untruthful means ? Cameron is a lighweight and certainly marooned, out of place, on the very margins of Europe .
My own regret is that EN and EA were not integrated with Countrside Commission into a larger EPA type body ! The "Natural England" move has largely been a MAFF takeover with nature conservation subordinated into customer focus for farmers; these endless reshuffles of the chairs have gained no authority or independance post NCC; but any form of "quango" independance at all looks like wishful thinking these days ! Heads down boys !