I see that Natural England has amended its original advice over the application to build 10 large broiler sheds on farmland near Rushden.
There are two main changes to their new comments.
First, NE has picked up my point on the NH3 emissions from the chicken waste once it is removed from the sheds – where is it going? This was not covered by the modelling exercise.
Second, there is the highly significant passage:
air quality assessment for all stages of the operation
survey and/assessment of the site as potential functionally linked land‘
What’s that stuff all about? Functionally linked land? Eh what? In this case what that means is that the proposed site may be functionally linked to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA if Lapwing and Golden Plover for which that site is designated use this proposed development site for feeding, resting, roosting etc. And it seems from the observations of a local that they do.
So, it seems that NE have picked up on two of my points in my objection letter and that East Northants Council would be on very dodgy grounds to approve this proposal. I believe they would be open to judicial review of their decision unless they get some proper data on use of the site by Lapwings and Golden Plover over the course of this winter.
More on this tomorrow.
[registration_form]
Won’t apply once we’re out of the EU and the government have put those regulations on the bonfire using their new Tudor powers
Hogwash.
I think you will find that the Wildlife and Countryside Act does not depend upon any referral to EU legislation, neither does the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations etc…
The Special Areas of Conservation are sites that have been adopted by the European Commission and formally designated by the Government of each country in whose territory the site lies.
However, there are also SCIs, which are sites of community importance, and they are sites adopted by the European Commission but not yet formally designated by the government of each country.
Candidate SAC’s are sites that have been submitted to the European Commission but not yet formally adopted.
I have confidence that in the long process of unravelling legislative referrals to the Commission, that care will be taken not to let important stuff fall through the cracks, such as the SCIs.
In England, the number of SACs is 235. The number of SCIs is just 7. There are no candidate SACs in England.
In Wales, the three numbers are: 85; 0; 0
In Scotland, the three numbers are 236; 2; 0
There are some cross-border sites (England/Wales/Scotland): 10: 0; 0
So, not a big threat.
However, there are some offshore sites, and the numbers are: 5; 10; 1
Also, the EU can similarly repeal legislation. Or pass legislation which is directly against our interests. ‘We’ are a considerably smaller constituency within the EU than ‘we’ are within Westminster.
After all, the Commission even appears to decide whether to apply their legislation on a case by case basis. How arbitrary is that?
The way EU Directives work is that Parliament has to pass its own law to bring the legislation into being. No longer being a member of the EU does not negate that legislation.
On the question of SPAs I believe the JNCC draw up the list of sites for registration based upon their own criteria, and that the criteria (a citation and a Natura 2000 Standard data form) are legal documents in the UK. The UK Government authorises reviews of the SPA network throughout the UK, and the review presents species lists which qualify for legal protection within each SPA.
Looking at protected areas designation status:
AONB are protected by several Acts, including the Environment Act 1995
Areas of Special Protection are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Country Parks are protected by the Countryside Act 1968
Limestone Pavements by the WCA 1981
Local Nature Reserves by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
Marine Conservation Zones by the Marine and Coastal Act 2009
Marine Nature Reserves under the WCA 1981
National Nature Reserves by WCA 1981, and others.
National Parks by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
Ramsar under world-wide international treaty.
SSSIs by the WCA 1981 and other Acts.
SPAs under the WCA 1981, and beyond 12 nautical miles by the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 2007
World Heritage Sites under the World Heritage Convention
National Trust by the National Trust Act 1907
SACs and SPAs form the Natura 2000 network.
I cannot guarantee this is all absolutely watertight, but it looks pretty comprehensive to me.
Remember, it was the ‘green crap’ duo of Cameron and Osborne who were fighting desperately to keep us IN the EU.
No way is this watertight. The Habitats Regulations translate the EU Birds and Habitats Directives into UK law. These are by far the most powerful protection for wildlife in the UK. They only work because if the UK government doesn’t implement them, people can complain to the EU who then fine the UK. I know first hand that this is often the motivation for protecting SAC/SPA sites.
Once we are out of the EU there will be no-one to ensure these Regulations are implemented and unless an alternative mechanism is proposed (which isn’t looking likely) then they will fall into disuse.
SSSIs can be sacrificed by government whenever it suits them.
Please read:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/17/uk-withdrawal-bill-rips-the-heart-out-of-environmental-law-say-campaigners
Greenfly – I’m closer to your view than Keith’s on this.
“They only work because if the UK government doesn’t implement them, people can complain to the EU who then fine the UK.”
This is blatantly untrue.
I complained about the UK Government permitting the destruction of a rare colony of bats to the EU Court of Justice, in direct contravention of the Habitats Directive. The (unelected) Commission took TWO years to consider my case, and then REFUSED permission for the court to hear my case! There was NO RIGHT OF APPEAL.
So, Greenfly, what you claim “people can complain to the EU who then fine the UK” is proven to be FALSE! It is not only FALSE, but ARBITRARY. The unelected Commission alone decide what is enforced and what is not. That is not democracy.
Greenfly, have YOU ever taken the UK Government to the EU Court of Justice, or are you pontificating without any evidence?
You also make the outrageous claim that if LAWS passed by Parliament are not implemented, then – unless we are a member of some external, superior, protectionist block – no one can enforce those laws! You must seriously believe that before we joined this protectionist club that the laws of the UK were also entirely arbitrary. Perhaps you think the Judiciary are NOT independent of the Executive in our unwritten Constitution?
If you do, then perhaps you should provide the evidence. I am waiting…
Also, how do you explain the successful prosecutions in THIS country against hunting with dogs, when the EU has declined to pass such a law?
How do you explain our superior animal welfare standards?
How do you explain our establishment of conservation charities well BEFORE the EU existed and WELL before such organisations existed on the continent? How do you explain the FAR greater support for conservation charities in the UK than exist in ANY other EU state?
What the hell does the Guardian know? The Guardian is biased toward this protectionist block. George Monbiot knew about my case, but nothing was published! He expressed written sympathy with me privately! (I do NOT hold anything against him, by the way, but I still have the evidence.)
The Guardian hasn’t got a clue. It is printing propaganda.
Mark says: I believe they (East Northants Council) would be open to judicial review of their decision unless they get some proper data on use of the site by Lapwings and Golden Plover over the course of this winter.
Absolutely agree about the need for proper data. And, because of the power of an image to influence Councillors’ decisions, what about getting some good quality photos of the flocks of Golden Plover and Lapwings? There are many excellent wildlife photographers living not far away – so here’s a project: who can get a powerful image of the wild birds using the site now? (There’s a public footpath at SP993639).
Mind you, a Judicial Review will often set campaigners back about £30K, even without using a QC 🙁 And the campaigners will have to set themselves up to be protected from unlimited costs should they lose 🙁 Local Planning Authorities usually baulk at the potential costs of an appeal, which is why they often eventually cave in to powerful and determined developers prepared to spend £100K on legal expertise:-(
It is a loaded system.
Keith – you’re not completely correct there but the gist of wht you say is correct. the rich always have greater access to justice than the poor. Although in this type of case then crowdfunding is the way forward.
Well, Mark, please explain the EU’s failure to ENFORCE the Birds Directive regarding the legal(!) and illegal shooting of (migrating) birds throughout southern Europe.
I am NOT pretending that the UK is perfect (Sovereign bases on Cyprus) but we HAVE written into British Law all the wildlife protections emanating from the EU, plus additional ones NOT supported by the EU(!), without reference to EU sovereignty (ie NOT dependent upon our EU membership). Much of the subsequent (to our joining) EU environmental legislation came from, or was greatly helped by, British initiatives.
Keith – I have explained that on this blog quite a few times and I will probably come back to it again, but not on a comment about the local planning system. thanks though for your comment.
Thanks for the ‘thanks’, Mark. I haven’t seen ALL of your blog… (By-the-way, my ‘reply’ was meant to refer to your comment on the Greenfly thread, but ended up as a ‘new’ comment, as if it referred to your original article.)
As you can probably tell(!), it gets my goat when people claim that ONLY the EU can properly defend our environment, here in the UK. Where is the evidence, I want to ask them? In the EU, an unelected, unaccountable Executive acts as principal ‘gatekeeper’ to the Judiciary.
(I really would like to know why our own environmental legislation is considered to be somehow unenforceable if we are not a member of the EU? How on earth do we enforce all our other legislation? Answers on a postcard, please…)
Cheers…