|
if all the tests regarding alternatives and overriding public interest have been satisfied, the developer must provide compensation for any adverse impacts to the site. In effect, what constitutes compensation is determined by the conservation agencies, yet another classic example of the Loop. Queries to English Nature have established that it is preferred that the compensation should be close to the site, and if at all possible, within the same ‘ecological area’. That is a sensible enough requirement. But if the whole area (i.e. the Solent) is designated, it is difficult to provide compensation without doing further damage to the site.
Moreover, it was established with English Nature that compensation built in advance could not easily be taken into account – despite the frequent claims by environmental pressure groups that compensation is always late in delivering environmental gain (it can take years for a new site to mature).
The process of building new habitat in advance of need for compensation is known as “Habitat Banking”. Its great merit is that it ensures that the net environmental impact is always positive - there is no lag between a project being built and the compensation maturing into healthy habitat. There are complications, and experiments along these lines in the USA have had patchy results. Some senior environmental campaigners, however, argue that if development is inevitable, we must be brave enough to develop habitat banking rules. The nearest we have got in this country is the Coastal Habitats Management Programme (CHAMP) being developed in conjunction with flood defence plans. The fa |
