|
If you are a marine scientist, or even a marine conservation enthusiast, every bay, creek, headland, estuary, sandbank and saltmarsh is unique, invaluable of great importance. Does this give that group the right to draw a ransom strip across the intertidal area? Because, with all the various designations, that is virtually what has happened. The concept that we should protect and nurture the finest examples of coastal habitats seems to have evaporated.
If a limited scale development is proposed that will involve the removal of intertidal mud in an area that is not designated, refusal to grant consent because of the loss of intertidal area sends out the signal that no development in the Solent involving intertidal areas could be approved. In one example similar to that just described, mitigation was proposed that would have helped arrest erosion of nearby protected area. If it really is the policy of English Nature to deny even such projects, then they should come out and say right away that they are opposed to any development that involves any loss of intertidal area in the Solent, designated or not. Such a policy statement could be subject to judicial review, but it is conceivable that that is the only way the issues can be addressed and resolved.
Ecology is clearly a key planning issue. Indeed it is presumed by some to be dominant. To take such a view is, however, inconsistent with the principles of sustainability. Nevertheless, there are massive regulatory processes in place to protect ecology, principally the Habitats Regulations.
|
