SUMMARY
1 Establish system of EBGs (Established Biodiversity Guardians).
- = Ecologists registered and approved by two respected organizations (FoE, CPRE, CivicVoice, etc.)
- With legal powers, they lay down (as law) what can be done to a site.
2 They establish Biome Value (BV) for each site.
Sliding scales from Keep 100% to All action allowed
- For (a) Biome Value (b) Tree Protection Categories (TPC) (c) Watercourses
- Exemptions only for private gardens ( < 2,000 sq ft?)
3 Especially for Parks etc.,
>> Intangible Gain Valuation (IGV) (IV is non-cash) decided byLOCALS.
4 Every case is local.
No trade-offs. No tariffs. Every site is a one-off.
- No future undertakings or covenants. Instead the concept of permanent responsibility
- Covenants can be broken, lead to lawsuits. Forget it. No market in these credits.
5 Advantages:
- i) Quick, simple, small fee to ecologist is tiny vs. estate agents’ commissions, tax, etc.
- ii) Reliance on certified-honest EBGs breathes whole new life into public awareness and consciousness.
Author
SF : Editor@city-voice.org (Site www.city-voice-org needs significant help in IT / development)
0 78 66 470 409 cel and whatsapp +55 11 9 3346 4762 Twitter info/news feed: @CityVoicEd
SEE >> The full proposal (a reply to a UK government consultation) at https://bit.ly/BRRegs
(Intro to above consultation response:)
- Defra Net Biodiversity Gain Consultation Response ID ANON-C7YZ-EBKP-F Submitted to ‘Net Gain’ 2019-02-10 00:44:48
- Name: S B Fry C. Email: editor@city-voice.org D. Organisation: www.city-voice.org @CityVoicEd
Sector or interest : www.City-Voice.org is planned to be an interactive T&CPlanning website to empower objectors and ideas – people who are otherwise marginalised or ignored – by giving their multiple views a platform, to strengthen this component of the dialogue.
Scope
| 1 | Should biodiversity net gain be mandated for all housing, commercial and other development within the scope of the Town and County Planning Act? | Yes | |
| Please provide any explanation for your answer here: 1 The development juggernaut has been hyper-enabled by government, and in general those who can see what’s going on are usually expressing themselves in terms of need for extreme protection for existing intangible assets. It is the fact that this opinion is occurring widely that indicates that protections of intangibles need to be excessively stated, legislated and reinforced so as to counter this trend to excess. Until the planning system returns to delivering a more neutral performance, it is appropriate for ‘extreme’ positions to be adopted to counter it. 2 Making this always a component of planning permissions would make developers AWARE that this is a mandatory aspect of our civilisation, to be respected (not a concern only of an eccentric minority). 3 It has been pointed out (writer Stella Stafford et al) that most ‘biodiversity’ will likely be in fact the fruit of maybe 1,000 years of growth and development of the land and its live components – i.e. highly probable that it is in practice irreplaceable: hence protection should be extreme as standard, to guard against weakness of defence (often in the form of badly-taken local authority decisions). Once gone, it’s gone. Assumption against. 4 Inadequate brief: I ask you to withdraw your brief-item which says: “Nationally significant infrastructure or other development not requiring planning permission is not in scope.” | |||