Letter: Legal measures to protect SSSIs
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In proposing a new 'watchdog organisation' to increase the security of Sites of Special Scientific Interest through invoking European Community law, Carol Hatton (Letters, 10 August) overlooks a fundamental distinction between European and British environmental legislation.
European legislation requires the British government to take 'requisite measures' to conserve nature 'at a level which corresponds to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements'. Thus, where the interests of conservation are in competition with those of alternative land uses, the Government is required to come to a balanced decision.
The same does not hold good for SSSIs, for the requirement placed on the Nature Conservancy Council and its successor bodies by British domestic legislation is very different. These bodies cannot take a balanced view in a broad socio-economic context, for their remit requires them to notify SSSIs wherever there is a scientific interest that they consider to be special. In deciding to notify an SSSI, no other consideration is relevant.
There is little justification for the assumption that European law requires that SSSI notification per se should override the planning process, and there can be no justification for a claim that in Britain the planning process so neglects environmental matters as to conflict with the spirit of European legislation. It is, therefore, difficult to envisage what functions the proposed 'watchdog organisation' would perform, and what advantages it would yield to nature conservation.
Yours faithfully,
GEORGE P. BLACK
Newbury, Berkshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments