blob: c294001b18999ea190e7060ce86714937af49f30 (
about) (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
|
- general ideas taken from the readings:
- EIA often done too late, so only options are mitigation or
acceptance
- economic benefits often outweigh environmental damages in
decision-makers' eyes. This could be avoided with a limits-based
approach / SEA.
- councils may simply be too busy or understaffed to properly
evaluate an application, especially when it is a complex
application.
----------------------------------------
- according to survey (section 2.8)\parencite{ME1069}, number of
pre-hearing meetings (for notified applications) went down; also the
number of successful pre-hearing meetings went down.
- upward trend: number of objections against consent decisions (see
section 2.10)\parencite{ME1069}
- side agreements: applicants can buy consent by paying directly
affected people, incurring poor environmental outcomes for the
community or future generations. \parencite{PCE1998}
\begin{quote}
The environmental risks associated with side agreements depend on
the council’s knowledge and treatment of any contractual
arrangements by consent applicants. Good practice by the consent
authority can help to minimise these risks. For example, where a
private agreement does not necessarily result in effects on the
environment being mitigated, consent authorities should impose
appropriate conditions to mitigate these effects.
\end{quote} \parencite[][p 9]{PCE1998}
- wider example may be the golden link mine where the applicant
promised to do unrelated work for the community to secure approval
|