Environment
These regulations aim to promote sustainable development and protect the environment.
You can find all 278 regulations that relate to environment here [opens in new window].
For ease of commenting we have broken these regulations into the following seven areas:
The current legislation does a good job of looking after our environment. It stops over hasty development and preserves endangered species. We need to insist on maintaining protection of our environment because it belongs not to us but to generations to come. The economy will not be regerated simply by allowing house builders and other developers short term financial gain. The “right to roam” should be given legal protection.Comment Tags: economic recovery, endangered species, hasty development, right to roam
I am very concerned at the implication that regulations to protect the environment are ‘red tape’. The wording of the initiative – red tape challenge – strongly suggests the intention is to remove rather than improve regulation. Is it ‘burdensome’ to protect endangered species? Is it ‘burdensome’ to limit industrial emissions to protect the health of the affected population?
It is important to retain a comprehensive set of environmental regulations. The Agencies charged with enforcing these regs have shown that they are able to apply these controls in a way that is appeciative of the pressures on business and so as to take account of economic situation, sometimes perhaps too much account. Given that there is still a serious problem with environmental inequality in the UK, it is essential that we continue to operate the highest standards of environmental protection. It is still a serious matter of concern that people in our more deprived communities, suffer lower environmental standards, and this is linked to their poorer standards of health, and potentially levels of attainment.Comment Tags: deprived communities, Good environment and good health
Continued population growth in the UK is leading to greater demand for housing and infrastructure, creating pressures on our natural resources (principally land and water). At the moment every development is required to have a proportionate level of assessment to ensure that the impacts to man-made and natural resources are understood and mitigated. Yes, this costs money, but who better to pay for this assessment than the developers. If there will no longer be a requirement for developers to fully consider the impacts of their developments, who will?
If planning regulations are really so burdensome, how did we manage to have such a boom in construction right up until the beginning of the recession? The coalition government is trying to divert our attention away from an economy that isn’t recovering and a level of borrowing that isn’t reducing. Developments that harms the environment is not a sustainable method of returning us to economic growth.
It seems that all it takes for ill-advised legislation to prevail is for good people to do nothing (however busy they might be). A presumption in favour of development unless plans to the contrary are laid in quick time, or a default position that hard won rights to roam could be lost for want of a groundswell of response to this prospect, amongst others is cock-eyed and undemocratic. Loud, active minorities should not prevail.
How will public interests be met by relaxing rules and regulations, enabling more of our precious environment and wildlife habitats to be lost forever? Our green spaces are sacred to us and future generations. When they’re gone they’re gone. Fewer or more relaxed planning rules will allow profitmongers to cash – in on this ill thought – through political vote-winner.Comment Tags: green spaces, wildlife habitats
Whilst being generally in favour of the Government objective of reducing the legislative burden on industry, I fear that in the case of environmental regulation, the end result is likely to be catastrophic for the environment, potentially cause very substantial capital expenditure on water and sewerage undertakers, and create the likelihood of spread of disease to the human population. Surely, this topic should be tackled by primary cconsolidating legislation (already in preparation I understand) and therefore subject to full and proper consultation and review. I write from experience, much at a senior level, of more than 40 years of atteempting to enforce existing legislation on industrial firms, water supply catchments, and on environmental conservation including fisheries. I have found that in too many places, the only argument that matters is “the bottom line”, and the environment is way down company objectives.Comment Tags: oppose the means., support the objective
Why not scrap also the highway code? We could sack ..sorry efficiently redeploy resources used for traffic wardens, stop wasting money on millions of traffic lights enforcing tyrannical norms, and have a transition to a voluntary code which is much more in line with liberal [read \"Tory\"] principles. I say let individual choice rule!
I am very concerned that the Government is considering reducing regulation in any area, let alone the environment. I believe that this approach (will it really save money?) will undermine much of the hard work that has gone towards protecting our (finite) resources, regulating dangerous waste disposal, and encouraging the public to enjoy our environment responsibly. I would like to see a sensible approach to regulation, not a half measureComment Tags: commonsense environment regulate
Environmental legislation is crucial to ensuring we protect our exisiting environment for future generations while providing a level platfrom from whcih the economy is to operate. Any amendments to exisiting legislation need to be carefully examinated and evaluated and should not be removed without proper consultation and diligence.Comment Tags: air quality, biodiversity, energy, environmental permits, noise and nuisance, Waste
I am pleased to have such environmental legislation in place that promotes sustainable use of resources and better planning, particularly those associated with planning and land contamination which help protect the public and environment from porrly conceived / dangerous developments.Comment Tags: Contaminated Land
Having worked with numerous developers, they typically see the existing regulations as a tick box nuisance exercise that they HAVE to do, not WANT to do. Can you really expect anyone with this mentality to follow a voluntree code? Especially when it will save them thousands of pounds?
This is another case of the goverment expecting the environment to ‘take one for the team’ and they should scrap this ridiulous idea.
The ‘Red Tape Challenge’ is an ill-conceived, ill-informed, waste of time, effort and resources. From this exercise as with other environmental ‘initiatives’ put forward the public is coming to recognize that, this government lacks understanding, interest or any true vision for the future. This initiative demonstrates lack of comprehension of how or why achieving positive long-term change for the environment is at all necessary. But the need for business (and us all) to take responsibility for negative impacts and degradation of environmental resources on which we all depend is both real and urgent.
Legislation and regulations have developed in response to identified needs through time. If duplication or over complexity exists within systems in place then rigorous and educated mechanisms for ongoing assessment should be designed to increase clarity without losing protections put in place. This requires proper consideration and informed advice obtained through a comprehensive process, not partial and arbitrary contributions leading to thoughtless destruction and disregard of what has taken years to create.
Rather than being a burden to business, environmental regulations serve to encourage development of new areas for business, promote greater efficiency (in terms of materials and energy use) and decrease waste.
The public do not want to see the usual change for change’s sake and negligent actions without proper consideration of the consequences. We want to see real initiatives, innovative ideas for how business and the wider community can develop and improve on the past failure to protect our environment and fundamentally to protect our own long-term interests.
I agree there needs to be some regulation in this area but peoples understanding about noise levels also needs to be improved. Just because say you can distinguish the sound of music over other equally noisy background noise (traffic for example) does not make the music a noise nusiance.
We need environmental regulation to ensure that people abide by the law, to give control and regulate activities we undertake. We need a proforma to follow so we dont commit environmental offences and cause environmental damage, but the volume of regulations coming into force has become onerous and can be difficult to manage when changes are issued each month. It would be more managable if new regulations / amendments to regulations in force where introduced say twice a year – say April and October.Comment Tags: Timing of regulations
I am pleased to have regulation that places increasing emphasis on the maintenance of a living environment for society that provides clean air, water and food and also green space for people and wildlife. This RTC is commendable but really it comes down to this: Establish working groups of ‘experts’ and civil servants in the relevant policy area; develope financially effective, science and evidence based proposals that you then consult on widely (and amalgamate / update old legislation); pilot the resultant strategy / plans / projects and then implement refined versions more widely. This RTC process is a useful adjunct to this process but is no substitute for a proper process and opens up the possibility that a vocal response from the extremes of opinion in any one policy area will drive the creation of bad legislation. It ain’t rocket scienceComment Tags: environment, policy, red tape challenge
Legislation has been put in place to protect natural habitats from those actions that would erode and destroy these priceless assets. There are many selfish organisations and individuals who would like to see these protective legislations weakened, so that they can exploit for profit.
Clearly the message isnt getting through to these unscrupulous boardrooms and desperate profit scrapers, that they wont be getting their hands on any more land, for whatever reason they construct.
So lets continue to protect this nations wildlife and its habitat from these affronts. It seems obvious to me that more protection is needed if there is any threat.
Not less.
Why scrap these regulations. They are there for a purpose. One of which is to restrict the rapaciousness of corporations which would run riot and wreck the environment if they could. Unfortunately this government is in their pocket. We need more environmental protection not less
This whole exercise is flawed from the start.Comment Tags: Government Propaganda
We need strong legislation on the environment to protect the future of our planet and all who live on it. Legislation needs to be enforced – not a voluntary code.Comment Tags: enforcement
The natural environment is a much longer term asset than the life of a government or the vagaries of the economy. Economic policy is ephemeral compared with the millennial processes that formed the environment we share with our wildlife. Environmental protection measures acknowledge the incalculable worth of such assets, which are inadequately acknowledged in fiscal and conventional economic audit methodologies. For this reason, environmental legislation has been hard won over the years, often being portrayed as a luxury subservient to ‘hard’ economics. This is certainly fallacious ethically, in view of the damage that we can do to the legacy we leave to future generations, and is probably fallacious economically, given the interdependence between the natural world and human wellbeing and prosperity. Therefore I believe the Government’s regeneration policies should respect all preceding environmental protection legislation. Furthermore, if its claim to be the greenest government every is to be seen as any more than empty rhetoric, it should find ways of regrowing the economy while AT THE SAME TIME enhancing and strengthening environmental protection law. I believe that with imagination, creativity and leadership, including re-education of reactionary and opportunistic forces within the business establishment, these twin goals are perfectly attainable.Comment Tags: environment protection legislation economy establishment business policy green rhetoric nature wildlife