Environmental permits, information and damage
The environmental permitting regulations set the operating conditions for businesses through a permitting framework. Its risk based approach includes a hierarchy of permits from those that are tailor made for larger, more risky operations to simple registrations and exemptions from permitting for less risky operations. Permitting operations include industrial installations, mobile plant waste and extractive waste, those discharging to water and/or groundwater and radioactive substances activities.
The environmental information regulations aim to involve the public in environmental matters by giving them the right of access to environmental information held by public authorities.
The environmental damage regulations oblige operators to take steps to prevent serious environmental damage from occurring or, where it does occur, to make good such damage in line with the polluter pays principle.
You can find 3 regulations that relate to environmental permits, information and damage below to the left.
|
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs) Increase access to environmental information in order to increase public participation in environmental decision-making, inform debate, and increase awareness of environmental matters.
|
|
Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 The Regulations provide a risk based framework to control activities that could cause pollution.
|
|
Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009 The regulations place obligations on operators to make good serious cases of damage to the environment, transposing the provisions of the EU Environmental Liability Directive.
|
Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:
- Should we scrap them altogether?
- Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
- Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
- Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
- Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
- Should they be left as they are?
For example, you might consider how the application process for permits could be further improved or the requirements for smaller businesses further simplified.
This is a very specific item – watercourse consents – with relation to fibre optic cable ducts. At present, you need permission within 9m of certain watercourses to do any work. This is understandable for works which may be a potential pollution hazard, but when relating to laying a duct, similar to a plastic waterpipe, the consents required are unnecessarily complex and will either prevent communities and providers laying duct in which to connect rural properties to fibre optic networks and/or add unnecessary cost and delays.
In many instances, there is no need to drill and a little common sense about the process, and the damage it will NOT cause vs the beneficial impact of allowing consumers in rural areas to finally have access to affordable, true, next generation broadband must be allowed to overcome the red tape and associated expense, time, resource etc.Comment Tags: broadband, consents, environment agency, fibre optic, water course
Agreed. after researching the fees and processes demanded by the EA for a simple recycling business. not a polluter or ‘producer of waste’ I recycled the business plan.
No wonder its still cheaper to send waste abroad. It may be illegal, but the EA are too busy collecting money to enforce their own rules.
Business pays the EA £50 per hour
(FOI Request)Comment Tags: environment agency