Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
'
where environmental costs are lower or where the trade-off of environ-
mental loss against economic gains is more acceptable
.
27
Thebiasinfavourofeconomicactivityisapparentinthewaythat
arguments made in favour of development proposals or against them on
environmental grounds are viewed. Projections of demand and expected
pro
'
t are regarded as possessing an objectivity in relation to which the
environment is negotiable.
28
In addition, opposition to proposed projects on
grounds of the value of places for environmental health or because of their
aesthetic qualities tends to be viewed, unless the area concerned has a
relevant statutory designation, as subjective and therefore as providing a
less-valid basis for decision-making than statements of need or expected
nancial gain.
29
That is not to say that circumstances have not arisen in
which proposals are rejected on environmental grounds. The concern is
more that there is a manifest imbalance in that the bene
ts of environmental
protection and conservation have to be demonstrated whilst
'
the bene
ts of
.
30
It is unsurprising that, faced with this strong systemic presumption in
favour of development, planners and advocates of stronger environ-
mental protection under the planning system have used concepts to
support positions that offer potential to
development are taken as axiomatic
'
'
match the apparently objective
.
31
status of other claims
'
In particular, notions that the environment
'
s
capacity to accommodate developmental pressures is not
nite, and
therefore that there is a need for humanity
'
to operate within the
have been readily adopted.
32
The UK Government has also, in its belated recognition that some basis
for resolving con
ecological carrying capacity of the earth
'
icts between economic and environmental objectives
must be found, included the importance of
'
living within environmental
limits
as one of the headline principles of its sustainable development
strategy.
33
'
It de
nes
'
environmental
limits
'
, albeit
in a distinctly
27
Cullingworth and Nadin,
'
Town and Country Planning
'
,p.252.
28
Owens,
'
Negotiated Environments
'
,571.
29
Owens,
'
Negotiated Environments
'
,571;OwensandCowell,
'
Land and Limits
'
,1stedn,
5, 123.
30
Cowell and Owens,
pp. 54
-
'
Sustainability
'
,p.18.
31
Owens and Cowell,
'
Land and Limits
'
, 1st edn, p. 49.
32
Ross,
'
Modern Interpretations
'
, 38. See also Owens,
'
Land, Limits and Sustainability
'
,
pp. 445
-
6; Rydin,
'
Land Use Planning and Environmental Capacity
'
, 751; Owens and
, 2nd edn, p. 3.
33
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs,
Cowell,
'
Land and Limits
'
'
Securing the Future
'
,p.16.The
current government
s sustainable development strategy (Department for Environment,
Food, and Rural Affairs,
'
'
Mainstreaming sustainable development: The Government
'
s
