Ecological planning - Ecological Governance - page 181

what is important for environmental health. 131 The clearest basis for
setting a bottom line in ecological planning would be to use areas
identi

ed in plans as being of importance for ecosystem functionality
as a reference point. 132 Activities that would disturb these areas would
either not be permitted or would be allowed subject to prior noti cation

and approval as identi ed in the relevant plan.

In addition, decision rules should be applied to all development pro-
posals, whether or not they affect protected areas, to determine their
compatibility with the system of governance s ecological objectives.

Application of these rules will, as noted above, be informed by the prior
environmental assessment of proposals. I suggest that a staged approach,
similar to that already used in the UK in decision-making on projects that
would harm biodiversity and under EU law for projects and plans that
present threats of harm to protected sites, should be employed. 133
Development that could undermine resilience should not be permitted if
alternative possibilities that present no threat of harm to ecosystems,
including different locations, scales of development and means of realising
the same bene

'

ts that the proposal pursues, are available. As I argue
throughout this topic, a search for alternatives that pose less of a threat of
harm than those under consideration is of the essence in a system of
governance that aims to improve the protection of ecosystems despite the
impossibility of knowing the extent to which our activities heighten risks of
their degradation and failure. The identi

cation in plans of preferred areas

for development would signi cantly assist with this search whilst the

presumption in favour of consistency with plans would hopefully limit
the number of con

icting proposals coming forwards. If no alternatives to
the proposal are available, then measures to mitigate the perceived threat of
harm to ecosystem functionality should be taken. These should only enable
the award of development consent where they engender complete con -

dence that the feared harm can be avoided.
The decision rules to be applied in ecological planning would depart
from those used in the EU and UK 134 by advising that a project whose
features of concern cannot be removed through ex ante mitigation
should not be permitted. The policy statement and the Habitats
Directive permit damaging development respectively where this can be

131 Ibid ., p. 57. 132 Chapter 5, Section 5.3.4 .
133 Department of Communities and Local Government,

' National Planning Policy

Framework ' , p. 27, para.118; Habitats Directive, Article 6(4).

134

Ibid .