I am already advising Richard Benyon on some smaller examples but this offers very large savings that will provide both environmental protection and economic regeneration . My experience is particularly in the marine and coastal environment but the same principles apply in the national parks and in planning  on land 

In line with DC's "Big Society" and his aspirations to devolve decisions down to the local level, all the agencies would be reduced down to a  research and advisory function supporting the local authority officers. These in turn would work with local business and community groups that have already  been set up by DEFRA  under a scheme referred to as "Market Town Health Checks or similar Parish Council projects to draft local Action Plans. I worked on one such project.

These groups have effectively audited the delivery of every level of government, their agencies and all the quangos. They canvassed the opinions of local Business Leaders, Community Groups and Households and  then came up with local holistic action plans to deliver what the local community really wanted, as opposed to what the agencies  council and quangos were tasked to deliver under their government imposed, often narrowly defined objectives, which often bore no resemblance to local needs.

What was impressive about the local Action Plans produced was that so many of them could be implemented by collaboration between local stakeholders all helping each other and the need to call on the Taxpayer was often minimal or non-existent. Furthermore, they could achieve very rapid change where the task had previously been passed between agencies with none accepting responsibility to "make it happen"

DEFRA, the MMO, the EA and Development Agencies have been holding similar consultations and stakeholder working groups, which I have attended those at the highest level, including the drafting of the Marine Policy Statement but they are facilitated by government staff .  What is clear that very similar win-win opportunities emerge and the stakeholders are only to keen to demonstrate their commitment to positive environmental action.

However the terms of reference of public sector staff is such that the cannot  broker the compromises between stakeholders needed and come up with the highly positive proactive action plans the private sector are so keen to help deliver. Their fear of failure precludes them supporting innovative and pragmatic solution solutions that deliver positive change. 

The "precautionary principle" and EU environmental  regulation makes them totally risk averse. It is not in their career interest to take the sort of manageable risks that the private sector sees as essential to make progress.

Currently EU environmental regulations impose huge administrative burdens  on industry, all the government agencies and every level of government . They effectively imposes "No  Negative Environmental Impact" on every project. Not only is that totally counter-productive but it also inhibits sensible pragmatic action that can achieve very large Net Positive Environmental Impact at far less cost and far greater benefit to both biodiversity and productivity.

In these financially constrained times, it would entirely reasonable to make EU regulations subordinate to a British law/regulation which would oblige  every holistic project in an environmentally sensitive area only to be able to demonstrate a net positive environmental impact  across every aspect of the project unless any party could identify real cause for concern.  A change to DEFRA's implementation of the Habitats Regulation in the Marine Environment in response to the Lymington Ferry dispute last year went some way towards this already.

Since every project would be able to demonstrate Net Positive Environmental Impact it would be hard for the EU to prosecute for some minor negative impact. This would free up huge numbers of staff tied up in regulatory  issue and allow stakeholders to take the lead in developing local holistic action plans focused on both Economy and Environment.  

The only way to fund a sensible response to climate change and sea level rise in the coastal zone is to harness the enormous economic value it holds, both in terms of real estate values and employment prospects.  Equally we may want to conserve the biodiversity of our seas but the best way to achieve that is not just to impose conservation areas but to ask those already active in the environment such as cable layers, wind farm operators and aggregate dredgers to do something positive to make our seas more productive . Examples  include creating spawning areas for fish in  coastal defences  or habitat for fish stocks in wind farm tower scour protectors or artificial reefs in marine aggregate excavations for shell fisheries  or reefs that prevent  replenishment material being lost from beaches thereby reducing the demand  for dredging marine aggregate.

 

I have completed 20 case studies for DEFRA/ the EA to show what can be done a the difference between the southern hemisphere where they have the freedom to act  and achieve major changes at very low cost and the EU where attempts to do something positive are often delayed or prevent by the habitat regulations

As David has challenged civil consortia to leave and offer to do their own job better this would be entirely appropriate for the coastal zone where local authorities are already  combining forces or putting the function out to tender.