Wednesday 21 January 2009

Policy and Law
Exam Summary

In summary of the question 2 statutory nuisance. Statutory nuisance is defined in the environmental protection act 1990 part 3. “Noise coming from premises that is harmful to health. Except aircraft.”

Statutory nuisance is a useful tool for an environmental activist to use, although it is based on the publics health it often crosses over into the up keep of the natural environment.

The magistrates court is guided by:
· Nature and location
· Time and duration
· Utility of activity


www.rbkc.gov.uk/EnvironmentalServices/noise/statutory
www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1993/ukpga_
www.southampton.gov.uk/environment/environmentandpollution/publichealth/noiseinfo/ststnuis

Tuesday 25 November 2008

policy and law

Tim Elks

‘The house believes that conservation of the natural environment has greater importance than economic growth.’
As a Marine Leisure Management student I was against the notion of the environment being more important than economic growth.
In our team we each decided what a good argument would be. Pete the team captain put forward the points of general economics, the local economy and the down turn of the current situation. Matt’s argument was highlighting the good points of the new 300 berth marina being built in Falmouth. Adam was talking about Donald Trumps golf course that has recently been given planning permission on the coast of Edinburgh. Joe proposed the expansion of Heathrow airport as a positive movement forward.
My argument was encouraging the proposal of the super cruise ships to be brought into Falmouth resulting in the dredging of 700,000 cubic meters of material out of the bay. The dredging will enable the mega cruise ship industry to actually moor up in Falmouth with its thousands of passengers able to walk straight from the ship on to dry land.
Currently some of the smaller cruise ships have been using Falmouth to stop as it is perfectly placed as a gate way to the channel, Europe and is pretty much smack bang in the middle between Ireland and Southampton or Dover. At the moment the passengers are being tendered to shore using much smaller boats. This is not possible to do in bad weather which results in the ship and all its money passing straight by on to the next port. Also the environmental footprint is much greater tendering hundreds maybe thousands of people to the shore. These small boats would have to do many journeys spitting out a lot of pollution into the bay.
Recently the EIA have just completed a £500,000 assessment analysing the environmental impact the dredging would have on the area. Some of the headline findings are:
· The dredging would not cause a long term effect on the integrity to the SAC area.

· Removing of dead maerl and relaying it on dredged areas in the new channel will maintain the protected maerl habitat.

· 600,000 cubic meters out of the 700,000 cubic meters could be disposed offshore, with only temporary reduction to water quality. The results suggest the material will not return to the SAC.

· Dredged materials such as old boats and other materials will be removed safely and treated before being used to build the terminal or to be disposed of in landfill sites.

· There will be no impact on the beaches in the surrounding area.

The initial headline findings show that the dredging will not cause damage to the SAC or surrounding area.

Recently there has been a new development in dredging technology making the process easier to monitor.
The Fowey based Triskel Marine Ltd company have developed a dredge monitoring data buoy. This is a cost effective way to monitor inshore marine data which can transmit information straight to the operator by text message. This real time monitoring can help keep to the agreed environmental limits, and if the threshold is exceeded the operator will be notified immediately and the dredging will cease until the situation has been rectified. Poole has been using the dredging monitor on a project and has reported it to be working successfully.

The other team the Environmental managers combated our arguments well, using many good arguments. Alex put forward a good opening statement and following up with the facts about decreasing algae and seaweed around the area and British isle highlighting the importance of it to the land and marine areas. Angy was countering me on the cruise ship and dredging subject using the extra waste and increase of pollution as the as the main argument. Gavin spoke about the agriculture and the over fishing. Laura put forward the point of deforestation for palm oil in Indonesia. Ollie talked generally about the morale issues of economic growth.
In evaluation of the debate i feel both side ended in agreement that economic growth is important but should not be done at the expense of the environment. If the two sides work together it is a possible out come that we can expand, make money whilst sustaining the environment.