business, politics, protest, society, Uncategorized

Economic Impact of Opposing UK Fossil Fuel Extraction

Photo by Jan-Rune Smenes Reite on Pexels.com

My heart always sinks when I see news footage of hobby eco-protesters standing outside a court building, waving placards, and celebrating the stalling of yet another commercial project. This time It was the Rosebank oil exploration project, off Shetland, in which Shell had invested £800 million and involved one of the largest undeveloped oil and gas fields in the UK continental shelf, containing an estimated 300 million barrels. And why do our most senior judiciary seem to think it is their mission to wave their green credentials to tease out the tiniest administrative flaw in the regulatory approval process, to send everything back to the drawing board? Who appoints these people? It follows hot on the heels of another court judgment crushing implementation of proposals to open Britain’s first new coal mine at Whitehaven, for more than 30 years. In each case, the judicial mantra was the same. “That the proposals failed to adequately assess the greenhouse gas emissions tied to burning fossil fuels.” And we know that with a government energy minister so opposed to fossil fuel extraction, that none of these projects are ever likely to happen. But haven’t these eminent legal brains slightly missed the point?

Yes – we know that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. Which is why we need to put in place viable alternatives .But neither the Rosebank nor the Whitehaven projects were about burning fossil fuels. They were about extracting fossil fuels so that we don’t have to import them from abroad. Either way. fossil fuels will still be burnt, because at the moment we have nothing else. And of course those projects would have also created thousands of well-paid jobs. So what is the point they are making? And it is entirely appropriate for me to refer to these eco-protesters as hobbyists, as none of them would have suffered direct personal detriment as a result of either of these projects. It is all about the big abstract ‘we’. And what message does it send to the outside world? A Britain which is so up itself that it is prepared to cut off its nose to spite its commercial face. Who would want to invest in us? The next big battle is going to be about the proposed third runway at Heathrow Airport. Even if it goes ahead, I’m not sure that I will still be around when it is completed. But that’s no reason not to support it.

I really blame the last conservative government for this farce. They had 14 years to drive these projects through. But instead they preferred to spend their time posturing about Brexit and their precious Rwanda scheme, as everything else around them fell apart. And they were a government which was in hock to the NIMBY lobby, which is why the cost of HS2 ballooned almost to the point of cancellation.

When it comes to the third Heathrow runway, I’m with Rachel Reeves. I know she’s had a bad press, but I’m convinced that she’s trying to do her best to grow the British economy. Again, so different from the last lot, the ‘party of business’. But even now, opposition to the third runway is cranking into gear, not least from London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who has promised court proceedings to try to stall the project.

Spending my money to fight a court case against his own parliamentary party? What is that all about? And he hasn’t even consulted me. A case of public money fighting public money. How wasteful. But that is Britain today.

Uncategorized

Cornwall Council’s Car Park Outsourcing: Legal Concerns Explained

Photo by Jens Mahnke on Pexels.com

I have to query the legality of the proposal by Cornwall Council to outsource the management of up to 22 of its car parks, to take them out of statutory control under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Isn’t that precisely what Robert Goodwill MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, warned against in his open letter to local authority parking managers of 16th September 2014? Well not quite! Goodwill’s letter was aimed at some councils who thought it okay to opt themselves out of the statutory local authority parking regime and instead manage their car parks under Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, which now governs the management of private car parks. It was the 2012 Act which abolished unregulated wheel clamping on private land and instead introduced a regulated process to enable the owners of private car parks to manage their operations. Though why any local authority could have thought it lawful to opt out of statutory regulation is beyond me. But Cornwall’s case is different because the Minister’s 2014 letter makes no mention of leasing arrangements, which is what Cornwall Council is proposing in this case. Hang on!

The prospective lessee of Cornwall’s 22 car parks is not any old company. According to a council report, the prospective lessee will in this case be a wholly owned subsidiary of Cornwall Council. Least, that’s what the Scrutiny Committee report of 4th September 2024 states:

“Following a successful trial at Tower Headland ( Little Fistral) in Newquay, a new model of managing some of our car parks has been considered which supports the principle of decentralisation. Essentially this involves the transfer of a car park site by means of a lease to a council owned company, who would then manage the land; paying rental at least sustaining the income to the council and removing the liability of the council to maintain and manage the asset.”

A council-owned company! How arms length is that? The only other companies we can see mentioned in the reports are the privately owned Treveth and Conserve, which would be managing the day-to-day operation of the car parks.

Key to the legality of outsourcing an off- street parking place is paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which defines ‘relevant land’ to which Schedule 4 applies and which is stated as follows:

“In this schedule relevant land means land (including land above or below ground level) other than:

a) a highway maintained as a public expense ( within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980;

b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic Authority;

c) any land not falling within paragraphs a or b on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

The other thing which I noticed when reading the officer reports is that, as far as I can see, no mention was made of the Minister’s 2014 warning letter. Nor of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012. Forgive me! But aren’t those ‘material considerations’ for any decision of this type? Apparently not. Let’s see what the Parking Adjudicator makes of it.