DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Covenants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Law Commission Consultation Paper No 211 CONSERVATION COVENANTS A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod QC and Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation: This Consultation Paper examines the case for introducing “conservation covenants” into the law of England and Wales, and considers how a scheme of conservation covenants might be framed. A conservation covenant is a private agreement made by a landowner, for the purposes of conservation. We discuss the current law and set out a number of provisional proposals and options for reform on which we invite consultees’ views. Geographical scope: The Consultation Paper applies to the law of England and Wales. Impact assessment: In Chapter 9 of this Consultation Paper, consultees are asked also to comment on the likely costs and benefits of any changes provisionally proposed. Consultees’ responses will inform our final recommendations and a formal impact assessment document that will be published with our Report. Availability of materials: This Consultation is available on our website at: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/conservation-covenants.htm. Duration of the consultation: We invite responses from 28 March 2013 to 21 June 2013. Comments may be sent: By email to: [email protected] or By post to: Luke Campbell, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0200 / Fax: 020 3334 0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could send them to us electronically as well (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format). After the consultation: In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide our final recommendations and present them to Government. iii Consultation Principles: The Law Commission follows the Consultation Principles set out by the Cabinet Office, which provide guidance on type and scale of consultation, duration, timing, accessibility and transparency. The Principles are available on the Cabinet Office website at: https://update.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/consultation-principles-guidance. Freedom of Information statement Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes (such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)). If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please explain to us why you regard the information as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Law Commission. The Law Commission will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in most circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. iv THE LAW COMMISSION CONSERVATION COVENANTS: A CONSULTATION PAPER CONTENTS Paragraph Page CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1.1 1 Background to the project 1.9 2 Wales 1.13 4 Structure of this Consultation Paper 1.15 5 Chapter 2 1.15 5 Chapter 3 1.16 5 Chapter 4 1.17 5 Chapter 5 1.18 6 Chapter 6 1.19 6 Chapter 7 1.20 6 Chapter 8 1.21 6 Chapter 9 1.22 6 Chapter 10 1.23 6 CHAPTER 2: CURRENT LAW AND THE CASE FOR REFORM 7 Introduction 2.1 7 What is a conservation covenant? 2.5 7 The parties 2.6 8 Made for conservation purposes 2.7 8 Running with the burdened land 2.8 8 v Paragraph Page No need for benefited land 2.10 8 Negative and positive obligations 2.13 9 Potential uses for conservation covenants 2.17 10 As an alternative to acquisition of land by public or voluntary sector bodies 2.18 11 As a safeguard where voluntary sector or public bodies dispose of their land 2.19 11 As a guarantee for individuals who sell their land 2.21 12 As an alternative to a financial donation 2.23 12 Payment for conservation action 2.24 12 Offsetting schemes 2.25 13 Further scenarios 2.29 14 The current law 2.31 14 Freehold covenants 2.32 15 Workarounds 2.36 15 Planning law and biodiversity offsetting 2.48 18 Designation of land 2.55 20 The case for reform 2.67 23 General provisional proposal 2.72 24 CHAPTER 3: COMPARATIVE LAW 25 Introduction 3.1 25 Scotland 3.7 26 Historical background 3.8 26 The legislative scheme 3.11 27 Use of conservation burdens in practice 3.15 28 vi Paragraph Page USA 3.18 29 The Uniform Conservation Easement Act 1981 (“the UCEA”) and state laws based on it 3.19 29 Other state legislation 3.27 32 Use of conservation covenants in practice 3.31 33 Canada 3.35 34 Provincial legislation 3.36 34 Use of conservation covenants in practice 3.39 35 Australia 3.41 35 State and federal legislation 3.42 35 Use of conservation covenants in practice 3.46 36 Biodiversity offsetting in Australia 3.48 37 New Zealand 3.51 38 The legislative scheme 3.52 38 Use of conservation covenants in practice 3.56 39 Conclusion: Similarities and divergences 3.59 40 CHAPTER 4: KEY FEATURES OF A STATUTORY SCHEME 42 Introduction 4.1 42 Who should be able to create a conservation covenant? 4.3 42 Who should hold a conservation covenant? 4.9 43 The spectrum of covenant holders 4.9 43 Holders of conservation covenants in other jurisdictions 4.11 43 Holding a conservation covenant in England and Wales 4.18 46 What conservation objectives should be sufficient to justify the creation of a conservation covenant? 4.30 49 Public oversight of new conservation covenants 4.41 52 vii Paragraph Page CHAPTER 5: CREATION AND REGISTRATION 55 Introduction 5.1 55 The nature of a conservation covenant 5.2 55 Formal requirements for validity 5.9 56 Duration 5.11 56 Terms 5.15 57 Standard terms 5.21 59 Registration 5.24 59 Priority 5.33 61 CHAPTER 6: MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT 62 Introduction 6.1 62 Managing obligations 6.5 62 What sort of management might be undertaken? 6.5 62 Statutory or agreed management obligations 6.11 64 Enforcement of the landowner’s duties 6.16 65 Liability for a breach 6.18 66 Approaches to conservation covenant enforcement in other jurisdictions 6.21 66 Enforcement of conservation covenants in England and Wales 6.29 69 Enforcement of the responsible body’s duties under a conservation covenant 6.60 75 CHAPTER 7: MODIFICATION AND DISCHARGE 77 Introduction 7.1 77 Action by the parties 7.5 78 Unilateral release by the responsible body 7.5 78 By agreement 7.12 79 viii Paragraph Page The effect of merger 7.17 81 Adjudicated modification and discharge 7.21 81 Section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 7.22 82 Section 84(1) today 7.26 83 Our proposals in the Easements Report 7.40 87 The application of section 84(1) to statutory covenants 7.43 88 The Lands Chamber and conservation covenants 7.47 89 Declarations under section 84(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 7.72 95 Modification under the planning system 7.75 95 CHAPTER 8: EXISTING STATUTORY COVENANTS 97 Introduction 8.1 97 Methods of modification and discharge 8.4 97 Statutory provisions which could be replaced by conservation covenants 8.5 98 Restrictive covenants made with the National Trust 8.6 98 Forestry dedication covenants 8.17 100 Other statutory covenants 8.26 103 CHAPTER 9: THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CONSERVATION COVENANTS 104 Introduction 9.1 104 Likely costs and benefits 9.2 104 Scope and scale 9.2 104 Development and growth 9.8 105 Better and more effective conservation 9.12 106 Removing the need for existing workarounds 9.16 107 Changes to the value of land 9.21 108 ix Paragraph Page Management and enforcement 9.24 109 Transitional impact 9.29 109 Modifying or discharging a conservation covenant 9.37 110 Increasing engagement 9.44 112 Further impacts 9.46 112 CHAPTER 10: LIST OF PROVISIONAL PROPOSALS AND CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 113 APPENDIX A: STATUTORY COVENANTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES 124 APPENDIX B: STATUTORY PROVISIONS 145 x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 1.1 Green spaces and unique habitats, remarkable buildings, and historic places are valuable to us. They give us a sense of identity and community; they help us to be healthier; they broaden understanding of our social and cultural heritage; they provide opportunities for recreation and relaxation; and they contribute to our economy. Historically, protection of these places was undertaken by individuals, families, and later by voluntary organisations. More recently, though, the emphasis has shifted, and the state has taken on responsibility for them by creating regimes of special protection, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and National Parks. 1.2 This project is about unlocking opportunities for individuals and conservation organisations to work together, using voluntary private agreements, to contribute to the cause of conservation. Our proposals therefore sit alongside, but are entirely different from, the mandatory public law mechanisms which already exist.1 1.3 How, then, can people make this contribution? At present, a number of complex and costly legal methods are available to protect land; they are not only inefficient, but have led to a piecemeal approach to private conservation of land in England and Wales.
Recommended publications
  • Land Use Element of the General Plan

    Land Use Element of the General Plan

    General Plan Land Use Element Adopted December 15, 1993 Amended November 9, 2011 Amended July 22, 2015 Amended July 26, 2016 Amended April 26, 2017 Amended September 26, 2017 Amended December 13, 2017 Amended December 17, 2019 Amended October 6, 2020 County of Sacramento Office of Planning and Environmental Review . This page is blank County of Sacramento General Plan Land Use Element Amended October 6, 2020 Table of Contents SECTION I ..................................................................................................................................... 1 ELEMENT INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 Required Contents of the Land Use Element .............................................................................. 1 Concepts of the Land Use Element ............................................................................................. 1 Relationship to Other Elements .................................................................................................. 2 Relationship to Other County Planning Tools ............................................................................ 3 Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts ................................................................................. 6 THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM ......................................................................... 7 How to Use the Land Use Diagram ..........................................................................................
  • Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Report 2020

    Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Report 2020

    London Borough of Enfield Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation An Addendumx to the Enfield Blue and Green Strategy Final report London Borough of Enfield Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation An Addendum to the Enfield Blue and Green Strategy Version Status Prepared Checked Approved Date 1. Draft report for client comment R. Turner S. Swindlehurst S. Swindlehurst 06.11.2020 A. Coleman R. Glackin 2. Final Report R. Turner R. Turner R. Turner 17.11.2020 3. Final Report – re-issued to take R. Turner R. Turner R. Turner 01.04.2021 into consideration comments from stakeholders Bristol Land Use Consultants Ltd Landscape Design Edinburgh Registered in England Strategic Planning & Assessment Glasgow Registered number 2549296 Development Planning London Registered office: Urban Design & Masterplanning Manchester 250 Waterloo Road Environmental Impact Assessment London SE1 8RD Landscape Planning & Assessment landuse.co.uk Landscape Management 100% recycled paper Ecology Historic Environment GIS & Visualisation Contents Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation November 2020 Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Background 1 Chapter 2 Methods 3 Site Selection 3 Desk Review 3 Site Survey 3 Site Evaluation 4 Limitations 6 Chapter 3 Summary of the SINC Assessment 7 Summary 7 Recommendations 7 Summary of SINC Review 8 Appendix A Figure 1.1-1.3: Biodiversity Assets in the Borough and Figure 1.2 Areas of Deficiency in Access to Nature A-1 Appendix B Figure 3.1: Summary of SINC Review Recommendations B-1 Appendix C Summary of SINC Review C-1 Appendix D Proformas D-1 LUC I i Chapter- 1 Introduction Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation November 2020 Chapter 1 Introduction LUC was appointed in June 2020 by Enfield London Borough Council to undertake a review of existing Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within the borough.
  • The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve

    The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve

    Scotland’s National Nature Reserves For more information about Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve please contact: Scottish Natural Heritage, Creag Meagaidh NNR, Aberarder, Kinlochlaggan, Newtonmore, Inverness-shire, PH20 1BX Telephone/Fax: 01528 544 265 Email: [email protected] The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve Foreword Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve (NNR), named after the great whalebacked ridge which dominates the Reserve, is one of the most diverse and important upland sites in Scotland. Creag Meagaidh is a complex massif, with numerous mountain tops and an extensive high summit plateau edged by a dramatic series of ice-carved corries and gullies. The Reserve extends from the highest of the mountain tops to the shores of Loch Laggan. The plateau is carpeted in moss-heath and is an important breeding ground for dotterel. The corries support unusual artic- alpine plants and the lower slopes have scattered patches of ancient woodland dominated by birch. Located 45 kilometres (km) northeast of Fort William and covering nearly 4,000 hectares (ha), the Reserve is owned and managed by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Creag Meagaidh has been a NNR since 1986 and during the last twenty years SNH has worked to restore natural habitats, particularly woodland, on the Reserve. Like much of the Highlands, the vegetation has been heavily grazed for centuries, so it was decided to reduce the number of grazing animals by removing sheep and culling red deer. The aim was not to eliminate grazing animals altogether, but to keep numbers at a level that allowed the habitats, especially the woodland, to recover.
  • Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process

    Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process

    Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process By: Anna Bengtson Alyssa Cudmore Brian Fadie David Markowitz A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Natural Resources and Environment) at the University of Michigan August 2016 Faculty Advisor: Professor Steven Yaffee Client: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process Acknowledgements The authors of this report would like to express our gratitude for the mentorship and assistance of the following with this project: We would like to thank Dr. Steven Yaffee, Professor at the School of Natural Resources and Environment and Director of the Ecosystem Management Initiative at the University of Michigan. His insight and guidance were invaluable for the completion of this report. We would also like to thank Michael Sintetos, Renewable Energy Program Manager for the Bureau of Land Management in California. He was essential for setting up this project and introducing key players and sites to our team. In addition, we want to thank the Bureau of Land Management’s California state office for providing funding that allowed the team to visit the DRECP planning region and meet in-person with individuals. We are also grateful for the funding provided by the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment to assist with the creation and presentation of this material. Lastly, we would like to extend our gratitude to all those who allowed us to inquire about their experiences with the DRECP to allow for a more comprehensive report.
  • Mountain Areas Such As the Cairngorms, Taking Into Consideration the Case for Arrangements on National Park Lines in Scotland.”

    Mountain Areas Such As the Cairngorms, Taking Into Consideration the Case for Arrangements on National Park Lines in Scotland.”

    THE MOUNTAIN AREAS OF SCOTLAND -i CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT A report by the COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND THE MOUNTAIN AREAS OF SCOTLAND CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND Opposite: Glen Affric. 2 CONTENTS CHAIRMAN’S PREFACE 3 INTRODUCTION 4-5 THE VALUE OF OUR MOUNTAIN LAND 7-9 LAND USEAND CHANGE 10-16 WHAT IS GOING WRONG 18-24 PUTTING THINGS RIGHT 25-33 MAKING THINGS HAPPEN 34-37 THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS 38-40 Annex 1: The World Conservation Strategy and Sustainable Development 42 Annex 2: IUCN Categories for Conservation Management and the Concept of Zoning 43 - 44 Annex 3: Outline Powers and Administration of National Parks, Land Management Forums and Joint Committees ... 45 - 47 Annex 4: THE CAIRNGORMS 48 - 50 Annex 5: LOCH LOMOND AND THE TROSSACHS 51 - 53 Annex 6: BEN NEVIS / GLEN COE / BLACK MOUNT 54 -56 Annex 7: WESTER ROSS 57 -59 Annex 8: How the Review was Carried Out 60 Annex 9: Consultees and Contributors to the Review 61 - 62 Annex 10: Bibliography 63 - 64 3 CHAIRMAN’S PREFACE The beauty of Scotland’s countryside is one of our greatest assets. It is the Commission’s duty to promote its conservation, but this can only be achieved with the co-operation, commitment and effort of all those who use and manage the land for many different purposes. The Commission has been involved with few environmental and social issues which generated so much discussion as the question of secur ing the protection of Scotland’s mountain heritage for the benefit, use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
  • Wetland Action Plan for British Columbia

    Wetland Action Plan for British Columbia

    Wetland Action Plan for British Columbia IAN BARNETT Ducks Unlimited Kamloops, 954 A Laval Crescent, Kamloops, BC, V2C 5P5, Canada, email [email protected] Abstract: In the fall of 2002, the Wetland Stewardship Partnership was formed to address the need for improved conservation of wetland ecosystems (including estuaries) in British Columbia. One of the first exercises undertaken by the Wetland Stewardship Partnership was the creation of a Wetland Action Plan. The Wetland Action Plan illustrates the extent of the province's wetlands, describes their value to British Columbians, assesses threats to wetlands, evaluates current conservation initiatives, and puts forth a set of specific actions and objectives to help mitigate wetland loss or degradation. It was determined that the most significant threats to wetlands usually come from urban expansion, industrial development, and agriculture. The Wetland Stewardship Partnership then examined which actions would most likely have the greatest positive influence on wetland conservation and restoration, and listed nine primary objectives, in order of priority, in a draft ‘Framework for Action’. Next, the partnership determined that meeting the first four of these objectives could be sufficient to provide meaningful and comprehensive wetland protection, and so, committed to working together towards enacting specific recommendations in relation to these objectives. These four priority objectives are as follows: (1) Work effectively with all levels of government to promote improved guidelines and stronger legislative frameworks to support wetlands conservation; (2) Provide practical information and recommendations on methods to reduce impacts to wetlands to urban, rural, and agricultural proponents who wish to undertake a development in a wetland area; (3) Improve the development and delivery of public education and stewardship programs that encourage conservation of wetlands, especially through partnerships; and (4) Conduct a conservation risk assessment to make the most current inventory information on the status of B.C.
  • Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – a Guide to Good Practice

    Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – a Guide to Good Practice

    Planning for Biodiversity PLANNINGand Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice ISBN 13-978 185 112 852 8 ISBN 10-185 112 8522 Price: £18.00 Planning shapes the places where people live and work and the country we live in. It plays a key role in supporting the Government’s wider economic, social and environmental objectives and for sustain- able communities. Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – A Guide to Good Practice March 2006 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London Acknowledgement This guide has been produced by ODPM, Defra and English Nature. The Departments and English Nature wish to thank all those who assisted with the guide including those who kindly gave their permission for the use of case studies and other materials. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.odpm.gov.uk © Crown Copyright, 2006 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ.
  • General Plan 2040 August 2019 Draft

    General Plan 2040 August 2019 Draft

    General Plan 2040 August 2019 Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS How to Read this Preliminary General Plan Draft ............................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Trends and Forecasts ........................................................................................................................ 5 Sustainability Framework ................................................................................................................ 12 Section 1: Natural Resource Planning ................................................................................................ 15 Goals ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Protecting Native Habitats & Wildlife ............................................................................................ 15 Protecting Coastal Resources ......................................................................................................... 20 Coastal Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 20 Wetland Habitat ........................................................................................................................ 22 Managing Streams and Watersheds .............................................................................................
  • Open Mosaic Habitats High Value Guidance: When Is Brownfield Land of ‘High Environmental Value’?

    Open Mosaic Habitats High Value Guidance: When Is Brownfield Land of ‘High Environmental Value’?

    Open mosaic habitats high value guidance: when is brownfield land of ‘high environmental value’? Wildlife and Countryside Link Wildlife and Countryside Link (Link) brings together 45 voluntary organisations concerned with the conservation and protection of wildlife and the countryside. Our members practise and advocate environmentally sensitive land management, and encourage respect for and enjoyment of natural landscapes and features, the historic and marine environment and biodiversity. Taken together our members have the support of over 8 million people in the UK and manage over 750,000 hectares of land. This guidance is supported by the following nine organisations: Amphibian and Reptile Conservation British Mountaineering Council Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust Butterfly Conservation Campaign to Protect Rural England Open Spaces Society Royal Society for the Protection Birds The Ramblers The Wildlife Trusts Introduction Redeveloping brownfield land can provide sustainable development opportunities, reduce pressure on the Green Belt and other undeveloped land, and offer chances to promote economic regeneration. However, a minority of previously developed sites are havens for wildlife. Two of the UK’s top sites for wildlife diversity, are brownfield land and support some of the UK’s most scarce and threatened species. In many cases they provide the last ‘wild space’ in urban areas for local communities, allowing them access to nature and consequently improving the communities’ well-being. The National Planning Policy Framework is explicit that ‘previously developed’ land, treated as synonymous with ‘brownfield’, should be prioritised for development as long as it is not of ‘high environmental value’. Further clarity on this is not provided and there is currently no definition of ‘high environmental value’.
  • BBR05 Definitive Maps Historical

    BBR05 Definitive Maps Historical

    BBR05 This publication contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0. SUPERSEDED DEFINITIVE MAP ACTS, REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE CONTENTS ACTS Rights of Way Act 1932 2 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 16 London Government Act 1963 25 Countryside Act 1968 26 Courts Act 1971 30 Highways Act 1971 30 Local Government Act 1972 30 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 32 REGULATIONS National Parks and Access to the Countryside Regulations 1950 34 National Parks and Access to the Countryside (Amendment) Regulations 1963 35 National Parks and Access to the Countryside (Amendment) Regulations 1970 35 GUIDANCE Circular 81 of 1950 36 Surveys of rights of way 38 Circular 91 of 1950 49 Circular 20 of 1951 50 Circular 53/1952 52 Circular 58/1953 52 Circular 44/1968 54 Circular 22/1970 55 Circular 123/1977 57 ABBREVIATIONS CA Countryside Act BBR05 Superseded definitive map legislation at 20 May 2013 1 ACTS This transcript has been made available with the permission of the Open Spaces Society as copyright holder. The text of the Rights of Way Act 1932 is public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0. THE COMMONS, OPEN SPACES AND FOOTPATHS PRESERVATION SOCIETY THE RIGHTS OF WAY ACT, 1932 (with special reference to the functions of Local Authorities thereunder) ITS HISTORY AND MEANING By Sir Lawrence Chubb THE TEXT OF THE ACT WITH A COMMENTARY By Humphrey Baker, MA, Barrister-at-Law Reprinted with revisions from the Journal of the Society for October, 1932 First Revision -
  • Collier County, FL

    Collier County, FL

    COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Prepared by Collier County Planning and Zoning Department Comprehensive Planning Section Prepared for COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Adopted October, 1997 AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT SYMBOL DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. May 1, 1990 90-32 February 5, 1991 91-15 May 19, 1992 92-34 May 9, 2000 2000-25 ** May 9, 2000 2000-26 *** (I) May 9, 2000 2000-27 (II) October 22, 2002 2002-54 (III) June 19, 2002 2002-32 ***** (IV) December 16, 2003 2003-67 (V) October 26, 2004 2004-71 (VI) January 25, 2007 2007-16 # (VII) December 14, 2010 2010-49 ## (VIII) October 25, 2011 2011-40 (IX) January 8, 2013 2013-12 ### (X) January 27, 2015 2015-07 (XI) June 13, 2017 2017-20 ♦ The parenthesized Roman numeral symbols enumerated above appear throughout this Element and provide informational citations to adopted documents recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, as required by Florida law. These symbols are for informational purposes only, meant to mark entries amended after the 1997 adoption of the full Element and typically found in the margins of this document, but are not themselves adopted. Note: Amendments made by Ordinance Nos. 90-32, 91-15 and 92-34 are no longer denoted on the pages of the Element with Roman numeral symbols. * Indicates adopted portions. ** Ordinance No. 2000-25 rescinded and repealed in its entirety Collier County Ordinance No. 99-63, which had the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR objectives and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No.
  • Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

    Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

    Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 CHAPTER 16 CONTENTS PART 1 NATURAL ENGLAND AND THE COMMISSION FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES CHAPTER 1 NATURAL ENGLAND Constitution and general purpose 1Constitution 2 General purpose Advisory functions 3 Review and research 4Advice General implementation powers 5 Carrying out proposals etc. 6 Financial and other assistance 7 Management agreements 8 Experimental schemes Other functions 9 Information services etc. 10 Consultancy services and training 11 Power to charge for services and licences ii Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (c. 16) 12 Power to bring criminal proceedings 13 Incidental powers Powers of Secretary of State 14 Grants 15 Guidance 16 Directions CHAPTER 2 COMMISSION FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES The Commission and its general purpose 17 Commission for Rural Communities 18 Commission’s general purpose Functions 19 Representation, advice and monitoring 20 Research 21 Information services etc. 22 Power to charge for services 23 Incidental powers Powers of Secretary of State 24 Grants 25 Directions CHAPTER 3 SUPPLEMENTARY Transfer schemes etc. 26 Transfers on dissolution of English Nature and Countryside Agency 27 Continuing powers to make transfer schemes 28 Transfer schemes: supplementary 29 Interim arrangements Interpretation 30 Interpretation PART 2 NATURE CONSERVATION IN THE UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee etc. 31 Joint Nature Conservation Committee 32 UK conservation bodies Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (c. 16) iii 33 Purpose of functions under this Part Coordinated functions 34 Functions of national or international significance 35 Advice from joint committee to UK conservation body 36 GB functions with respect to wildlife 37 UK conservation bodies: incidental powers for UK purposes, etc.