Member

These combined factors make it very easy for the SNCBs to block development with little or no credible evidence of an adverse impact. The ecologists interviewed by Catherine Howard provide multiple examples of where this has happened. The SNCBs can speculate about hypothetical risk and their view is treated as unassailable in the decision-making process. This is compounded by the fact that, as I understand, in many cases the SNCBs refuse to appear to have their written objections tested at hearings. I wonder why that is.