CAN the Environment Agency please explain to Guardian readers why the rule for their spending on the Weaver is six times tighter than their rule requiring businesses to spend?
The agency apply cost benefit analysis on projects.
The ratio for their spending, for example dredging bottom flash on the Weaver, is 8:1 but 1:1.40 for businesses, eg Tata, and that is after further indirect benefits were included.
So how is the agency to be accountable for their cost benefit analysis on future projects?
I support CWAC policy of eco-tourism for the Weaver, for the jobs that it will bring while conserving biodiversity. That policy is undermined if the agency make businesses uncompetitive.
Please can the agency explain themselves.
Will Charlton Winsford
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here