Another example of a conservation body behaving extremely unprofessionally.
There is no way that 15% of the visitors to the park will cease to go there if this happens.
There's also got to be some question about the alleged financial cost - it will be an optimistic figure that overlooks things such as that some people stay in B&Bs because they are travelling reps or are there for some other reason that's not to see the heather-covered moors.
The figure put about by the Park Authority is basically utter fabrication.
I'd guess that the figure has been set astronomically high on the instruction of someone who decided to oppose the plan as soon as they first heard about it. Probably someone who would be considered an'environmentalist' and who knows full well that the mine would not have that impact.
The problem is that figures produced by such government authorities are generally believed. After all, they're professionals looking after the environment, so why would they lie?
The applicant, however, is merely motivated by greed and therefore must have made everything up.
The BBC report reflects this: there's no counter-claim that the Park Authority's figures are quite obviously plucked out of the sky and designed to fit an agenda. Instead, they're given equal weight to the applicant's position, nay, even given greater weight.
It's a sad situation when people in public office who have a agenda abuse that position to frustrate jobs and economic development by lying - and it's all very well for them, sat in a warm office taking home a generous salary from the taxpayer.
Hello again darkness, my old friend...