Offsetting may - repeat May only be a deterrant to greedy developers anxious to get their hands on prime+ building land for homes business premises etc for only the very few who can afford them, IF the profit they make after the event is offset by the cost of any nature reserve they are forced to make. In other words the environmental investment should compare most favorably. But! The reality. - In parts of Asia for instance, too many tin pot 1 acre nature reserves are springing up as a cheap n easy carrot to the council for picturesque building land - supposedly on the grounds that it will attract tourists and locals. So the plants get planted, the kiddie playparks get constructed, the board walks get hastily thrown together, the pretty informative notices spring up listing associated parties with a vested interest, colorful maps and pictures informing you of what you are highly unlikely to see. I mean what rare bird wants to sit on a reed bed island surrounded by people walking around it - or even a common magpie for that matter?
I would hate to see this happen to the UK's national parks esp places like Dartmoor.
The reason it remains wild and mysterious in character is its very incompatability with droves of tourists. Man made tourist attractions are not everywhere. Ancient hedgerows remain tall and deep. Lanes remain narrow and inaccessible.
Sorry for my 2p worth but the secretaries naivity makes me angry and the parks are quite possibly the UK's last irreplaceable treasure- so it was impossible not to say something. Furthermore, we cannot later say we were not warned.
