Skip to main content Skip to main navigation

Shouldn't there be a claw-back clause in the legal agreement such that if the contribution isn't spent after a certain period of time, it will be returned?

The developer contributions will be quickly spent after they are received because the mitigation measures require an ongoing revenue stream in order to pay for rangers' salaries etc. Therefore, claw-back clauses are not justified. They would merely add complexity to legal agreements (and thus additional costs for all parties) and add uncertainty to the mitigation delivery process. In addition, repayment would mean that no mitigation was being provided for the development, which would thus mean the developer having to undertake their own Habitats Regulation Assessment and provide their own mitigation measures.