In the US there's also a third category besides "permit approved" and "permit denied", "no permit needed": the thing you are doing is allowed and not covered by the permitting process. You just do it. This shows up in both building code (you typically don't need a permit for most repairs or cosmetic renovations) and environmental protections (you don't need an environmental study for logging in a non-protected forest).

The tricky part with "no permit needed" is that while you can just go and do whatever, if someone charged with enforcement suspects you're doing something that requires a permit, they can still demand you prove you don't (and stop work until you do), and if you guessed wrong and you did indeed need a permit, you're double-fucked.

That's why for many of these processes, there's also something like a certificate of no-permit needed, where you go through an abbreviated permitting process spending a lot of time and money while all of the clerks and officials stare at you like you're a moron before finally giving you a piece of paper saying you didn't need to do any of that in the first place.

And that's why a lot of people with a lot of experience and a good understanding of the law skip getting a "no permit needed" certificate.

I am assuming it's similar in other countries.

A friend worked in the US tree cutting permit process. There were two main goals behind the permits (as I understand it):

1) To double check the harvest was not going to affect things outside their property (neighbors, land slides, erosion, etc), or special govt. interests on their property (endangered species)

2) To maintain their significant tax break. The break was for owning forest land, and you needed a plan to replant successfully.

Keep in mind that these are mostly 'working forests' that are more akin to wheat fields than wild forests.

It sounds like the issue was insufficient analysis of #1, resulting in excessive water run-off to neighboring privately owned property.

That being said, it could also be #2. The same friend worked on 'conversion' permits, wherein the owner asked to turn forest land into a residential or business property, and special considerations had to be addressed.

It's google trying to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, the news cycles making money on the cockup, and HN whiteknighting for Google because Google pays their wages directly and indirectly.

A viscous cycle all around!

I think they were expecting them to be replanted on the roof.