Colony of endangered spiders halts Government's plans for 1,300 new homes
A small colony of endangered spiders has halted the development of more than a thousand new homes in a blow to the Government's growth plans.
Plans to build hundreds of new houses and flats in Ebbsfleet in Kent have been abandoned after Natural England designated part of the Government-approved location - a filled-in quarry and the cleared site of a former cement works next to a railway station - as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
The designation was necessary to protect a colony of rare 'distinguished jumping spiders' from developers, Natural England said, even though doing so obstructed part of a £300 million Government-backed plan to build a new town.
Ian Piper, chief executive of the Government-backed Ebbsfleet Development Corporation (EDC), confirmed the environmental order would affect plans for homes saying an estimated 1,300 properties slated for development would be lost.
It will be seen as a blow to Rachel Reeves and the Labour government which has put house building at the heart of its plans to boost growth and kickstart the economy.
The Chancellor announced a major change to planning rules in January, saying she would strip green quangos of their powers to block building, saying they have wielded an 'oversized say on the future of our economy'.
Her comments were echoed by Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, who said this week, as she unveiled plans to slash red tape in the planning system: 'We're tackling the housing crisis head-on – for everyone who needs a safe home.'
Steve Norris, the Conservative former transport minister, who until last year chaired a company that tried to build a £2.5 billion theme park in the area in parallel with the planned Ebbsfleet Garden City, described the SSSI situation as 'ludicrous'.
'All I can tell you is that until Angela Rayner, to her credit, grasped the great crested newt, bats and jumping spider issue, a development corporation established by the Government for the express purpose of delivering much-needed housing was prevented - by an agency set up by that same Government - from delivering those homes, for reasons which it had no obligation to justify,' said Mr Norris.
'In any other democratic country that ludicrous situation would never have been allowed to persist'. He added the Ebbsfleet situation was 'one of the clearest examples of just how awful we are at delivering big infrastructure - and, in the process, deterring private capital from funding big investments.'
With house prices in Ebbsfleet averaging about £400,000, according to property website Rightmove, protecting the spiders has potentially blocked more than £500 million worth of economic activity from property sales alone.
Derelict land just south of the River Thames was bought for £32 million by the Government-sponsored Ebbsfleet Development Agency in 2019, paving the way for the construction of 15,000 new homes.
The 125-hectare site, which stretches from the banks of the Thames down to a railway junction some 20 miles east of London, includes a filled-in quarry and the former site of a cement works. It sits directly next to Ebbsfleet Station, from where high-speed trains reach the capital in just 18 minutes.
Mr Piper, the EDC boss, insisted that the SSSI had 'not affected delivery of the majority of new homes' at Ebbsfleet, but conceded that the designation had blocked construction on a parcel of land known as Ebbsfleet Central West, immediately next to the railway station.
Development of SSSIs is effectively impossible because of draconian controls placed on construction, sources familiar with planning permission law said.
Natural England and the Government were approached for comment.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MAGA Melts Down Over Trump ‘Deep State' Deportation Deal
The tech billionaire who bankrolled J.D. Vance's political rise is at the centre of a new MAGA war over fresh plans to use Big Brother surveillance to deport illegal immigrants. As protests rage in Los Angeles over Donald Trump 's immigration crackdown, some of the president's most loyal supporters are outraged over a 'deep state' contract awarded to Palantir Technologies, the controversial data mining company co-founded by venture capitalist and Vance campaign donor Peter Thiel. Government documents seen by the Daily Beast show the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) awarded Palantir the $30 million contract to develop a new surveillance platform known as 'ImmigrationOS' to help the agency identify and arrest illegal immigrants, make it easier to deport people, and track and report self-deportations with 'near real-time visibility'. Trump acolyte Laura Loomer embraced the idea, posting on X this week: 'Time to deploy @PalantirTech to Los Angeles to deal with the illegals. You know you'd love to see it.' But the right-wing provocateur faced a fierce backlash online from people ideologically opposed to government surveillance. Some viewed Palantir, which is named after the 'seeing stones' in The Lord of the Rings, as a tool of the Deep State; others warned Palantir 'won't stop there.' 'Laura, I don't care what the excuse is. One CANNOT in any way, shape or form claim to be a Conservative or Patriot and support this,' replied John Sabal, founder of Texas-based conservative event group 'The Patriot Voice', whose outraged response was one of thousands. 'It is literally antithetical to the notion of 'smaller government' and IN FAVOR of a big government totalitarian system.' Palantir has until September to develop a prototype of the ImmigrationOS software. Not having it, ICE warned, 'severely limits' its ability to expedite Trump's deportation plans and target the gangs MS-13 and Tren de Aragua. But the plan is particularly contentious because it comes after reports that the administration may also be using Palantir to build a database of personal information on American citizens. The New York Times reported earlier this month that the Trump administration had expanded Palantir's work across the federal government, giving it more than $113 million since Trump took office, as well as new contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Steve Bannon Trashes Trump Admin's DOGE Effort—'Delivered Zero'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Steve Bannon called out the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse, saying that the White House task force that was helmed by Elon Musk "delivered zero." Newsweek has reached out to Bannon for comment via text message on Wednesday. Why It Matters In late-May, the billionaire tech CEO Musk announced he would be stepping down after his "scheduled time as a Special Government Employee" came to an end after five months of work as one of the most high-profile figures in the second Trump administration. His task force sought to champion mass cuts across the federal government, which led to mass layoffs and restructuring. DOGE faces ongoing legal challenges over some of its sweeping initiatives, including accessing sensitive data and mass termination of employees. Musk and President Donald Trump last week clashed publicly in a heated exchange on social media. The dispute began over Musk's criticism of a Trump-backed spending bill and escalated into threats over federal contracts and allegations involving Trump's ties to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Bannon, who has always been critical of Musk and his connections to the Chinese Communist Party, called for Musk to be deported to South Africa amid the rift with Trump. Steve Bannon at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 21, 2025. Steve Bannon at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 21, 2025. Annabelle Gordon - CNP/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images What To Know As DOGE head, Musk oversaw large-scale federal workforce reductions, citing a mandate to eliminate inefficiency. Bannon, a longtime Trump ally who previously served as White House chief strategist, said during Wednesday's episode of his War Room podcast: "I hate to say, fanboys, but DOGE delivered zero. Nothing on waste, fraud, abuse." He added that "they had some recommendations on programmatic, but people have been on that for years on PBS, on NPR, on USAID. Where is the fraud? Nothing—one of the reasons the president is so disappointed." Earlier this year, DOGE helped dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), responsible for more than six decades of humanitarian aid and development work, with Musk calling it a "criminal organization." On May 1, Trump signed an executive order to cut federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The Trump administration claims that the broadcasters have become purveyors of "left-wing propaganda" and accuses them of violating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's mandate to remain nonpartisan. Bannon previously said that DOGE's reported "savings" came from funds already approved by Congress for federal programs, not from uncovering fraud in large agencies like the Defense Department. According to the DOGE website, the task force has saved $180 billion, amounting to $1,118 per taxpayer. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump, in a February Truth Social post: "DOGE: BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE BEING FOUND. CAMPAIGN PROMISE. IMPORTANT FOR AMERICA!!!" Elon Musk, in a May 28 post on X, formerly Twitter: "The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government." House Speaker Mike Johnson, reacted to Musk's comments on the spending bill, on X: "@ElonMusk and the entire @DOGE team have done INCREDIBLE work exposing waste, fraud, and abuse across the federal government - from the insanity of USAID's spending to finding over 12 million people on Social Security who were over 120 years old. The House is eager and ready to act on DOGE's findings so we can deliver even more cuts to big government that President Trump wants and the American people demand." Republican Representative Pat Harrigan of North Carolina, on X on Wednesday: "Thank you for your service, @ElonMusk, and for everything you've done to expose waste, defend free speech, and challenge the broken machinery of Washington. DOGE set a new standard for what focused, impactful public service should be. I'll do my part to make sure it leads to real, lasting change." What Happens Next With Musk no longer at DOGE, oversight of the task force has shifted to Cabinet departments and their secretaries.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The charts that show why Reeves's spending plans are a fantasy
Rachel Reeves claims she is investing in the country's Chancellor was cheered on by her front benches as she announced more money for the NHS, defence and schools in a move she boasted would lead to 'a national renewal'. In some senses, there were few surprises on Wednesday. We already knew how much Reeves had to dole out in her maiden spending review. The NHS gobbled up most of the money, with day-to-day spending on the Department of Health and Social Care growing by an average of 2.8pc a year over the forecast period. Defence spending has also received a significant boost as pressure from Nato mounts. Other departments, notably the Home Office, were squeezed as Reeves sought to make the sums add up. But while the numbers may tally on paper, economists are already questioning whether they will work in reality as pressures build from a more dangerous world and an older population. There are also fears that Reeves's announcement will pave the way for massive increases in council tax to keep Britain's streets safe. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), says that while health and defence are big winners 'in pounds and pence, even here, one has to wonder whether this will be enough'. There are other pressures elsewhere. The Chancellor once vowed to never make an unfunded spending commitment but this week announced she will restore winter fuel payments to most pensioners with no clues as to how it will be paid for. She has also announced a Fair Pay Agreement for social care, which will set minimum terms across the sector without any clarity on how the proposals will be funded. Welfare spending, which sits outside Whitehall budgets, is poised to keep ballooning over the next five years as the Government prepares another about-turn to planned cuts to disability benefits. And unresolved questions over levies such as fuel duty will also pile more pressure on the Chancellor. While Reeves's statement is meant to set in stone government spending plans for at least the next three years, her £40bn tax raid last year may not be enough to foot the eventual bill. The tax burden is already on course to reach a peacetime high, but JP Morgan and Capital Economics both believe that Reeves will have to raise taxes by more than £20bn in the Budget this autumn to cover her increased spending plans and fend off increasing pressure from Reform. 'The spending review contains few surprises,' says Elliott Jordan-Doak, at Pantheon Macroeconomics. 'The question is only how big tax hikes will be in October.' The Government hinted on Wednesday that council tax would rise sharply to pay for policing after Reeves cut the Home Office budget by 2.2pc. Reeves claimed 'police spending power' would increase by 2.3pc in the coming years, which documents suggest could include more money from council tax. The Liberal Democrats said families in typical Band D households now faced a £395 increase in council tax by the next election. While the NHS is clearly a winner, there are already questions over whether the money will be enough to keep the health service running. Analysis by the IFS shows there have been just two occasions – in 1991 and 2004 – where health spending grew more slowly than envisaged in the spending review. More often, governments have been forced to top up health budgets to boost day-to-day health spending, which is on course to rise from a 26pc share of Whitehall budgets in 1999 to more than 40pc by the end of the decade. Reeves has set out plans to increase the NHS day-to-day budget more slowly than its historical average – by 3pc in real terms compared to 3.6pc – despite growing pressures on the health service. The plan set out by the previous Conservative government assumed real-terms funding increases of around 3.6pc per year. Johnson says: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18 week target for hospital waiting times within this parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.' The plans also revealed the front-loaded nature of many of the settlements, with NHS capital spending set to remain flat in real terms for the rest of the decade after this year. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government's tax and spending watchdog, believes pressures from an older and sicker population will increase demand for NHS services by 1.1pc per year alone. 'The pressure to spend more on the NHS will still be great even after today's announcement,' says Jordan-Doak. Economists also questioned whether the health department's pledge to find £9bn in efficiency savings by the end of the decade was credible. Labour will unveil a refreshed NHS 10-year plan in the coming months, which is expected to demand more spending on staff and equipment to deal with Britain's demographic challenge. Another winner from Wednesday's spending review was defence, with spending in this area on track to rise to 2.6pc of GDP by 2027. But there was no mention of a 3pc target which Sir Keir Starmer has committed to, let alone the 3.5pc goal Nato is piling pressure on countries to reach. Increasing defence spending from 2.5pc of GDP to 3pc represents an increase of £17bn by the end of the decade. That's the equivalent of an extra 2p on income tax. Johnson says: 'On defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6pc of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' There are also doubts about whether Reeves will be able to force through the cuts envisioned for the departments that lost out in Wednesday's announcement – including the Home Office, transport, Foreign Office and environment departments, which will suffer cuts in real terms. Even schools will get a real-terms freeze if you strip out the cost of expanding free school meals. In fact, departmental spending to 2028 will on average grow more slowly than under plans Rishi Sunak set out in the Conservatives' last spending review in 2021. 'We think that these real-terms spending cuts will be impossible to deliver given the pressure on public services and voters' demands for increased spending,' says Jordan-Doak. Then there are the Chancellor's investment plans. Capital spending is set to rise by £113bn over this parliament, with money going on everything from transport to green energy, new prisons and housing. Reeves is gambling that this investment blitz can kick-start growth. But as with any gamble, there is a risk it could go wrong. 'If the Government insists on accumulating the extra spending it's planning over the full parliament, it seems only fair to also draw attention to the £140bn of extra borrowing we're forecast to do over the same period,' says Johnson, at the IFS. Extra borrowing will keep Britain's debt pile rising every year until the end of the decade. 'That borrowing incurs a cost in the form of additional debt interest – and one that's bigger than it was a year ago,' says Johnson. The question was always whether the extra investment would bring sufficient benefits to make that worthwhile.' Government borrowing costs rose in the immediate aftermath of Reeves's announcement. Andrew Goodwin, at Oxford Economics, calculates that the Chancellor's already wafer-thin £9.9bn headroom to meet her borrowing rules has already been eroded by £2.5bn as a result of higher gilt yields. And while Reeves boasts about all the extra investment being pumped into the economy, another key question is: will she be able to get all of that money out the door? Previous analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that successive governments of all stripes have struggled to spend all the money they wanted. Just £1 in every £6 in planned investment spending over the past seven spending reviews since 1998 actually went out the door. Why? Governments are often too optimistic about when projects become shovel-ready. There may be planning hold-ups, and the construction sector may not be able to cope with all that extra demand for engineers, project managers and construction workers to deliver these projects. 'We now know more about what sorts of projects the Government plans to invest in,' Johnson says. 'The focus must now shift to delivery and avoiding the all-too-common project over-runs.' Governments have in the past raided capital budgets in order to make their day-to-day spending budgets add up. New safeguards have been introduced to in theory prevent this from happening again. But this may simply make it harder for Labour to meet spending demands if plans go awry without putting up tax. Ben Ramanauskas, at Policy Exchange, casts doubt on Labour's ability to live within its means. He says: 'While the uplift to the defence and criminal justice budgets are welcome, this is unlikely to go far enough. Instead the Chancellor has chosen to prioritise the NHS by giving it even more money, without insisting on productivity improvements.' All this is expected to keep the size of the state permanently bigger than its pre-lockdown size. Ramanauskas says: 'The Government is yet to set out how it will fund its largesse to the public sector. However, it will almost certainly have to place even greater strain on the public finances by increasing borrowing or adding extra burdens to households and businesses by raising taxes.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio
