BBOWT says government plan is threat to counties' nature
A charity says a key government plan poses "one of the biggest threats to nature laws in over a generation".The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) has asked people to write to their MPs over concerns it has about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.The government says that should speed up building and improve infrastructure but the charity says it would allow developers to sidestep environment regulations, provided they pay into a new fund.A government spokesperson said the bill, currently at the Committee stage in the House of Commons, would "deliver a win-win for the economy and nature".
BBOWT says the government's plan for the Nature Restoration Fund, managed by Natural England, is an "attempt to cover its tracks" over potential nature damage."Our natural world underpins every element of our economy, and if we want long-term sustainable growth, we must invest in nature," Estelle Bailey, its chief executive, said."We know that a thriving economy depends on a thriving natural world, but Keir Starmer is bizarrely pushing a false choice between protecting nature and building homes. This is an unnecessary and divisive rhetoric – the two can and must be considered together."Labour has promised to build 1.5 million new homes in England over the next five years, with the pledge key to boosting economic growth.
Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner said in February that there would be "no excuses" to not hit that target in England by 2029.The government spokesperson said: "We have inherited a failing system that has held up the building of homes and infrastructure, blocking economic growth but doing nothing for nature's recovery. Communities and the environment deserve better than this broken status-quo."Our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will deliver a win-win for the economy and nature – introducing the Nature Restoration Fund to unblock the building of much-needed homes and infrastructure, funding large scale environmental improvements across whole communities, and introducing robust protections so that our new approach can only be used where it will create positive outcomes for the environment."
You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
We need a better planning bill than this
Environmental organisations have not 'changed their tune' on planning reforms (England's planning bill has many naysayers. I'm not one of them, 4 June). As it stands, the bill has major flaws and is a long way from achieving a win-win for nature and development. Environmentalists engaged around the bill in good faith, but, when published, it was clear it was missing the safeguards needed – and the government's own independent adviser, the Office for Environmental Protection, agrees. The bill does not set out a responsibility to avoid harm to nature and communities wherever possible. We need such a duty to drive development that takes the best route for people and nature, not the low-quality option. We need the proposed Nature Restoration Fund to provide guaranteed results, with evidence to back this up. Without such guarantees the scheme allows destruction of nature on a wing and a prayer that it will effectively be restored elsewhere. Ensuring certainty of outcomes and robust protections are not just vital for nature, they are good lawmaking. Our job is to defend nature, so we must challenge these major protection gaps now and champion the changes that are needed. If not, the whole country will pay the price for a flawed system in future, with increased nature loss, greater pollution and less healthy communities. It makes economic sense too, with nature degradation estimated to lead to a 12% decrease in GDP in coming years. We know the system can work better – it is possible to create a planning system that works hand in hand to deliver wildlife recovery at scale, and the new homes we need. The nature sector has always been, and remains willing, to come to the table with the government to achieve the win-win we all Bennett CEO, the Wildlife Trusts, Beccy Speight CEO, RSPB, Harry Bowell Director of land and nature, National Trust, Ali Plummer Director of policy and advocacy, Wildlife and Countryside Link
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Here's why Keir Starmer thinks technology will actually make us 'more human'
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The UK must 'push past' the debate over whether AI will take people's jobs, Keir Starmer has said, as he argued the tech is making us more human. Businesses and industries across the country have been transformed by the technology, which can summarise vast documents and generate text or images in a matter of seconds. While workers and unions have expressed concerns over the impact of the sweeping change, the Prime Minister has embraced it. In a speech at London Tech Week this morning, Sir Keir recalled being 'really struck' by the impact AI is having on the war in Ukraine and pushing for it to be 'hardwired' into the recent Strategic Defence Review. He said: 'I've set the challenge to all of my teams: show me how they can use AI — not just in the output of government, not just in partnership with yourselves and others in the delivery of services — but also in the very way we do government.' As an example, he spoke about a social worker he met in Downing Street who told him AI is 'slashing her paperwork and her caseload'. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sign up here. The PM said: 'She could use AI and tech to help with the parts that could be done more quickly. And from that, I've always said: AI and tech make us more human. 'It may sound like an odd thing to say, but it's true—and we need to say it. 'Because some people out there are sceptical. They worry about AI taking their jobs. But I know from audiences like this, this debate has been had many times. We need to push past it.' AI is expected to form a central part of the spending review on Wednesday, when Chancellor Rachel Reeves will outline plans for government budgets over the next few years. Departments will be encouraged to use the tech to slash costs and speed up work. More Trending But it has also played a role behind the scenes of the review. In January, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones said a tool nicknamed 'HMT GPT' was being used to summarise spending bids from different departments. Following a speech on AI from the Prime Minister that same month, Unite the Union general secretary Sharon Graham called for 'proper protections from AI's pitfalls'. She said: 'The introduction of AI in the workplace must be something that happens with workers and not to workers. 'Government, employers, and unions all need to be working together to avoid the potential dangers of workplace AI.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: The 'Gate to Hell' has been open for 50 years but is finally burning out MORE: The real reason behind 'Stop Hiring Humans' ads appearing on the Tube MORE: Three men appear in court accused of arson attacks on properties linked to Keir Starmer
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Nato chief to call on UK to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence
Life comes at you fast in Downing Street. It's only a week since the Prime Minister was dodging questions about when he would increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. Today the Nato Secretary General is in town to tell Keir Starmer that actually Britain ought to spend 3.5% by 2035. Its expected the PM will agree with the target. And we are talking big sums here. That extra 0.5% is worth north of £17bn. Put a different way our defence budget of around £60bn would have to rise to more like £100bn to meet the 3.5% which is the new Nato target. Thats an NHS scale amount of money. And it inevitably means spending cuts elsewhere or tax rises or both. There are two reasons for this. The first is Vladimir Putin, the second is Donald Trump. Putin has shown he is ready and willing to attack his European neighbours. Trump has suggested he is less willing to come to the rescue. Today it is Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. That's where we come in. Those three Baltic states are all Nato members. If they are attacked we would be obliged to defend them, we would be at war with Russia; that's the Nato deal. Mark Rutte wants Nato to be big enough, tough enough and determined enough to deter Putin, to make it not worth his while to test the alliance. But Nato's 2035 target is, of course, ten years away. Many defence analysts think that it will only take Putin a couple of years after ending the Ukraine war to reconstitute his armed forces. So here's the key question; are we in a Cold War moment when the threat in Europe will not materialise, or a pre-1939 moment when it will?
