Nature is not the enemy of housebuilders

Times

20 hours ago

The government appears to have gone to war against nature and beauty in its attempt to get Britain building again. We should stop worrying about the environment, get rid of the bugs, spiders and bats and focus instead on what matters: creating more housing, employment and renewable energy. That means prioritising solar farms over wildflowers and faster transport links over forests. The thinking seems to be that these are elitist luxuries we can no longer afford.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, summed it up when she said last month she cared more about getting young families on to the housing ladder than 'protecting some snails'. She is evidently considering a second planning bill that would make it far harder for environmentalists to hold up infrastructure projects, limit protection for many species and curtail judicial reviews to block projects.
Ed Miliband is also determined that his quest for net zero will not be dragged down by farmers being subsidised to grow food locally and create wetlands when they could be installing solar panels. And earlier this year, Angela Rayner removed the word 'beautiful' from the national planning policy framework to speed up construction.
• Rachel Reeves to cut 'bats and newts' in boost to developers
They have a point. You only have to mention the £100 million 'bat tunnel' for HS2 and everyone agrees it was an egregious waste of money. The green lobby has at times appeared out of control, prioritising hazel dormice over our children's future; the nimbys seem selfish for wanting to preserve their woodlands and views; and, as 40C summers in Europe become the new norm, we need more energy-efficient solutions.
Yet does Labour really need to turn nature into the enemy? Why this supposition that in order to grow we have to bulldoze beauty and sacrifice wildlife, or that getting to net zero in 2050 matters more than supporting a green and pleasant, environmentally friendly countryside?
Travelling in Uzbekistan last week, a central Asian country whose economy is booming, it was clear in Tashkent that they are determined to backtrack on years of pummelling nature in the Soviet era. They are focused on rebuilding the capital, creating offices and housing for the country's burgeoning population, but also ensuring that the city is covered in trees, parks and neatly tended flower gardens. The result is stunning. The city is shaded from the ferocious sun, there is barely any litter among the flower beds and people want to walk to work and socialise in the greenery in the evenings. In Samarkand, tourists are flocking back as beauty is prioritised.
Yet nature and beauty in the UK are increasingly seen as obstacles. Conservation charities insist the 'builders versus blockers' narrative wrongly frames wildlife as being in conflict with economic growth. Bats and great crested newts are a factor in only 3 per cent of planning appeals, they say. The Home Builders Federation claims a lack of planning staff in councils causes worse delays.
• Emma Duncan: Planning regulation is bogged down by newts
This system isn't helping housebuilders, nor is it protecting the most valuable elements of our landscape. We have lost half of our biodiversity since 1970, according to the most recent State of Nature report, birds, pollinators, micro-organisms and flora bearing the brunt. Native dormice are now threatened with extinction. 'Clean energy' is this government's mantra but dirty rivers may be its heritage, destroyed by untreated sewage and factory farming. Yet ministers appear to care as little as the last lot, despite the Labour manifesto stating that Britain 'is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world'.
Ironically, before this government's latest interventions, environmentalists and construction companies had been edging towards consensus. The Wildlife Trusts' chief executive, Craig Bennett, is a surprise supporter of housebuilders, businesses and investors struggling with so many changing and contradictory schemes, such as demanding that housing developments factor in biodiversity net gains (BNG), then scrapping that for small sites, which cover 70 per cent of new builds.
'Thriving ecosystems and wildlife provide multiple co-benefits, promote solutions to climate challenges such as flooding and drought, improve health and wellbeing and create new jobs,' he says. If smaller developments are exempt from BNG, an area the size of 35,000 football pitches of nature-rich planting will be lost.
A new report by the think tank Policy Exchange shows that building beautiful, harmonious council estates intertwined with nature is the best way forward. They encourage community pride, discourage crime and are often more cost-effective. The world's first council estate, the Boundary Estate, built in the 1890s in east London, was made up of tree-lined avenues and is, unsurprisingly, still more sought after than grey, dense housing and tower blocks. Nimbys are far less likely to reject any characterful additions that enhance their neighbourhood and provide new green spaces, such as Camley Street Nature Park, once a coal drop between King's Cross and St Pancras but for the past 40 years a haven for birds and insects.
Beauty shouldn't be the preserve of rich Cotswolds estates. Great crested newts don't need to be eliminated and ancient woodland hacked down in this government's desire for a great leap forward. Nature is not the enemy; incorporate it into a simplified planning code with high environmental standards and it may be the solution. It could encourage better mental health, boost our listless productivity, prevent nimbyism, counter climate change, promote community adhesion and nurture us all, including the dormice.