
No 10 blocked nature concessions in planning bill amid Labour rebellion, sources say
Downing Street and the Treasury intervened to stop any concessions in the planning bill, after pro-housing MPs voiced anger over a Labour rebel amendment that attempted to strengthen nature protections.
The Guardian has been told that ministers drew up amendments to the bill last week in an attempt to head off the anger of wildlife charities and rebel Labour MPs amid a backlash against the bill.
Two sources with knowledge of the discussions said they were expecting the amendments to be put in the Commons this week.
But the amendments never appeared, after No 10 and the Treasury intervened. Fifteen Labour MPs rebelled against the government on Monday night to back an amendment by Labour's Chris Hinchliff to the planning and infrastructure bill which would have imposed new environmental obligations, including a rigid timetable, on developers.
MPs from the Labour Growth Group (LGG) – a large caucus of pro-housing MPs – had raised the alarm with the Treasury and No 10. The LGG had criticised the amendments on X on Monday, saying its members were 'against these wrecking-ball amendments, and for getting Britain BUILDING'.
Hinchliff then hit back at his Labour colleagues in a post, saying he was 'not joining them in doubling down on 20 years of failed deregulation that delivers under 2% social housing a year'.
Senior sources suggested there had been strong opposition from the Treasury and No 10 on any new amendments or making any firmer commitments to look at adopting any of the proposals.
The housing secretary, Matt Pennycook, declined to comment, but an ally said he had not been minded to accept Hinchliff's amendments in any case. The LGG had argued strongly that mitigations in the bill would mean further delays to new housing and threaten the government's 1.5m new homes target.
'For years voters have been telling politicians what they desperately need: lower my bills, get my wages rising, breathe life back into my local area, give my kids a shot at owning a decent home,' a Labour Growth Group source said. 'Under the Tories, time and again they were ignored.
'This bill is a cornerstone in the government's strategy to show them we are on their side and will deliver those things – we're very clear that demands from pressure groups must not be allowed to derail it.'
Leading environmental groups are warning the government that verbal promises over part 3 of the bill – which is focused on environmental obligations – were not enough and the legislation needed to include solid guarantees of environmental results with scientific assurances.
Beccy Speight, chief executive of the RSPB, said that without amendments the bill was a regression in environmental protection. 'Until we see actual amendments tabled that address the concerns held by us, many other organisations including the independent environmental watchdog, and thousands of people, we will continue to call for Part 3 to be scrapped.'
Speaking at the dispatch box on Monday night, Pennycook said the government would be looking at strengthening national planning policy – rather than directly legislating – on some key environmental policies such as introducing swift bricks for new houses for nesting birds.
Pennycook denied the plans would allow developers to damage habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, which campaigners have called 'cash to trash'. He said some of the bill's critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the changes would do.
Hinchliff said the nature restoration fund was a 'kernel of a good idea', and said his amendment would give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'.
MPs voted to reject the amendment, which was backed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats – but not by Reform UK. Pennycook told MPs he was giving serious consideration to the OEP's concerns, particularly that part 3 of the bill rolled back environmental laws and left protected sites vulnerable to development.
Richard Benwell, the CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said the government needed to go beyond verbal assurances and ensure the legislation contained rock solid guarantees of environmental results, scientific assurances that new approaches could work, and transparent delivery plans for nature benefits.
'Fixing the serious risks posed by part 3 will need more than cosmetic change,' he said.
Nigel Farage's party had backed an amendment to install swift bricks in new homes, which Pennycook said the government would look at doing through guidance.
Pennycook said he would continue to take advice and give 'serious consideration' on what more could be done for environmental protection, with further challenges to the bill expected in the Lords.
Hinchliff said that his amendment had been an attempt at compromise. 'Britain's biggest nature charities are so concerned by this bill that they have been calling for the entirety of Part 3 to be removed.
'If we can't improve this bill in the Lords we won't just risk harming nature—there will be severe damage to our relationship with an electorate that cherishes green spaces. I was encouraged to hear that the minister was listening to concerns yesterday - my door remains open - I want to help the government get this right.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Three-quarters of parents have bought children beauty products in the last year
Three-quarters of parents have bought their children beauty products in the last year, a survey suggests. Parents have spent £111 on average on items such as lip balms (41%), face moisturisers (39%), and cleansers (37%), according to the poll for cashback and rewards site Rakuten. Other popular items bought for children aged eight to 17 included lip gloss or lipstick (32%), body moisturiser (30%), face masks (28%), skin oil (22%), mascara (22%), makeup remover (21%) and foundation (19%). A typical adult spends £148 on beauty products a year, the study found. Of the 75% of parents who bought beauty products, 41% said they did so to boost their child's confidence, while 24% saw it as a way to bond with their children. Fathers were more willing to spend on their children's beauty regimes, buying £144 worth of items per year compared with the average £82 paid for by mothers. Bola Sol, from Rakuten, said: 'With skincare and make-up routines and trends taking over social media, it's no surprise that younger children are asking for more luxurious beauty products. 'All parents want to make their kids happy, but it's also important to balance that with your budget. A great way to do this is by tracking products for when they go on sale, and where possible, bag even more savings by using a cashback provider such as Rakuten to make the purchase through.' OnePoll surveyed 1,000 UK parents with children aged eight to 17 between May 28 and June 15.


BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
The World Tonight Will voters feel better off from Chancellor's spending plans?
What would you do with a trillion pounds of public money over the next four years? The Chancellor says "renewing Britain" is at the heart of her plans. So when will voters start to feel better off? We ask a Treasury Minister. Also on the programme: After the US Ambassador to Israel told us that Muslim countries should give up their land to create a Palestinian state - we get reaction from a senior Palestinian official. And one of the most influential figures in the history of pop music, Brian Wilson - the creative genius behind the Beach Boys - has died. The veteran DJ Bob Harris - who knew him for more than five decades - pays tribute.


BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Aukus: US to review submarine pact as part of 'America First' agenda
The US has launched a review of its multi-billion dollar submarine deal with the UK and Australia, saying the security pact must fit its "America First" the trilateral pact, widely seen as a response to the growing power of China, Australia is to get its first nuclear-powered subs from the US, before the allies create a new fleet by sharing cutting-edge Australia and the UK - which did its own review last year - have sought to play down news of the US probe, saying it is natural for a new administration to move comes as Australia faces pressure from the White House to lift its military spending, from 2% to 3.5% of GDP, a push so far resisted by Canberra. The agreement - worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn) - was signed in 2021, when all three countries involved had different leaders."The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda," a US defence official told the BBC."As [US Defense] Secretary [Pete] Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our servicemembers, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defense, and that the defense industrial base is meeting our needs."The review will be headed up Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of Aukus, in a speech last year questioning why the US would give away "this crown jewel asset when we most need it".Defence Minister Richard Marles, speaking to local Australian media on Thursday morning local time, said he was optimistic the deal would continue. "I'm very confident this is going to happen," he told ABC Radio Melbourne."You just need to look at the map to understand that Australia absolutely needs to have a long-range submarine capability."Some in Australia have been lobbying for the country to develop a more independent defence strategy, but Marles said it was important to "stick to a plan" - a reference to the previous government's controversial cancellation of a submarine deal with France in favour of Australian government spokesperson told the BBC it was "natural" that the new administration would "examine" the agreement, adding the UK had also recently finished a review of the security pact between the long-standing allies. There is "clear and consistent" support for the deal across the "full political spectrum" in the US, they said, adding Australia looked forward to "continuing our close cooperation with the Trump Administration on this historic project".A UK defence spokesperson told the BBC it was "understandable" for a new administration to look at the deal, "just as the UK did last year". Aukus is a "landmark security and defence partnership with two of our closest allies", the spokesperson said, and "one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades, supporting peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic".