logo
Nature group threatens judicial review against Labour's planning bill

Nature group threatens judicial review against Labour's planning bill

Yahoo5 days ago

A legal campaign group is planning a judicial review against the UK government's new planning bill, arguing it will result in a weakening of environmental protections which were fought for and created over decades.
Wild Justice is calling on the housing minister, Angela Rayner, to correct a parliamentary statement in which she told MPs the bill, which applies mainly to England and Wales, would not reduce the level of protection. Her words were echoed in a letter to the Guardian from the nature minister, Mary Creagh, who stated it did not repeal habitat or species protections or give a licence to do harm.
The group sent Rayner a pre-action protocol letter on Monday calling on her to 'correct the parliamentary record' to make clear that her statement about environmental protection in the bill was not correct. If this does not take place, they will apply for a judicial review.
Wild Justice has produced a legal opinion stating the bill would weaken existing environmental protections, with a key factor the removal of the requirement to be sure beyond reasonable scientific doubt that a development would not have a negative impact on a protected site. Instead developers will be allowed to pay into a nature restoration levy scheme in an attempt to mitigate any environmental harm elsewhere. There is no guarantee any environmental improvements would be in the same locality or even in the same county. Campaigners have argued it is impossible to replace an ancient woodland or a chalk stream elsewhere.
Related: Planning bill would allow builders to 'pay cash to trash' nature, say UK experts
The Office of Environmental Protection, the government's post-Brexit watchdog, also warns the draft of the legislation would remove safeguards for nature and put protected sites at risk.
Chris Packham, co-director of Wild Justice, said: 'Good people fought long and hard to put proper wildlife protection into law. And it helped, but hasn't stopped the relentless decline of the UK's biodiversity. And now, in a time of absolute crisis, we need to save every last tree, bird, butterfly or bug.
'So how do the government think it's going to if they smash those laws up? … I really hope they rein it in and bow to the love, passion and determination of a nation of animal lovers.'
Ministers argue the new bill will speed up housing developments and large infrastructure projects by allowing developers to avoid the long delays in meeting environmental obligations at the site of their project, by paying into the fund (NRF) which will be used to create environmental improvement elsewhere.
But last week the government's own impact assessment revealed officials have very little evidence that nature obligations are a block to development.
The bill is being debated in committee in parliament on Monday, where several amendments have been suggested.
Dr Ruth Tingay, co-director of Wild Justice, said: 'It's important that the secretary of state corrects her statement on the environmental ramifications of this bill because to continue to portray it as a 'win-win' for nature and people is inaccurate and will mislead MPs into voting for something that is likely to have catastrophic consequences for protected species and habitats.'
Ricardo Gama, of Leigh Day solicitors, who are representing Wild Justice, said the government had told MPs to decide whether the 'growth at all costs' agenda was worth trashing hard-fought environmental protections. 'They they can only do that if they clearly understand what the bill entails,' he said.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'Our planning and infrastructure bill will deliver a win-win for the economy and nature. We are introducing the nature restoration fund to unblock the delivery of much-needed homes and infrastructure, funding large scale environmental improvements across whole communities, and introducing robust protections that will create only positive outcomes for the environment.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US government sparks outrage with controversial decision on massive stretch of public land: 'We won't stay silent'
US government sparks outrage with controversial decision on massive stretch of public land: 'We won't stay silent'

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

US government sparks outrage with controversial decision on massive stretch of public land: 'We won't stay silent'

A sweeping environmental decision is raising major concerns about the future of America's wild spaces. The federal government is moving to roll back protections on a massive stretch of public land in Alaska, potentially opening the door to more dirty energy development in one of the country's most sensitive ecosystems. The U.S. government has announced plans to reverse a major public land safeguard, opening up 23 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) to oil drilling and mining. The move would undo a December 2023 executive order from President Joe Biden that had blocked fossil fuel development in this remote Arctic region. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the change on June 2, arguing that the earlier protections hindered energy independence, according to reporting by the Guardian. Burgum was joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, showing the administration's full-court press in favor of dirty energy expansion. But environmental groups say this shift prioritizes corporate profits over public health and natural heritage. "The Trump administration's move to roll back protections in the most ecologically important areas of the Western Arctic threatens wildlife, local communities, and our climate," Kristen Miller, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, explained in a statement. The NPR-A provides essential habitat for caribou, polar bears, and migratory birds, and it's been central to the food, culture, and way of life for Indigenous communities for generations. Opening up this much land to oil and gas drilling could add more pollution to our air and water and disrupt fragile ecosystems. The NPR-A is the largest single stretch of public land in the country and helps keep air clean, protect biodiversity, and support the cultural and economic traditions of local communities. Do you think America does a good job of protecting its natural beauty? Definitely Only in some areas No way I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. More fossil fuel development also adds to the heat-trapping pollution that's warming our planet and straining public health systems. We've already seen backlash to similar Arctic projects, like the Willow Project, a major drilling proposal approved in 2023, which sparked widespread opposition over its long-term risks. Conservation advocates are gearing up to fight back by preparing lawsuits, and grassroots campaigns are gaining traction. "The public fought hard for these protections," Miller said. "We won't stay silent while they're dismantled." At the local level, Utah's push to save the Great Salt Lake is showing what dedicated community action can achieve, and it's inspiring similar efforts nationwide. New York now requires all-electric new buildings, while California is phasing out gas-powered cars. These efforts cut harmful pollution and help speed the shift toward cleaner, healthier energy. You can take part by reducing home energy waste, switching to electric appliances, or choosing a clean electricity plan. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.

Officials approve site for new Tesla factory despite vehement opposition: 'It's not going to be good for anyone'
Officials approve site for new Tesla factory despite vehement opposition: 'It's not going to be good for anyone'

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Officials approve site for new Tesla factory despite vehement opposition: 'It's not going to be good for anyone'

A South Australian city has approved the use of state-owned land by Tesla to build a factory, despite overwhelming public opposition to the project. According to the Guardian, the city council of Marion, Adelaide, voted to seek state approval to sell land to Tesla on which they plan to build a new factory. The approval came despite overwhelming public opposition to the proposed sale, as 95% of over 1,000 people who submitted statements to the council had objected to the proposal. Marion Mayor Kris Hanna addressed the decision after the vote was taken, saying that denying the project would have no impact on Musk, but would cost the city over 100 potential new jobs. "If we didn't proceed, it would have cost 100 jobs to local residents but it would have had no impact on Elon Musk," Hanna said. "Tesla would almost certainly find somewhere else in Australia to build their factory." The brand perception of Tesla is currently at an all-time low around the globe, and sales numbers have been in a tailspin for several months. In the case of Marion, the vast majority of the backlash centered around Tesla CEO Musk and his involvement in far-right political movements around the globe, but other environmental concerns were levied as well. "Please dear God," one wrote. "It's not going to be good for anyone." "I could not think of a worse developer to sell the land to," said another opponent. "Tesla sales have been plummetting [sic] … this is likely to attract protests and negative attention that the neighbourhood does not need or want." Musk's companies have come under fire before for dodging environmental regulations. In Memphis, his xAI facility has been accused of setting up gas-powered turbines that pump pollution directly out into the city without permits, directly violating the Clean Air Act. Opponents of the proposal note that while the site would be used to recycle batteries, it would only recycle Tesla batteries, and not those made by other companies, limiting its usefulness. "My understanding is Tesla only recycle Tesla batteries and we know most people in SA … have another brand," Sarah Luscombe, a Marion councillor who voted against the approval, said. What do you think of Tesla and Elon Musk? Elon is the man Love the company; hate the CEO I'm not a fan of either I don't have an opinion Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. The deal now advances to the next stage, where it needs approval from the state government of Adelaide. According to the Guardian, the state seems to be in favor of the deal. South Australia Premier Peter Malinauskas said he supported the deal, despite Musk's controversial political positions. "Any time we see any big, major industrial investment in our state, in my view, it is welcome," the premier said. "Mr. Musk's politics, while I violently disagree with them … that's his prerogative." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.

University of Michigan drops private security after reports of surveillance
University of Michigan drops private security after reports of surveillance

Chicago Tribune

time7 hours ago

  • Chicago Tribune

University of Michigan drops private security after reports of surveillance

ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) — The University of Michigan said it's cutting ties with a private security company that was accused of following pro-Palestinian activists on and off campus. The university said it found the actions of one security company employee 'disturbing, unacceptable and unethical.' It did not elaborate. 'Going forward, we are terminating all contracts with external vendors to provide plainclothes security on campus,' President Domenico Grasso said in a statement Sunday. In a Guardian story last week, students said they were surveilled around Ann Arbor. The news outlet posted video from a member of a Muslim group who decided to confront a man who was watching him from a car last summer. That man in turn yelled and accused him of trying to steal his wallet. Tensions have been high between the university and pro-Palestinian student groups. A student encampment stood for a month on campus last year before authorities shut it down citing safety issues. Seven people were charged with felonies related to the encampment's removal, though charges were dropped in May. The university, which has campus police, said it hired private security about a year ago to report suspicious activity in high-traffic areas, not to perform surveillance. 'No individual or group should ever be targeted for their beliefs or affiliations,' Grasso said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store