Government putting pressure on nature groups to drop opposition to planning bill
Some of Britain's biggest nature charities including the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and the National Trust, say the legislation risks widespread destruction of nature. The charities want a key section of the legislation, part 3, scrapped entirely, because they say it is a 'licence to kill nature'.
Leading figures from the organisations were summoned by the government to a meeting last Friday, where officials put forward nine amendments to the language of the bill, which they say offer greater environmental protections. In return for accepting these, ministers want the nature groups to stop their campaign, the Guardian has established from several sources.
Angela Rayner, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, has had a statement supporting the bill prepared for the charities to sign, which states: 'These amendments will provide confidence that our reforms will truly deliver for nature and help us recover our most precious sites and species as we work to get Britain building.'
Peers will also debate scrapping part 3 when the bill goes before them on Thursday in the House of Lords.
One participant in the meeting said their organisation 'will take some persuading'.
Another source from a charity said: 'There is a lot of pressure. There is this deal trying to be struck by Angela Rayner's department, essentially so that we go quiet, or even better that we back the bill.
'But at the moment what's been offered in the meetings is not enough for us; we are not convinced.'
The environmental charities summoned to the meetings; the RSPB, National Trust, Wildlife Trusts, and Wildlife and Countryside Link have 8 million members between them.
Some members are concerned at the nature of the proposed deal and the methods being used.
One source said: 'They cannot make deals in backrooms like this, [the NGOs] have to come to us with this.
'There is a great deal of unease around this. We are not going to stop campaigning against this bill.'
As yet there has been no agreement from the NGOs to either sign the statement or stop their campaigns.
Richard Benwell, the CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, confirmed the groups were talking to the government.
But he said: 'As it stands the bill skews the scales much too far away from the crucial safeguards nature needs.
'We hope ministers make the significant and wide-ranging amendments needed to reset the balance for nature and ensure that the planning system gives strong protection to vulnerable habitats and species and contributes to nature recovery.'
The bill has been deemed a 'regression' of environmental law by the chair of the government's own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection and two independent legal opinions. It allows developers to sidestep current environmental law and build without assessing the damage to protected wildlife and habitats as long as they pay a levy into a central nature recovery fund.
Sign up to Down to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
The Guardian has revealed more than 5,000 of England's most precious protected sites are at high risk of being destroyed by development as a result, according to legal analysis.
The planning bill, which is being scrutinised in the House of Lords, is central to the government's promise to build 1.5m homes and 150 major infrastructure projects in this parliament. Rhetoric from Keir Starmer, the prime minister; the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and Rayner has pitted nature as a blocker to development. But the government's own impact assessment states there is almost no evidence for this claim,
More than 100,000 people have signed a petition against the bill, and thousands have contacted their MPs over the threat to nature.
On Thursday peers will consider an amendment to scrap part 3 from Lord Roborough, a Conservative peer, who has cross-party support.
Alexa Culver, environmental lawyer from RSK Wilding, said major problems with the bill had not been addressed by the suggested changes. 'Back-room bargains are being made about our natural environment and our economy, which are leading to the 'worst of all worlds' amendments,' she said.
A government spokesperson said: 'We've inherited a system that has blocked homes, infrastructure and economic growth while doing nothing for nature's recovery, and we are determined to fix this.
'We have committed to only act in legislation where we can confirm to parliament that the steps we are taking will deliver positive environmental outcomes.
'We note the support of the Office for Environmental Protection for the intentions behind our reforms and continue to carefully consider their advice.
'Our planning and infrastructure bill will mean a win-win for both nature and the economy, and we are always listening to views about how we make sure our reforms are as effective as possible so we can leave a lasting legacy of environmental improvement.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
24 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour's taken state spying of social media to whole new level – leaked emails read like their from dictatorship not UK
THE Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok has often aroused fears that personal data collected on its users could end up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. What fewer people imagined was that our own Government would try to use TikTok in order to police speech in Britain. Yet that is exactly what has happened. 7 7 7 Leaked emails show that a shady branch of government known as the National Security Online Information Team has been leaning on TikTok to suppress content that is critical of official migration and criminal justice policy. On several occasions during the riots which followed the Southport murders a year ago, the unit approached TikTok requesting that it 'assess' some posts made by its users — effectively a crude instruction to suppress what they were saying. Legitimate debate Britain, like every other country, operates security services that spy on terrorists who are plotting atrocities as well as organisations involved in propagating serious public disorder. Were a government organisation to prevent a bomb attack which could have killed dozens of people, no one would be too bothered about how it had obtained the vital information. But the emails show activity which goes far beyond the demands of national security. In one case, officials drew TikTok's attention to a post that suggested a large number of migrants were 'undocumented fighting age males'. Another suggested that TikTok take a look at users who spread 'concerning narratives about the police and a two-tier system [of justice] '. I am sure the police and courts will defend themselves robustly against a charge of operating two-tier justice, but whether or not you think they are doing this, it is a perfectly legitimate area for public debate, just as is the question of whether ethnic minorities suffer disadvantage in the workplace, schools, hospitals and so on. Those who made online accusations of a disproportionate response by the police towards protesters, and who dubbed our Prime Minister 'two-tier Keir', had good reason for raising their concerns. Ten days before the Southport murders, the Harehills area of Leeds erupted into rioting after children from a Roma family were taken into care. Protesters descend on Canary Wharf migrant hotel as police surround building amid fears over 'summer of riots' Days later there was a machete fight on Southend seafront. Keir Starmer had little to say about those grim developments, yet went into overdrive when protesters took to the streets following the Southport riots. True, there were plenty of thugs among them, but to insinuate that all protesters were driven by nothing more than 'far-right hatred' was outrageous. I am not going to defend Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for remarks she made in the wake of the Southport killings — her words read like a pretty clear incitement to violence even if she did not intend them to. But it is perfectly reasonable to question whether her punishment was consistent with the treatment handed out to extreme Islamist preachers and Irish Republican sympathisers. Take the Prevent programme, which was set up by the Blair government specifically to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism in the wake of the 2005 Tube bombings. 7 7 7 Over time it seems to have become more concerned with the far right. Nineteen per cent of those reported to the programme in the year ending March 2024 were recorded as supporting a far right ideology, against only 13 per cent with Islamist ideology — in spite of the latter being responsible for far more terror attacks and killings than the former over the past two decades. For Government officials to try to stop us discussing these matters is something you might associate more with a dictatorship than with British democracy. We have a human rights lawyer as PM, but where is he when it comes to defending our long-held right to free expression? Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level To be fair to Starmer, it is not just his government that has been trying to silence its critics. The National Security Online Information Team was derived from a body set up during Covid to try to gag critics of vaccines and lockdown. The Online Safety Act, which places obligations on social media companies to police content — and which the Government has used to put pressure on TikTok and other companies — was the brainchild of the last Conservative government. Deep concerns Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level. Particularly disgraceful was Technology Secretary Peter Kyle's attempt this week to claim that Nigel Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile for daring to criticise the Online Safety Act. To listen to Kyle you would think the act was about nothing other than age verification for users of online pornography (not that Savile used the internet to abuse his victims). There are many people, myself included, who support the age verification measures but who have deep concerns about the act's other provisions, in particular its demand that technologies companies act against anything that could fall under the vague definition of being 'harmful to children'. Even the day's news could be deemed harmful to children if it upsets their immature sensibilities. The trouble is that the Online Safety Act was pushed through on the back of emotional propaganda, with few people realising the dark and disturbing ways in which it could be used to silence any of us. We are belatedly realising that now. 7
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Anti-migrant protesters face off with counter demonstrators in Southsea as disquiet grows over asylum seeker hotels across the UK
Anti-migrant demonstrators faced off against counter-protesters from Stand Up to Racism this evening outside a hotel on the south coast used to house asylum seekers. Protesters gathered outside the Royal Beach Hotel in Southsea, Hampshire, on August 1. Anti-migrant demonstrations have taken place across the South of England today, with locations including Portsmouth, Southampton and Bournemouth. More are expected across the UK this weekend as the topic of migrants continues to prove inflammatory.
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's Civil Service proposals are unfair and misguided
That the Civil Service is in dire need of a shake-up is accepted, at this point, across much of Westminster. The frustrations are justified. The public sector is, as George Staunton found Imperial China, felt to be staffed by those who feel that 'everything is excellent' and 'proposals for improvement would be superfluous'. This agreement stretches only as far as the sense that something must change, however. The proposals on the table for reform are deeply contested, and potentially harmful. Labour's proposal to limit Civil Service internships to those from ' lower socio-economic backgrounds ' is a retrograde step which would impoverish the pool of talent available to ministers by restricting entry based on family circumstance, and would represent another blow to the idea that parents should work for their children's futures. The Government would be better advised to hark back to the Northcote-Trevelyan report, which attempted to address a Civil Service which attracted the 'unambitious', 'indolent' and 'incapable' who did not fancy 'the competition of their contemporaries', but were attracted by 'the comparative lightness of the work'. The solutions put forward included, among other things, entrance examinations open to all, merit-based promotion, and ensuring that civil servants were fully employed to the full extent of their abilities. Such an embrace of meritocracy would surely be morally and practically preferable to further clumsy attempts at social engineering.
