Latest news with #EU-derived
The Guardian
02-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Irreplaceable habitat': planning bill raises fears for England's chalk streams
Walk along the gin-clear River Itchen in Hampshire and you might see otters, salmon, kingfishers and clouds of mayflies, all supported by the unique ecosystem of the chalk stream. The UK has no tropical rainforests or tigers; its wildlife is arguably more modest in appearance. But its chalk streams are some of the rarest habitats in the world – there are only 200, and England boasts 85% of them. If you look properly, they are as biodiverse and beautiful as any rainforest. Despite the rarity and importance of these very pure rivers, which are full of minerals from the chalk aquifer, they have no specific legal protections. Environmentalists fear the Labour party's planning bill will use the country's departure from the EU to make it legal for developers to destroy them, as long as they offset the damage by paying into a fund to create nature somewhere else. 'Chalk streams are an irreplaceable habitat. They are incredibly fragile and incredibly rare, but we suck up our drinking water from them and dump our sewage in them,' Debbie Tann, the chief executive of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, said. Chalk streams currently have some protections under the EU-derived habitats directive, which safeguards some of the rare creatures the streams support. But Labour's new planning and infrastructure bill overrides these protections, allowing developers to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of avoiding destruction and pollution in building. While this tradeoff will be beneficial in some cases, nature campaigners argue that you cannot offset damage done to a rare habitat as irreplaceable as a chalk stream. Tann said: 'I think the levy is almost designed to create a replacement or an alternative habitat somewhere else for the thing that you're impacting. That isn't going to work in a chalk stream context. You can't just create a new one somewhere else.' The Itchen looks flawless, its sparkling waters full of healthy vegetation, fish and invertebrates. Some ecologists are sampling the life in the river's substrate; one little scoop of dirt and pebbles is teeming with life, from mayfly and caddisfly larvae to shrimps, sticklebacks and a long, wiggly leech. But the river is having to fight back against many pressures, from sewage that bubbles up from a nearby maintenance hole to abstraction for drinking water, as well as a new discharge pipe which will pump runoff directly from the motorway into its pristine waters. The river's protectors say there is not much more it can take. Ideally, these rivers would be surrounded by meadows which could soak up some of the pollution brought by heavy rainfall. Tann said: 'This is one of the best chalk streams in the country. It looks beautiful and is in pretty good condition, but it is suffering from climate change impacts. We do have pollution issues here. The surrounding land is not acting like a good buffer because it is full of housing and industrial estates. So any runoff with these extreme rainfall events will bring pollution straight into the river, so we're just compounding more and more pressure on these really precious habitats.' Labour picked up votes in last year's general election by focusing on the sewage scandal, in which water companies have been allowed to dump human waste into the UK's rivers and seas. Keir Starmer promised to clean up the country's rivers. People would not forget if broken promises meant their local river getting polluted further, Martin De Retuerto, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust's head of nature recovery, said. 'The level of engagement and activity on these rivers by local people is really high now, and I think that there could be a bit of a tipping point amongst people in how they view those in charge, if river protection is not taken seriously.' Labour would not be able to change the law on habitat protection had Brexit not happened, as it would mean flouting the EU habitats directive. 'This is a Brexit disbenefit of the highest order,' Tann said. 'We've had successive governments promise to strengthen protections after Brexit, but this is the opposite.' Some of our chalk streams are dying or already dead. The River Ver near St Albans, Hertfordshire, dries up every summer as it is so overabstracted, and poor management means the gravel on which fish should spawn is often covered in a thick layer of silt. 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 Itchen has enjoyed some protections as it is a major fishing river, so has had the protection of anglers, and it also has the Wildlife Trusts looking after it. In turn, the river has taken care of the local city, Winchester. De Retuerto said: 'In 2014 we had some very severe floods, a one-in-200-year event. Arguably, the city did not flood anywhere near as badly as it would because of the floodplain restoration we've done here. 'Climate breakdown means we're going to experience far more extreme flooding events as well as drought events, and we're a bottleneck for the city. So this site will continue to do its part, but there's a point where it can't recover sustained frequency of more extreme events as well as soaking up all the other pressures it faces.' The Wildlife Trusts have supported an amendment to the planning bill, tabled by the Labour MP Chris Hinchliff, that would enshrine protections for chalk streams as irreplaceable habitats. Planners would have to ensure they were not harming the rare habitats with abstraction, pollution or runoff when designing their developments. Tann said: 'We would like to see chalk streams properly classified as an irreplaceable habitat and have proper protection within planning. We're not anti-development. We never have been, but it's about the right development in the right place, and there has to come a point where there's just too much surrounding these precious sites.' But Starmer has described people such as Tann and De Retuerto as 'blockers' because of their nature campaigning. The government has also described nature protections as 'red tape' that needs to be cut. Tann said: 'Why call that red tape? You wouldn't call protecting St Paul's Cathedral red tape. 'These streams are part of our identity as a country. And it's not true that getting rid of nature protections is somehow this magic bullet that's going to enable economic growth. It's the wrong answer to the problem, and it's not going to help. And in the meantime, we will lose these last bits of incredibly important natural environment that we have.'
The Guardian
02-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Labour's planning bill threatens protected habitats, says environment watchdog
Keir Starmer's planning bill has been criticised by the environment watchdog, which has warned that the draft of the legislation would remove safeguards for nature and put protected sites at risk. Currently, laws that protect habitats and nature are derived from EU legislation. Since the UK left the bloc, it has been able to weaken these laws that protect specific species and habitats. The planning and infrastructure bill going through parliament overrides EU-derived specific habitat protections, and asks instead for general environmental improvement when developers build houses. The bill also allows housebuilders to pay into a nature restoration fund to improve habitats on another site, which could be anywhere in the country, rather than avoiding disturbance to nature where they are building. The bill aims to boost economic growth by removing 'red tape', making it easier to build homes and other infrastructure. But nature organisations have warned it puts nature at risk. The environment minister Mary Creagh this week complained that criticism of the bill was 'deeply misleading' and that it was a 'win-win for people and for nature recovery'. But according to Dame Glenys Stacey, the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the bill will weaken environmental protections. 'There are fewer protections for nature written into the bill than under existing law. Creating new flexibility without sufficient legal safeguards could see environmental outcomes lessened over time. And aiming to improve environmental outcomes overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species. 'In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression.' The watchdog has called for the bill to be strengthened and for safeguards of protected nature sites to be included. It warns that under this bill, conservation measures would be allowed to be located away from the protected sites affected by development. Presently this is only allowed in limited circumstances and where the protected site network is protected, but, the OEP said such safeguards are absent from the bill. The Guardian revealed this week that housing developers will be able to build on once-protected green spaces without having to replace the loss of nature in the nearby areas. New nature areas, parks and community gardens created to offset the removal of green spaces to make way for housing developments may not even have to be in the same county. Environmental experts have called for the bill to be amended. Ali Plummer, the policy director at Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: 'When the government's own watchdog brands the planning and infrastructure bill environmental regression, ministers can't ignore it. The bill is a clear watering down of protections but there is still time to amend it, resulting in wins for both development, communities and wildlife. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'England deserves policies that raise the bar for nature and neighbourhoods nationwide, not roll it back. Now is the time for the government to recognise the problems with the bill and get it back on track.' Alexa Culver, legal counsel at RSK Biocensus, said: 'This opinion exposes government's willingness to mislead the public to drive through environmentally and economically harmful policy. This dangerous bill needs to be halted, for normal due process, broad and wide consultation, impact assessment and pilots. Bulldozing this bill through isn't winning votes, and isn't helping our economy, or our environment.' Defra has been contacted for comment.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
UK's FCA proposes 70% reduction in red tape for investment firms
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced plans to simplify the regulatory capital rules for investment firms, aiming to reduce red tape by 70%. The UK regulator is seeking to streamline rules on the types of funds that investment firms must maintain to absorb losses and ensure financial stability during challenging periods. While capital requirements themselves will remain unchanged, the FCA intends to streamline the rules on what qualifies as regulatory capital. The current regulations, originally designed for banks, have been deemed overly complex and not suited to the operational models of investment firms. The FCA's proposal includes the removal of extensive sections that are irrelevant to most firms, alongside efforts to simplify remaining regulations. 'These changes would reduce the volume of legal text by 70%,' it said. The move is part of the FCA's broader strategy to alleviate unnecessary burdens on firms, promote growth, and uphold the 'competitiveness' of the UK's financial services sector. FCA interim executive director Simon Walls said: 'We are always trying to be a smarter regulator, and part of that agenda is reducing unnecessary burdens on firms. The aim here is to make the rules around how firms hold their capital simpler for the vast majority of firms. 'We want the revised framework to be proportionate, effective, and aligned with the needs of investment firms while maintaining high standards of financial resilience and consumer protection.' Additionally, the FCA plans to eliminate EU-derived regulations, making the rules clearer and more accessible. This is intended to reduce the time and resources firms expend on interpreting and applying regulatory requirements. Importantly, the FCA has clarified that these measures will not alter the capital levels that firms are required to maintain, and no adjustments to capital arrangements are anticipated as a result of these proposals. Last month, the FCA proposed regulatory changes for alternative asset managers to ease market entry, foster growth, boost competition, and stimulate innovation in the sector. "UK's FCA proposes 70% reduction in red tape for investment firms" was originally created and published by Private Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
UK's FCA proposes 70% reduction in regulatory capital rules for investment firms
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced plans to simplify the regulatory capital rules for investment firms, aiming to reduce the complexity associated with the existing framework. The proposed changes focus on the types of funds that firms must maintain to absorb losses and ensure financial stability during challenging periods. While the capital requirements themselves will remain unchanged, the FCA intends to streamline and consolidate the rules governing what qualifies as regulatory capital. The current regulations, originally designed for banks, have been deemed overly complex and not suited to the operational models of investment firms. The FCA's proposal includes the removal of extensive sections that are irrelevant to most firms, alongside efforts to simplify remaining regulations. This initiative is expected to decrease the volume of legal text by 70%. These changes are part of the FCA's broader strategy to enhance the effectiveness of its rulebook for the UK market, aiming to alleviate unnecessary burdens on firms and promote growth and investment. This initiative aligns with the FCA's commitment to support economic development, as outlined in its correspondence to the Prime Minister. FCA interim executive director Simon Walls said: 'We are always trying to be a smarter regulator, and part of that agenda is reducing unnecessary burdens on firms. The aim here is to make the rules around how firms hold their capital simpler for the vast majority of firms. 'We want the revised framework to be proportionate, effective, and aligned with the needs of investment firms while maintaining high standards of financial resilience and consumer protection.' Additionally, the FCA plans to eliminate EU-derived regulations, making the rules clearer and more accessible. This is intended to reduce the time and resources firms expend on interpreting and applying regulatory requirements. Importantly, the FCA has clarified that these measures will not alter the capital levels that firms are required to maintain, and no adjustments to capital arrangements are anticipated as a result of these proposals. Recently, the FCA proposed regulatory changes for alternative asset managers to ease market entry, foster growth, boost competition, and stimulate innovation in the sector. "UK's FCA proposes 70% reduction in regulatory capital rules for investment firms" was originally created and published by Private Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Stop bending over backwards to protect bats, Defra told
Defra is over-interpreting EU rules on protecting bats that are blocking development, a Government-backed review has found. A review of environmental regulation commissioned by the Government has recommended that EU-derived legislation be reformed to make building projects easier. This includes the Habitats Regulation that was the basis of the 1km bat tunnel that added more than £100million to the cost of HS2 in an effort to protect 300 bats in Buckinghamshire. The review by economist Dan Corry is part of the Government's push to reduce red tape that slows development of housing and infrastructure. The Government has now said it will consider all of his recommendations, with nine swiftly implemented. These include giving 'trusted bodies' such as the National Trust the power to bypass regulations for projects such as wetlands, and giving major projects such as Heathrow a single responsible regulator. The review found there were more than 3,000 pieces of environmental regulation, much of it inherited from the EU. It said there was a view that EU rules were being more cautiously applied by Defra bodies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency, than in many European countries. Regulators continue to apply the 'precautionary principle' – insisting on preventative measures even for a small risk of harm –despite it being abolished by UK legislation after Brexit, the review said. The Government will not consider changing the regulations, but is understood to be looking at how they are applied. Other regulations that could come under scrutiny include those that resulted in the so-called 'fish disco', underwater speakers to deter marine life, that could delay construction of Hinkley Point C. A new Defra infrastructure board will also be introduced to speed up delivery of major projects, for example by working with developers at an early stage and ensuring decisions are proportionate. The Government has already introduced its Planning Bill, which will make it easier for councils to compulsory purchase land to build homes and hospitals, and pay communities near new electricity pylons. Britain Remade, which campaigns to make the planning system easier for developers to build, welcomed the Government's response to Mr Corry's review. 'For far too long, environmental charities and quangos have been allowed to stand in the way of development, acting as roadblocks to growth by insisting on hugely expensive and project delaying measures like bat tunnels and fish discos,' said Sam Richards, Britain Remade's CEO. 'With these measures, along with changes to the statutory consultee system and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, hopefully Britain will finally be able to get building.' Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have been criticised by green groups for dismissing protections for species such as newts and spiders as blockers to growth. Mr Corry said a streamlined system would be better for nature and long-term economic growth and said the two should not be seen as a zero-sum game, although he acknowledged there would be 'short term trade-offs'. Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link said: 'The Government's planning reforms fall far short of the win-win approach ministers want and Corry seems to support. 'For too long, environmental regulators have been too poor and too weak to enforce the law. Their environmental duties have been too soft and vague to drive environmental recovery.' A Defra spokesman said: 'The current system is not working for nature or for growth. That's why we will deliver a more streamlined, modern approach to regulation. 'This government will uphold environmental protections, not scrap them. Our reforms will focus on improving how environmental protections are implemented to get Britain building and restore nature at scale.' By Dan Corry Our current system of environmental regulation is not working as anyone would want. While it was set up in good faith, time and factors like resource constraints, legal findings, case law, the UK leaving the European Union and climate change mean it does not deliver well enough for nature or for our long-term economic growth. That's why we need a new approach to find ways to protect and enhance our natural world, while allowing development to take place. All parties, whether that's housebuilders, nature conservation charities or farmers, need to have a better experience of environmental regulation than they do now. The current system fails them all. My review into environmental regulation and regulators at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – like Natural England and the Environment Agency – focused on guiding activities in the right direction and preventing significant harm, without being antithetical to growth. Growth and nature should not be seen as in direct conflict – it is not and must not be seen as a zero-sum game, even if short run trade-offs will sometimes need to be made. This review has made clear to me that our environmental regulation is overly complex, fragmented and difficult to navigate. Defra oversees over 3,500 pieces of legislation, enforced by various bodies with different approaches. While comprehensive, the system is bureaucratic and inefficient, with many laws out of date or overlapping, leading to unnecessary red tape. A shift is needed; from rigid processes to a system that focuses on clear, outcome-driven goals. To improve the system, my report has put forward 29 recommendations. These are focused on streamlining and modernising regulations that I believe would lead to better outcomes all round. To name but a few, I recommend the following actions. We need to support better cooperation between regulators and appoint a lead regulator for all major infrastructure projects in which multiple have an interest. This should be agreed by regulators at the outset of projects, particularly those that represent significant growth and economic potential. This will stop the endless loop of developers for developers seeking planning approvals from multiple authorities who often disagree with each other – speeding up approvals and potentially saving businesses millions in time and resource. Furthermore, to accelerate the delivery of significant projects, Defra should establish an Infrastructure Board. This board should help ensure that regulatory decisions balance costs and proportionality as well as look to the future to see what's needed. This will improve oversight within the department and overcome barriers to development at an early stage. Another recommendation which is key is allowing trusted nature conservation and environmental partners and other organisations with good track records greater autonomy for nature-positive projects. This approach will enable them to move fast on restoring habitats without applying to regulators for multiple permissions, delivering improvement quicker and easier. Understandably, environmental groups may be nervous about some of the recommendations. And of course, we must not stop being concerned about the wellbeing of our precious nature be that about protected species of bats or rare flora. But everything I have learned during this review suggests that the current system does not work as well as it could for nature and the environment, let alone for growth. The temptation to 'always keep a hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse' is natural but is surely not the right approach to be taken to deliver positive change. Defra needs to up its game and get more on the front foot to execute these recommendations, but I am encouraged by the fact that the department has already begun to implement several of these reforms. The prize of better protection for the environment with growth is now in reach. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
