Latest news with #planningbill
The Guardian
03-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Revealed: 5,000 English nature sites at risk under Labour's planning proposals
More than 5,000 of England's most sensitive, rare and protected natural habitats are at high risk of being destroyed by development under Labour's new planning bill, according to legal analysis of the legislation. The Guardian has examined the threat the bill poses to 5,251 areas known as nature's 'jewels in the crown', as some of the country's most respected wildlife charities call for a key part of the bill to be scrapped. The areas at risk from Labour's planning changes include cherished landscapes such as the New Forest, the Surrey heaths, the Peak District moors, and the Forest of Bowland. Rivers such as the Itchen in Hampshire and the Wensum in Norfolk are also threatened by the bill. The thousands of protected habitats are locations for threatened British wildlife such as nightingales, badgers, dormice, otters, butterflies, dragonflies, kingfishers, tufted ducks and egrets. The bill is the product of the government's promise to build 1.5m homes to help address the UK's housing affordability crisis, and approve 150 major infrastructure projects, in this parliament. The pledge is key to Labour's plan to boost economic growth; however, a recent study suggests the government is likely to miss its new homes target. The government says the bill does not weaken environmental protections. But according to three separate legal opinions on the planning and infrastructure bill currently going through parliament, legal protections will be rolled back by the legislation, making it easier for developers to build on areas that have historically been protected under UK and international law. The Guardian has identified 10 protected sites that are under particular threat from development under the new legislation amid growing criticism of Labour's bill. They include one of the last strongholds for nightingales in England at Lodge Hill in Kent; a wetland dating back 2,600 years in south Devon; an internationally important tidal wetland at Tipner west in Portsmouth; and woods dating back as far as the 17th century at Sittingbourne, Kent, part of the 2.5% of the UK's ancient woodland that still remains. These areas represent just a handful of the most protected environmental gems across England which include 4,100 sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), all currently protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; 71 wetlands protected under the internationally-binding Ramsar convention; 256 special areas of conservation (SACs) and 824 special protection areas, (SPAs) all protected under UK and international law in the habitats directive. Though numerous, these protected areas in total only cover just under 8% of land in England. Critics of the bill say ensuring they continue to be protected does not amount to a block on building new houses. In a legal opinion, Alex Goodman KC said the consequences of the planning and infrastructure bill as drafted were that any adverse impacts a development inflicted on the most protected natural areas in England, including SSSIs, SACs and Ramsar sites, must be 'disregarded'. '[The bill] thereby withdraws the principal legal safeguard for protected sites,' he said. 'This amounts to a very significant change.' Goodman has provided one of three separate legal opinions on the bill since it was presented by Angela Rayner, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government. All, including that of the government's own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), challenge Rayner's assertion to parliament that the bill is not a rollback of environmental law. Rayner has been threatened with a judicial review brought by nature groups if she does not 'correct' her comments. Goodman said: 'The only possible reading is that the bill will have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided.' Glenys Stacey, chair of the OEP, said: '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.' Key concerns focus on part three of the bill, which provides a mechanism for developers to sidestep current environmental obligations by paying into a nature restoration fund, which will be used at a later date to create environmental improvements elsewhere. Once the fee is paid, the development can go ahead even if it 'inflicts adverse effects on the integrity of a protected site'. Dubbed a mechanism to pay 'cash to trash', the bill contains no requirement for developers to measure what harms are taking place during the planning process. Irreplaceable habitats have no extra protection from development. Leading charities have called for this section to be scrapped entirely. Dr Ruth Tingay, co-director of Wild Justice, said the government seemed intent on causing unrecoverable damage. 'Imagine flattening an irreplaceable grade I listed building like the Royal Albert Hall, replacing it with karaoke machines in various towns and then telling the public this is a 'win-win' for architecture and music. Swap the Royal Albert Hall for any one of the UK's nationally important and protected habitats, swap the karaoke machines for a few pathetic tree-planting schemes, then tell people this is a 'win-win' for the environment and the public, and the analogy is brutally clear.' David Elvin KC, in a third legal opinion, said part three of the bill was regressive and potentially in breach of international law. Ellie Chowns, a Green MP, said there was a serious legal question with the bill because although the secretary of state asserted to MPs there was no reduction in environmental protections, the reality of the legislation was that the bill was in fact a rollback of environmental protections. 'We have a responsibility to protect the most important, the rarest and most in need habitats, like chalk streams, ancient woodlands, peat bogs; these jewels in the crown of our ecological heritage have their protections weakened in this bill,' she said. 'These are irreplaceable habitats, which by their very nature cannot be created anywhere else in some kind of compensation schedule.' A government spokesperson said: 'We completely reject these claims, and have been clear that our planning and infrastructure will not weaken environmental protections. 'The government has inherited a failing system that has delayed new homes and infrastructure while doing nothing for nature's recovery. 'That's why we will deliver a win-win for the economy and nature as part of our Plan for Change, unblocking building and economic growth while delivering meaningful environmental improvements.'
The Guardian
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Wildlife charities urge Labour to scrap ‘licence to kill nature' in planning bill
Leading wildlife charities are calling on Labour to scrap a significant section of the planning bill which they say is a 'licence to kill nature', as new data reveals bats and newts are not the main reason planning is delayed in England. The RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts, whose membership is more than two million, said Labour had broken its promises on nature. They called for part three of the bill, which allows developers to avoid environmental laws at a site by paying into a national nature recovery fund to pay for environmental improvements elsewhere, to be ditched. 'It's now clear that the bill in its current form will rip the heart out of environmental protections and risks sending nature further into freefall,' said Beccy Speight, CEO of the RSPB. 'The fate of our most important places for nature and the laws that protect them are all in the firing line. The wild spaces, ancient woodlands, babbling brooks and the beautiful melody of the dawn chorus – it's these natural wonders that delight people all over the country and support our physical and mental health that are under threat. That cannot be allowed to stand.' The charities released new research which suggested bats and newts were not the reason for delays in planning in 2024. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, prime minister, Keir Starmer and housing secretary, Angela Rayner have repeatedly framed nature as a blocker to growth, blaming bats and newts for delays to major infrastructure and housing projects. The data from analysis of 17,433 planning appeals in England in 2024 found that newts were relevant in just 140 (0.8%) planning appeals and bats in 432 (2.48%). Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts said: 'Before the general election Labour promised to restore nature. Under a year later, the chancellor is leading an ideological charge against the natural world despite it being the very foundation of the economy, society and people's health. Promises have been broken, and millions of people have been betrayed.' The leading British wildlife charities spoke out as more than 60 conservationists, including presenter Chris Packham, business leaders and legal experts signed a joint statement calling for the planning and infrastructure bill to be paused and for a meaningful consultation over part three of the draft legislation. Anger from environmental groups, ecologists and some economists has grown after Labour MPs and housing minister Matthew Pennycook rejected every amendment to strengthen protections for nature in the bill, which were put forward by MPs on the committee examining the draft legislation. These include a call for better protections for rare and vulnerable chalk streams and for all so called irreplaceable habitats which cannot by their very nature be recreated anywhere else in a compensatory scheme. British ecologist Sir John Lawton, who signed the joint statement, said the government should pause the bill for proper consultation: 'Legal changes of this magnitude should at least follow due process. A hurried competition for last-minute 'rescue' amendments to this dangerous bill helps no one, and will surely harm our environment, and our economy on which it depends,' he said. 'Normal, evidence-led, democratic due process is all we are asking for.' Bennett said the so-called nature recovery part of the bill was a misnomer because in reality it was a licence to destroy nature. 'The Wildlife Trusts and others have offered constructive solutions that would allow the bill to proceed and achieve its aim to accelerate development whilst maintaining strong environmental protections,' he said. 'We're appalled that these have all been spurned. Nature is in crisis and must not suffer further damage. Much loved places like the New Forest could now be at risk – that's why we're now saying the misleadingly named 'nature recovery' section must be removed.' A government spokesperson said: 'We completely reject these claims. The government has inherited a failing system that has delayed new homes and infrastructure while doing nothing for nature's recovery, and we are determined to fix this through our plan for change. That's why our planning and infrastructure bill will deliver a win-win for the economy and nature by unblocking building and economic growth, and delivering meaningful environmental improvements.'
The Guardian
12-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Nature group threatens judicial review against Labour's planning bill
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 take 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. 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. 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 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. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been approached for comment.
