Latest news with #planningreforms
The Independent
09-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
'Spurious' claims about the potential impact on nature from Labour's planning reforms seek to undermine its proposals, a minister has said, as he defended overriding environmental protections. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will 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'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Anger after extra protection for rare chalk streams dismissed by ministers
River campaigners have criticised Labour MPs after attempts to enshrine better protections for chalk streams in new planning reforms were rejected. A cross-party group pushed for stringent rules to be put into place to ensure the rare waterways are strictly protected from harm from new developments. But at a parliamentary committee to examine the government's draft planning bill, an amendment supporting new provisions for the at-risk habitats was rejected by Labour MPs. Mark Dye, of Gaywood River Revival (Image: Mark Dye) Mark Dye, spokesman for the Gaywood River Revival - a chalk stream campaign group based in west Norfolk - said: "This news is shocking, but not unexpected from a Labour government that made promises on the campaign trail that it has completely failed to keep. "You would think that protection of the chalk stream ecosystem would be central to a balanced planning and infrastructure bill. "It's as if they have ignored all common sense, the scientific evidence presented to them and stuck their fingers in their ears whilst shouting, 'Build, build, build'." READ MORE: Officials close probe into chalk stream pollution A section of the River Bure, which is one of Norfolk's chalk streams (Image: National Trust/PA Wire) Dubbed "England's rainforests," there are only about 200 chalk streams left in the world with 85pc of them found in the UK, 25 of which flow through Norfolk. Chalk streams such as Gaywood River are at a "tipping point" and face a "perfect storm" of harm caused by over-abstraction, pollution and climate change, Mr Dye said. Recent low levels of rainfall are exacerbating problems due to diminishing flows. Recent pictures of the Gaywood River show algae growth smothering the chalk bed, preventing the growth of vegetation (L) and on the right is a healthy section of the chalk stream at Derby Fen (Image: Gaywood River Revival) The amendment called for protections for all chalk streams as part of the new planning and infrastructure bill, which has been criticised as a "licence to kill nature". Labour's reform is seen as an attempt to rip up environmental red tape in favour of its push for housing and infrastructure by critics. The amendment would have required officials to identify measures to better protect chalk streams from pollution, encroachment, abstraction and other damage. The River Nar, one of Norfolk's chalk streams (Image: Newsquest) However, Labour MPs rejected it, with Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, saying it was "not necessary to include the provision in the legislation". He added that the government had undertaken a comprehensive set of actions outside the bill to protect chalk streams. Another amendment to ensure irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodlands, blanket bogs and lowland fens also get more protection was also blocked. Eliot Lyne, chief executive of Norfolk Wildlife Trust (Image: Danielle Booden) Eliot Lyne, CEO for Norfolk Wildlife Trust, called the outcome "deeply concerning". "The Planning and Infrastructure Bill as drafted poses a huge threat to nature," he said. "It is not, as the government claims, a win-win for nature and growth, it will allow developers to damage irreplaceable wildlife habitats that already face a multitude of other threats. "Without urgent protection for chalk streams, we are set to lose the crystal-clear waters of rivers such as the Wensum, Glaven and Bure; lose wildlife such as water voles, dragonflies and kingfishers from our landscape; and lose any chance of restoring them in the future." The region's MPs have joined campaigners in criticising the decision. South West Norfolk MP, Terry Jermy (Image: Roger Harris) Terry Jermy, Labour MP for South West Norfolk, has broken ranks and said he is "disappointed" that the opportunity was not taken to "create better protections for chalk streams as they are vital to our cultural and environmental heritage." Steff Aquarone, MP for North Norfolk (Image: Submitted) Steffan Aquarone, Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, added: "For Labour to backtrack now is staggering - they've turned down a crucial opportunity to protect our chalk streams and this decision will come at the cost of our precious natural environment."
