Photo credit: www.theguardian.com

Concerns Over the Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s Impact on Wildlife in England

Advocates for wildlife protection have long grappled with inadequate laws, but the current government’s planning and infrastructure bill represents an unprecedented setback for England’s ecosystems. This legislation dismantles decades of environmental safeguards that were intended to preserve the natural habitats we inherited from the European Union, protections even the Conservative Party vowed to maintain.

The regulations currently in place, designed to shield wildlife and habitats from exploitative development, are already alarmingly weak. As noted by Labour in its manifesto, the UK is “one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.” The implications of this new bill may exacerbate that situation significantly.

Under existing frameworks, developers must adhere to a “mitigation hierarchy”— a structured approach that prioritizes avoiding construction on ecologically valuable land. If avoidance isn’t feasible, developers are expected to minimize harm, then mitigate any damage by restoring affected habitats. Only as a last resort should they consider offsetting that damage by creating habitats elsewhere, a method generally recognized as the least effective and most costly.

The new legislation bypasses this process entirely, allowing developers to immediately resort to offsetting. By paying a “nature restoration levy,” they can obliterate habitats—ranging from forests to wetlands—with little consequence. Once paid, they can effectively ignore the impact of their actions, as the bill allows for a vague interpretation where the secretary of state merely needs to believe that the levy “might” one day result in new habitats.

Some ecosystems, like ancient woodlands and meadows, are irreplaceable and cannot be compensated for through restoration. Yet, the bill suggests otherwise, treating all ecological features as interchangeable. Developers could, for instance, decimate an ancient woodland, provided they can offer a superficial increase in tree cover, such as planting saplings in plastic tubes. Moreover, the new regulations eliminate the necessity for ecological surveys, making it impossible to measure what is being lost—without a baseline, there can be no accountability for the destruction of protected habitats.

This approach aligns with a concerning trend seen in other government initiatives, reflecting a significant disregard for scientific evidence in favor of corporate interests. Even if substantial ecological damage occurs, the bill stipulates that the levy imposed must not jeopardize the financial viability of the development, effectively providing legal protection for developers to continue degrading precious landscapes.

Inevitably, this shift will diminish the availability of green urban spaces. Given the high cost of urban land compared to cheaper farmland, developers are incentivized to construct in urban areas while compensating for ecological damage in rural settings. Research over three decades demonstrates that such practices can have serious adverse effects on the physical and mental health of local communities.

Throughout my extensive career, I have encountered numerous reports from professional organizations, but none are as critical as the recent statement from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. It asserts that “the broad consensus of concern” expressed by various environmental stakeholders has been “entirely ignored” in drafting this bill. The government’s lack of an evidence base, coupled with a truncated consultation process, raises concerns about its transparency and commitment to a democratic decision-making process.

So who has the government chosen to listen to? In a surprising revelation, Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer noted that his views on environmental regulations stem from “conversations with leading CEOs.” This admission undermines the notion that such policies are intended to represent the public interest rather than serve corporate agendas.

Governing solely by corporate interests creates a dangerous precedent. Companies will invariably provide justifications for their demands, painting regulations as overly burdensome. Unfortunately, it reveals a troubling level of naivety if such claims are taken at face value. Starmer appears disconcertingly receptive to such narratives.

The narrative he regurgitates points to “blockers,” “time-wasting nimbys,” and “zealots” as obstacles to development. The frequently cited example of HS2’s £100 million tunnel—intended to protect bat populations—serves as a case of regulatory overreach, according to Starmer and the supporting media. However, had ecological experts been consulted during the initial planning stages, it’s likely that the ancient woodland impacted by the railway could have been preserved, thus saving both time and resources.

Many of the delays experienced by developers are often the result of last-minute commissioning of ecological surveys rather than proactive planning. Unfortunately, nature often becomes an afterthought in these processes, leading to increased costs.

Labour’s manifesto emphasizes a commitment “to restore and protect our natural world” while facilitating the construction of homes without compromising environmental protections. Yet, the current trajectory suggests an outright erasure of these protections.

This legislation mirrors the government’s approach to restricting protest rights, revealing an impatience with democratic processes in favor of appeasing corporate power. Much like how the US political landscape has been influenced by wealthy interests, the UK appears to be making similar concessions.

The aim of facilitating economic growth through such destructive methods resembles archaic practices that sacrifice ecological integrity in pursuit of short-term gains. This approach is misguided and ultimately counterproductive, likely leading to more harm than good.

Environmental advocates had reservations regarding a Starmer-led Labour party, but few could have anticipated a direction more detrimental than that of the Conservatives. Should this bill pass, it will leave a legacy of a bleaker and less vibrant England.

Source
www.theguardian.com