Croydon (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Labour MP Steve Reed has instructed colleagues to vote against environmental protection measures affecting Croydon, prompting criticism from local campaigners.
In his new position as housing minister, former environment secretary and Croydon MP Steve Reed is directing Labour MPs to vote against measures that would provide the environment and wildlife significant legal protections from construction.
Conservation organizations voiced their grave worries about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposed by the Labour government.
The House of Lords inserted Amendment 130 to the Bill.
Amendment 94, which provides additional protection for chalk streams like Croydon’s River Wandle, was also approved by the Lords.
“But this won’t happen if MPs don’t vote to keep the Amendment in the Bill,”
according to Richard Barnes, the head of planning and external affairs at the London Wildlife Trust.
The Bill “could be disastrous for wildlife and wild places” in its original form, according to the National Trust, the RSPB, regional wildlife trusts, and other ecological organizations and environmentalists.
Reed, meanwhile, is in favor of what environmentalists have called a “cash to trash” system, in which developers must contribute to a fund in order to obtain planning approval to construct on formerly protected natural habitat areas.
Britain is already among the nations with the least amount of natural resources in the world, according to numerous studies. Reed’s “Build Baby Build” Bill has the potential to significantly worsen that circumstance.
Reed’s draft bill exempts unique habitats like wetlands and old woodlands, as well as protected wildlife including dormice, badgers, hedgehogs, otters, and nightingales, from new regulations that would allow developers to circumvent environmental restrictions in order to expedite the construction of homes.
Developers will be permitted to pay into a national “nature recovery fund” and proceed with their project immediately under Reed’s proposed legislation.
Developers would still need to take the standard precautions to lessen harm to animals and habitats because the Lords’ amendment would limit the nature recovery fund to effects from air and water pollution.
When the Bill returns to the Commons for its final stages before becoming law next week, Reed, the MP for Streatham (and Croydon North if he can be bothered), has instructed Labour MPs to oppose the amendment.
When constituents voiced their concerns over the removal of crucial protections for wildlife and habitat, Reed’s Labour colleagues, including Croydon West MP Sarah Jones, responded with false information.
“I know that there have been concerns that the Bill will remove existing environmental protections and put irreplaceable habitat such as ancient woodlands at risk. I am pleased to confirm that this is not the case,”
MP Jones’s stock response said.
“I believe that the Bill will ultimately deliver more for nature, not less.”
Some of the largest environmental groups in the UK claim that the government’s repeal of environmental laws “lacks any rigorous scientific or ecological justification” in a letter to MPs.
“There is no credible, published, or well-established evidence that this model can simply be scaled or replicated for multiple species nationwide without risking serious ecological harm, legal uncertainty, and increased costs for both developers and land managers,”
the environmentalists write in their letter criticizing Reed’s Bill.
Green MP Dr. Ellie Chowns called the government’s “zero-sum game” strategy for development and the environment “a complete misconception” yesterday in the Commons.
However, The Grauniad claims that the Labour government has only been paying attention to profit-driven developers and their lobbyists.
What reasons has Steve Reed given for opposing the protections?
Housing Secretary Steve Reed has opposed environmental protection amendments in the Planning and structure Bill because he supports a system where inventors pay into a public “ nature recovery fund ” to gain planning authorization for systems, allowing them to begin work incontinently without conducting detailed environmental checks or mitigation measures.
Reed’s position is aimed at speeding up housebuilding by reducing regulatory detainments associated with guarding certain defended species (like dormice and hedgehogs) and rare territories (similar as washes and ancient woods).
Reed argues that the Bill will eventually “ deliver more for nature ” despite review from environmentalists who say his proffers remove crucial legal protections and calculate on an unproven “ cash to trash ” system. He’s aligned with efforts to prioritize construction and development over strict environmental safeguards, arguing that the fund will effectively balance development with nature recovery without stalling systems.