UK (Parliament Politics Magazine) – UK officials admit there’s almost no solid link between environmental protections and project delays, undermining key claims behind the country’s planning reforms.
As reported by The Guardian, the British government has acknowledged in its own impact review that there is limited evidence that nature protections significantly delay construction.
The report from Whitehall officials provides no evidence to substantiate the government’s claims that environmental laws are the primary cause of delays in building projects.
What did ministers say about the new bill’s impact on nature protections?
Ministers argued that the proposed bill would accelerate housing and infrastructure projects. It will allow developers to bypass local environmental obligations by contributing to a central nature recovery fund.
Officials admit that nature recovery efforts could occur in a different region from the construction area, raising concerns about diminished access to nature for local communities.
What did the government’s impact assessment say about nature protections?
The Office for Environmental Protection has warned that the proposed bill, in its current form, would eliminate nature protections and jeopardize protected sites.
The government’s claim that nature obstructs development, a key argument behind the new bill backed by PM Sir Keir Starmer, Chancellor Rachel Reeves, and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner, has been undermined by its own impact review.
What did officials say about the lack of data on environmental impact?
Officials tried to evaluate the impact of one environmental obligation, nutrient neutrality, on construction delays, but stated, “There is very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development.”
They added, “This makes reaching a robust estimate of the impacts associated with the NRF, which will streamline the process for discharging environmental obligations, very challenging.”
Officials have not examined other environmental obligations, including the need to protect SSSI areas, prevent harm to species like bats and barn owls, or adhere to water neutrality standards. They cited a ‘lack of data’ on how these obligations impact construction delays.
What did Robert Oates claim about the risks to species in the planning bill?
Robert Oates, CEO and founder of the ecological consultancy Arbtech stated, “The government’s impact assessment on the planning and infrastructure bill lays bare a truth many of us in the industry have suspected for some time: they have no idea how this bill will affect vulnerable species like barn owls and otters.”
He said, “By its own frank admission, the government has ‘very limited’ data on how environmental obligations impact planning, and has based its assumptions solely on nutrient neutrality.”
Mr Oates warned that, with no supporting evidence, entire species may be jeopardized due to the false assumption that nature hinders development, adding, “Time and again, the government has failed to produce any evidence to support this claim.”
He added, “Instead of speeding up housebuilding, the government is paving the way for ecological destruction while creating a new planning bottleneck – this time within Natural England.”
What did Becky Pullinger say about the UK’s planning and infrastructure bill?
Becky Pullinger, head of land use planning at the Wildlife Trusts, stated, “After weeks of ministers refusing to engage with the strong evidence that current environmental protections don’t delay development, the UK government’s own impact assessment has confirmed that there is ‘very limited data’ to back up their argument that nature is a blocker.”
She added, “It’s time for ministers to follow the evidence and amend the planning and infrastructure bill before it devastates nature in the name of a false diagnosis. We can protect nature and build homes, but not through the current bill.”
Environmental audit committee views on nature protection
The chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Toby Perkins, raised concerns that the government may fail to achieve its goal of protecting 30% of land by 2030 and ensuring better access to nature for the public.
A report from the EAC released on Wednesday expressed concerns that the government’s push for developers to contribute to the NRF could signal a shift away from their commitment to biodiversity net gain. This policy mandates a 10% increase in biodiversity on or off development sites or via government credits.
What did Richard Benwell say about the planning bill and its impact on nature?
Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated, “The government is right that a win-win is possible for nature and development, but the planning bill is completely one-sided. It throws environmental protection to the wind, with little to offer future generations or communities fearful for the future of nature.
He added, “It would leave vulnerable species and irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams and ancient woodlands more exposed than ever to unsustainable development. Promises of nature recovery efforts in return are thin and uncertain.”