Changing the rules on planning and the environment

Changing the rules on planning and the environment

There has been a flurry of announcements from the Government since its July election victory on the subject of solving the housing crisis.

The manifesto pledge made by Keir Starmer to build 1.5m homes by the end of the parliament is being treated as a priority and has been welcomed in many quarters. There is self-evidently a housing crisis that needs solving.

The challenges to his commitment to build have so far been muted. But a speech and press release, issued on a Sunday in the run up to Christmas, both have the potential to prompt a backlash from Britain’s well supported and politically astute conservation bodies.

The press release headline promises that the changes, part of wider proposals to be included in the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill, will both “get Britain building” and “turn the tide on nature’s decline.” In his speech, Sir Keir lambasted the “blockers and bureaucrats” who he said had throttled economic growth and made homeownership unattainable.

The Government needs to be careful that its messaging does not cost it the support of bodies like the Wildlife Trusts, The RSPB and their millions of members, by pitching house building against protecting and restoring nature.

House builders want to do the right thing by the environment, and we can have both new homes and enhanced wildlife. However, casting the environmental lobby as a drag on development, risks creating divisions when it is cooperation that is essential.

December’s news release says Labour is consulting on scrapping the need for site specific inspections to assess the impact of building on wildlife. In their place it will give developers the opportunity to make payments into a Nature Restoration Fund, to offset the impact of their developments.

Defra Secretary Steve Reed says: “Getting Britain building means stripping away unnecessary barriers to growth to deliver the homes that we so desperately need. For years, vital housing and infrastructure projects have been tied up in red tape leaving communities without the homes, infrastructure and jobs they need.

“Our Plan for Change will put an end to the status quo while restoring nature. It’s win-win for development and our environment, including targeted reforms allowing us to use the economic benefits of growth to fund tangible and targeted action for nature’s recovery.”

The Government is clear it is not abandoning nature in the race for growth. It says it will lead “a single strategic assessment and delivery plan for an area – not an individual site – which will allow decisions to be made at an appropriate geographic scale.”

Some conservationists will say it is those site-specific inspections have been lifesavers for rare and endangered species. They need to be convinced that the Government’s alternative will be even more effective.

The Government also suggests in its press release, that the assessments for the relatively recently introduced nutrient neutrality requirements, which can hold up building projects which threaten to pollute water courses, are “uncertain and costly.” Paying into a Nature Restoration Fund to bypass the restrictions looks to be the solution favoured by ministers.

Thus far Tony Juniper, Chair of Natural England, is supportive of the way ahead, suggesting we should “consider the huge opportunities that can be unlocked through better strategic planning which considers environmental improvements, economic development and green spaces for public enjoyment on a landscape scale.”

But he is clear that nature and economic recovery should not be “pitted against each other”. He writes on a recent blog hosted by the Green Alliance and published in early January, that we can have both vital new homes and more wildlife. He quotes examples, including the Thames Basin Heaths, where Dartford warbler, woodlark and nightjar thrive close to around 50,000 newly built homes.

He also praises a switch away from protecting threatened species like newts on specific sites to taking a population scale approach. “We switched from seeking the protection of newts at individual sites to enabling developers and local authorities to implement large scale habitat improvement and creation, which smoothed the path to planning permission, showing that newts and developers can thrive together,” Mr Juniper writes

Some will agree; some will not with his premise that we can have the wildlife and the development. The Government needs to be clear, however, about the messaging. Fuelling a fight with conservationists by rubbishing measures to protect wildlife, can only hamper vital development plans.

There is a strong case to be made for building AND boosting nature. But the potential for conflict is impossible to ignore. This issue needs a careful, nuanced approach, a willingness to compromise where necessary and an acceptance that, in some places, wildlife will be lost but that improvements for nature elsewhere can lead to overall gains.

The Government’s commitment to build was one of its strongest and most compelling messages during last year’s election campaign. It must match its passion for solving the housing crisis with an equally strong determination to reverse nature’s stark decline – and build a convincing case through effective messaging that the public and the ardent conservationists can accept.