The Bill is currently passing through Parliament and as it does, there is ample opportunity for Ministers to deliver on a promise to collaborate with the nature sector and ‘plug the gaps’ to avoid environmental regression. Failure to do so would risk leaving positive progress under threat.
A key pillar of the Government’s commitments to delivering a ‘win-win’ for nature and development rest with the Nature Restoration Fund and up front funding for Natural England.
Becky Pullinger, head of land use planning at The Wildlife Trusts, says:
“Ministers have pointed to a willingness to ‘pump-prime’ the Nature Restoration Fund – but where is the money coming from, and how will this be deployed?
“Beyond this willingness, the lack of true safeguards for nature is deeply concerning - we expected and needed to hear so much more detail.”
This week, The Wildlife Trusts joined together with Wildlife and Countryside Link and a coalition of environment organisations in writing to Defra Secretary of State Steve Reed and Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook to highlight the ‘urgent repairs’ needed to the new planning reforms.
The Wildlife Trusts are concerned that with nature in decline and nature recovery targets currently due to be missed, it would be disastrous if instead of a ‘win-win for development and for nature’, we arrive at a ‘lose-lose’ scenario.
We urge Minsters to accept essential additions to avoid damaging confusion and uncertainty across the development sector.
The Wildlife Trusts want to see the following:
-
An amendment regarding the timing of conservation measures in the Environmental Delivery Partnerships. Without timings applied to conservation measures, the door is open to mitigatory measures coming long after environmental damage is done. This could be fatal for habitats and species which have already suffered declines. The amendment would require Natural England to set a timetable for delivery of conservation measures, so that gains for nature come in advance of harm from development.
-
An amendment to put evidence at the start of the process. This amendment would put consideration of evidence at the very start of the EDP process and ensure that EDPs only come forward when they can be justified on ecological grounds.
-
An amendment to achieve significant environmental improvement. This would see a toughening of measures to ‘significantly and measurably outweigh the negative effect’ of development and ‘achieve a significant environmental improvement’.
-
An amendment to carry across the well-established ecological principle of mitigation hierarchy into the Nature Restoration Fund. This would instruct Natural England to only accept an application to pay a Nature Restoration Levy for a development if the developer had first taken reasonable steps to apply the mitigation hierarchy, which prioritises avoidance of harm to environmental features, with mitigation and then compensation actions only permitted after the preceding steps have been taken. This is essential to arresting nature’s decline. It is deeply concerning that this critical tool to protect nature is currently not recognised within part 3 of the bill.
Becky Pullinger continues:
“Ministers have repeatedly promised to develop proposals in collaboration with the nature sector and so we cannot see why proposed amendments would not be accepted, to put their proclaimed nature win beyond its current state of rhetoric and into reality.”