The Wildlife Trusts are disappointed to see measures to boost nature recovery largely absent from the UK Government’s Planning & Infrastructure Bill that has just been published. Although the Bill shows that some safeguards to the Nature Restoration Fund, including an ‘overall improvement test’, have been applied, these need to be stronger. There are also missed opportunities for this Government to tackle the need for housing and the devastating loss of nature simultaneously.
Action to address environmental damage has to happen quickly to stop wildlife and habitats from diminishing even further as a result of development.
Becky Pullinger, head of land use planning at The Wildlife Trusts, says:
“If implemented carefully, the Nature Restoration Fund offers a valuable opportunity for the UK Government to address some environmental impacts of development whilst also helping to drive nature’s recovery, reduce pollution, and enhance green spaces for people’s health as part of the development process. The Bill contains some safeguards designed to secure win-wins for nature and development, but – given the scale of the nature and climate crises – it needs to go further to ensure nature recovery is not left behind.”
The Wildlife Trusts believe that the proposed Nature Restoration Fund approach must not become a “get out of jail free card” for developers. The Fund needs stronger safeguards in order to match current protections and ensure protected sites – such as peatlands and ancient woodlands – are not damaged. The Wildlife Trusts want to see two key safeguards added to the Bill:
-
A timeline for the ‘overall improvement test’ appears to be missing. The issue here is that nature needs help now, not just in 100 years' time. This point must be clarified by UK Government immediately if they are serious about restoring nature. Action to address environmental damage has to happen quickly to stop wildlife and habitats from diminishing even further as a result of development.
-
The Bill lacks a requirement for scientific evidence to inform the development of Environmental Delivery Plans, including to ascertain if the approach is appropriate to secure better outcomes for nature. This is particularly concerning for site-loyal species such as bats. Such animals cannot simply move to another suitable habitat elsewhere – and it takes hundreds of years to create the ancient woodlands which they call home. Therefore, these species should be excluded from the Nature Restoration Fund system from the start.
Other areas of concern include Clause 47 of the Bill’s line that ‘no person is to have a right to be heard at an examination’ on Spatial Development Strategies. This undemocratic approach means that the public, local communities, and other stakeholders will have less of a say in the environmental aspects of these strategies.
