The Bill proposes sweeping changes to England’s planning system, in a bid to ramp up the pace of development. Regrettably, those in power believe that the building of new homes is being impeded by laws protecting our environment and threatened species. I guess it’s easier to blame nature than tackle the real problems, like chronically under-resourced planning departments, skills shortages in the construction industry and a developer-led housing market that withholds supply in order to keep prices high!

Rather than address these systemic issues, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill takes the easy route and proposes legislative changes to allow developers to sidestep some of their environmental obligations.

Just to be clear, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust is emphatically not opposed to new development. We know that more homes are desperately needed, but we firmly believe that building them shouldn’t be at the expense of our precious natural environment.

The crux of the matter is this: we don’t need to choose between nature or development, we can develop a system that provides for both. If we’re re-designing the planning process, surely we should aim for a system that prioritises sustainable, nature and people-friendly development, rather than one that allows any development, anywhere you like? 

What do we stand to lose?

Under the current planning system, if it is believed that a development could significantly affect a protected habitat or species, a developer must undertake an assessment or survey to ascertain the environmental impact before a planning application can be submitted.

Such assessments aim to identify the potential environmental consequences of any future development activities and inform decisions on whether they should proceed, and if so, how. If harm could be caused, they outline the steps that need to be taken to minimise this – by avoiding, mitigating, restoring and finally offsetting damage – in that order. This ‘mitigation hierarchy’ is a well-established ecological principle designed to minimise environmental impact and ensure that compensation is only considered as a very last resort.

As a nature-loving country, most people support this approach. YouGov polling carried out earlier this year revealed that only 12% of Brits think that current planning rules to protect nature and wildlife ‘go too far’. In fact, 71% of people polled support increased protections for green and blue spaces within planning rules (link below).

But the Planning and Infrastructure Bill flies in the face of public opinion. The Government have described it as a ‘win-win for nature’, but the reality is quite different.

Under the proposed legislation, Natural England may prepare Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) for areas that are earmarked for new development, which outline specific conservation measures to offset harm caused by development and contribute to nature recovery. 

This means that in areas covered by an EDP, rather than carry out environmental assessments to find out what could be lost if land is built on, the developer can opt to pay into a new ‘Nature Restoration Fund’, which will be spent on compensation measures.

Ultimately, this approach is wrong because some things have a value that can’t be calculated in pounds and pence. Habitats that have taken hundreds years to form cannot simply be re-created elsewhere. Peatlands, for instance, take thousands of years to form - it takes a decade for 1cm of peat to be created. If you destroy a peatland, you can’t compensate for the loss: it is gone forever. 

Compensating for damage doesn’t work for some species either. Bats and hazel dormice, for example, are ‘site loyal’, having a strong attachment to their habitats. Forcing them to move can disrupt social structures and breeding patterns, reducing survival rates. 

Sometimes, a simple solution can be found to a complex problem, but not in this case.

What The Wildlife Trusts are doing

Together with other environmental NGOs, The Wildlife Trusts are pushing for a series of amendments to the Bill during its Committee Stage to enable new homes to be built without removing environmental safeguards.

In its current drafting, the Bill lacks vital detail on EDPs and the Nature Restoration Fund, which leaves legislation open to interpretation and, potentially, manipulation.

The amendments we’re prioritising include introducing a requirement for EDPs to be based on ecological evidence; ensuring EDPs significantly improve environmental features; and a requirement for developers to prioritise avoiding harm by following the mitigation hierarchy. If you’d like to read the full text of the amendments we wish to be tabled, see: https://www.wcl.org.uk/proposed-amendments-for-the-planning-and-infrastructure-bill.asp

On a local level, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust has been urging our local MPs to support these amendments.

The YouGov survey can be found here: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/WCL_Farming_250321_w.pdf