In his recent Plan for Change speech, Sir Keir Starmer showed his discontent for the ‘absurd’ HS2 bat tunnel. Adding his name to a long list of politicians who have raised concerns about wildlife protection restricting development. The Prime Minister’s comments come off of the back of Jon Thompson’s (Chair of HS2) scapegoating of the ‘£100 million bat shed’ as a reason for spiralling costs.
This anti-wildlife rhetoric is not new. Under previous Conservative Governments we heard various iterations of this:
- Liz Truss warned of the ‘anti-growth coalition’
- Boris Johnson accused newt-counters of delaying house-building
- David Cameron had his epiphany that dredging was good for water voles
What is the Government’s problem?
Working in nature conservation is challenging. Despite decades of decline, the environment has long been a low priority for consecutive Governments. The result is that our complex, natural world is poorly understood. It is now widely recognised that something needs to be done, however we are trying to solve problems with incomplete data.
The previous Conservative Government tried to fix this by passing the Environment Act, with its requirement that new planning permission deliver a Biodiversity Net Gain.
However, we don’t have a good track record when it comes to mitigating the effects of development. One study, which investigated the success of mitigation, found that 0% of new bat lofts were used and only 13% of sites maintained or increased abundance of bats. When you consider the cost, both financial and delay to project timescales, is it any wonder the Government is fed up?
Win-win
Earlier this year, in a joint letter from Angela Rayner and Steve Reed we heard the Government’s proposal will be a ‘win-win’ for house building and nature. The Government have now set out their plans in a recent working paper.
What are the proposed changes? For certain applications, the Government is proposing to do away with the need for site-specific surveys and mitigation. This follows a recent shift in licensing for great crested newts – essentially a shift away from protecting individuals towards protecting the population.
Assuming the three licensing tests can be met (overriding public interest, no impact upon the favourable conservation status of the species, and no satisfactory alternative), a developer can simply pay into a central pot and gain their consent – no surveys or mitigation needed. A ‘delivery body’, who has access to the funds, could chose to put a ‘delivery plan’ into place.
It’s not me, it’s you (love the UK Government)
The document feels like the Government’s Dear John letter to ecologists. Ecologists are not mentioned once; however, the 15-page document uses the term ‘strategic’ 38 times. This suggests the Government’s desire to move away from professionals ‘on the ground’ to people sat behind a desk. Will this desk-based approach deliver more for our wildlife? Or will it simply put people’s jobs at risk?
For years, I had assumed our politicians hated wildlife – perhaps they just hated us. However, with such a poor track record, can you blame them?
How to respond
Whilst inviting response to their new working paper, the Government are quick to point out that it is not an official consultation. However, an online feedback form is available here.
Comments
This policy does seem to be an attempt a move away from site based ecological assessments and mitigation. The examples used are strategic models such as SANGS and DLL. If the Government keep their promise as outlined within this paper to not water down existing legislative protections, it’s hard to see how strategic models would work across the board. The paper does state that where a strategic approach would not work, the site based approach would continue to apply. Therefore, more detail such as a White Paper is needed before these policies can be analysed in detail. However, given the recent rhetoric from the PM and DPM, I do agree that all of us in the industry have a right to be worried. We’ll soon see whether the political hyperbole will translate into proportionate policy and legislation for nature conservation and development which breaks the current status quo.
Hi Jim – you mischaracterise District Licensing for newts, it’s not a shift from species to habitats, it’s a shift from protecting individuals to conserving the species. And, in NatureSpace’s version of District Licensing (which is delivered across 65 Local landing Authorities) at least, there is site-specific assessment (though not surveys) and in-situ mitigation.
However, it works for newts because of several important features in the autecology of the species – and just because it works for newts does not mean it will work for other species….
Tom
Thanks, Tom. I have updated the text to more accurately reflect the change.
Jim