By Ben Kite and Paul Sterry

In this blog, we explain why the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is such a disaster for nature conservation and what you can do about it: support the lobbying efforts of conservation organisations; and write to your MP demanding amendments be made before it becomes law. We end with a draft letter that you can use as a basis for the latter approach.

Our Concerns

In Part 3 of its new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Government is set to grant itself the power to sweep away virtually all existing safeguards for the natural environment. The new powers will enable the creation of inappropriately and ironically named ‘Environmental Delivery Plans’, that will facilitate the delivery of any amount of development, over any sized area, by simply ‘disapplying’ the environmental protection that would normally be in place. Instead, all that is required is for developers to contribute to a new ‘Nature Restoration Fund’ to pay for conservation measures elsewhere. The Bill is already being labelled as a ‘cash to trash’ initiative.

At present, our most valuable sites for nature – such as the New Forest or Norfolk Broads – benefit from very strict legal tests that require a high degree of confidence that new development can avoid adverse effects upon them (in all but very limited circumstances where any damage is outweighed and justified by imperative overriding public interests). The new Bill will, however, usher in an era in which the Secretary of State would be able to sanction the wholesale destruction of such sites, provided he or she is satisfied that it is ‘likely’ that replacement habitats of a similar kind could be delivered ‘elsewhere’, at some unspecified point in the future, to bring about an ‘overall improvement’. These nebulous ‘conservation’ measures are to be funded by money taken from the Nature Restoration Fund, on the proviso that developers cannot be charged so much that their developments would become unviable. Even if the measures needed to offset the damage would cost more than this.

This misguided and potentially devastating approach aims to promote economic growth, particularly in the housing sector, supposedly whilst also delivering a better outcome for nature. In reality, however, it is unlikely to deliver economic growth, may well increase costs for developers, and will most certainly come at the expense of biodiversity and meaningful green growth.

Biodiversity and the environment are portrayed by the government as being at odds with economic growth, the former said to be holding back the latter. This is a false either/or choice. They are two sides of the same coin and should be pursued with equal governmental vigour and appetite on behalf of those they represent.

The 2021 Dasgupta Review of the economics of biodiversity demonstrated beyond doubt that the ecosystem goods and services afforded to humanity for free by the natural world are essential to continued economic growth. In addition, more recently, a University of Oxford led study has shown that unless addressed, the ongoing degradation of nature could cause a 12% loss to UK GDP by 2030 – greater than the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2008 global financial crisis. Furthermore, multiple Government-led reviews and recent information obtained from Natural England through freedom of information requests have demonstrated that nature and the laws that protect it are not blockers to development.

Setting aside common-sense arguments and moral and ethical considerations, protecting and enhancing the environment is an existential imperative. It is an essential piece in the jigsaw that leads to meaningful and sustainable economic growth and long-term stability for the country. Ultimately that translates as sustainability for the planet and the survival of humanity.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill reads like something written by profit-driven property developers rather than an impartial and well-informed Government. It drives a wrecking ball through existing protection for our dwindling and beleaguered biodiversity, whilst also undermining the efforts of those developers who take a more enlightened approach to their environmental obligations and work hard to deliver better outcomes for nature.

While drafting the Bill, the Government sought (albeit rather perfunctorily) consultation from a range of conservation bodies and worthy and august institutions including the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). However, the resulting wording of the Bill, published with barely a pause for breath after the consultation window had closed, is a reminder that politicians often ‘seek consultation’ to appease critical voices or to give the false perception of having listened, before then proceeding to ignore the advice they were given. Don’t take our word for it, read a critique of the Bill on the CIEEM website. Follow this link then download and read their comments document.

Putting aside the false binary choice between economic prosperity and the natural world presented by Government, the reality is that ecological good health is arguably the more important of the two in existential terms. To quote Professor Guy McPherson: ‘If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money.’

Build in economic haste, repent at ecological leisure might be the mantra for those who seek revision of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. So, what can you as an individual do to encourage the Government to come to its environmental senses and recognise its moral and legal obligations towards the environment, the natural legacy bequeathed to future generations of humans, and long-term planetary survival?

You should support and join conservation organisations that seek to introduce amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill before it gains Royal assent. At the time of writing, the Bill is entering its committee stage – a crucial part of its passage through Parliament – when concerned Parliamentarians are able to propose amendments that would seek to prevent the harm that might otherwise be done. An example of a petition can be found on the Friends of the Earth website. The Community Planning Alliance is also keeping abreast of the progress of the Bill, and their news feed can be found at this link.

You should also write to your MP and urge them to support amendments to the Bill that strengthen – not weaken or dismantle – environmental protection, making the point that nature is essential to economic growth, not an alternative to it. You might care to remind those MPs with slim majorities that, come the next election, constituents with an environmental awareness are like elephants and have long memories. They will remember their MP’s actions or inactions and vote accordingly. CIEEM has published a helpful guide on how to write impactfully to your MP, available at this link.

Finally, if you want to ensure a response from your Member of Parliament to your letter it is a good idea to end with a question or two that they have to answer.

A letter to your MP

You can use the following template to write to your MP, either in full or better still modified to suit your own voice.

To: Find your MP

From: Your name and address including postcode

Date:

Re: Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Dear xxx,

I have been following the progress of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and am dismayed at the degradation of environmental protection that it sanctions through the inappropriately named ‘Environmental Delivery Plans’. The wording of the Bill as currently drafted would sanction the wholesale removal of environmental safeguards in return for nothing more than ‘IOU’ notes from developers set against the possibility of future conservation measures that, in any case, might never materialise. As a consequence, it legitimises environmental destruction and biodiversity loss in the name of short-term economic growth.

Biodiversity and the environment are portrayed by the Government as being at odds with economic growth, the former said to be holding back the latter. This is a false binary choice. In broader planning terms, protecting the environment should go hand-in-hand with development in all its forms. Safeguarding the environment should be treated as a welcome opportunity, not a threat.

In addition to being an opportunity, protecting and enhancing the environment is an existential imperative and an essential piece in the jigsaw that leads to meaningful and sustainable economic growth and long-term stability for the country.

However, if a choice had to be made between the two then, putting aside short-termism, in existential terms the reality is that ecological good health is the more important of the two. To quote Professor Guy McPherson: ‘If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money.’

Returning to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, my concerns are those that are presented in detail on the CIEEM website: follow this link then download and read their comments on the Bill.

Of particular concern to me are the following points:

  • The proposed Environmental Delivery Plans replace the present levels of stringent environmental protection afforded to our most precious wildlife sites and rare species with a greatly watered-down requirement that the Secretary of State only needs only to believe that it is ‘likely’ that an ‘overall improvement’ will be delivered ‘elsewhere’, and on an entirely unspecified timescale, in order to sanction damaging development. The wording is so vague and aspirational that in a legal framework it is meaningless and provides no real safeguards whatsoever for the natural world. Amendments need to be made to restore and enhance protection for wildlife sites and rare species.
  • Aside from the requirement for the Secretary of State to think it ‘likely’ that an ‘overall improvement’ will be delivered, there is no requirement at any point for the so-called ‘Environmental Delivery Plans’ to be subject to independent testing or scrutiny. If EDPs do form part of the Bill, independent monitoring and scrutiny is vital.
  • The Bill entirely circumvents the current ‘mitigation hierarchy’, whereby plans and projects for development are supposed to attempt to avoid environmental harm first, then mitigate unavoidable harm, and if this is not possible only as a last resort provide compensatory habitats to offset any unavoidable losses. The new Environmental Delivery Plans drive a coach and horses through this Internationally accepted best practice procedure, by allowing damage to occur even if no attempt has been made to first avoid or reduce that damage. This flaw in the legislation needs to be addressed.
  • The costs charged to developers for the Nature Restoration Fund are not permitted by the Bill to be so high as to make development unviable – even if the conservation measures needed to offset the expected damage would cost more than this. Either the developer should be required to pay the cost in full or a development should not be permitted if the environmental cost makes it economically ‘unviable’.
  • Biodiversity Net Gain regulations are at risk of being weakened and, in some instances, potentially eliminated from the planning process through the wording of the Bill. Protection for existing BNG regulations need to be restored in amendments to the wording of the Bill.
  • The Bill legitimises a ‘pay to pollute’ policy that prioritises development over protection for any currently-protected site or species. This is unacceptable and the wording needs to be amended to remove this prioritisation.
  • The Bill lacks transparency and contains no meaningful provision for monitoring and enforcement of levy funds required of developers. A likely consequence of this will be ineffective implementation and potential misuse or misappropriation of funds. This flaw in the bill needs to be addressed.
  • There is no requirement for the public living near development facilitated by the so-called ‘Environmental Delivery Plans’ to be consulted, nor for any other expert conservation organisations to be asked for their views outside of a very limited list of public bodies. This flaw in the bill needs to be addressed.
  • By design, the Bill will result in local biodiversity loss, local extinctions and the erosion of environmental connectivity at the local level. Cumulatively this will lead to environmental degradation and species and habitat isolation at the national level, with greater risk of national extinctions. This needs to be prevented through amendments to the wording of the Bill.
  • Currently under-funded Natural England is proposed as both the regulator and the beneficiary of the developer levy, as well as being tasked with writing the so-called Environmental Delivery Plans, overseeing their implementation, and monitoring and reporting on their success or otherwise. Even assuming this underfunded and beleaguered organisation can achieve all of these things, the fact that Natural England is appointed to mark its own homework creates a significant conflict of interest. These highlighted flaws in the Bill need to be addressed by amendments.
  • The opportunity for concerned citizens to challenge an Environmental Delivery Plan in the courts has been greatly limited. Amendments to the Bill are needed to restore the democratic right to challenge.

If such a major restructuring of legislation were being undertaken in the fields of medicine or law, the government would surely act on the advice of professionals who know what they are talking about. With regard to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, please can you explain to me why the Government has so far chosen not to address the legitimate concerns of professional institutions and conservation bodies in the environmental sector?

I urge you to listen to the concerns not only of members of public but also organisations and interested parties, and lobby and vote accordingly. Support amendments recommended by conservation charities, chartered institutes and learned societies because it is vital that environmental safeguards are written into the Bill. Before it gains Royal Assent, I urge you, on behalf of your constituents and the environment, to support the strengthening of legislative protection for the natural world; and remove potential legislative loopholes that will allow the unscrupulous and the ignorant to ruin what is left of our natural heritage. Please let me know how you propose to respond to these requests.

Meaningful biodiversity is not a commodity that can be traded – destroyed in one location and magically recreated in another. Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and the environment is not an academic nor an esoteric exercise but an existential one. Furthermore, it is not a binary choice between economic prosperity and the environment. The two are inextricably linked and need to be treated with the same degree of importance and respect. For all our sakes.

Yours sincerely,

xxx