What happened to backing the builders?

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s most powerful measure has been watered down

When the Planning and Infrastructure Bill was first announced, plans to radically change the country’s approach to nature protection were cautiously welcomed by environmental NGOs.

This may have been surprising to some. After all, the Government’s bill was all about making it easier to build new homes, pylons and power stations. Still, it shouldn’t be that surprising that green groups initially backed it.

The status quo does little for nature, but imposes massive costs and delays upon development. Whether that’s HS2’s £120m bat shed (that may not save a single bat), Hinkley Point C’s ‘acoustic fish deterrent’ (the so-called fish disco), or the numerous offshore wind farms delayed by a tiny worm that isn’t even present in the bits of the seabed that are being built on, it is clear that the system is broken.

Even ignoring the clear environmental benefits of clean power and fast public transport links, all of the cost that goes into building bat sheds or piecing together 44,000 page environmental impact assessments could surely be put to better use for nature.

That’s the idea behind Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. In effect, moving away from the site-by-site status quo and instead taking a more strategic approach to protecting nature informed by science. Rather than building bat sheds and fish discos, developers would pay a Nature Restoration Levy to fund large initiatives to restore species at scale.

Hinkley Point C’s ‘fish disco’ may or may not save a few fish (and rare birds who feed on them), but creating a new wetland would save far more.

A win-win where developers pay less and get faster decisions, while nature recovery is better supported is achievable.

Yet green groups’ support for it didn’t last long. The model was dubbed ‘cash to trash’ and the groups aggressively pushed a series of amendments that would make the new strategic approach almost impossible to deliver.

The amendments were defeated in the Commons and the Labour MP, Chris Hinchliff, who sponsored them went on to lose the whip for ‘persistent knobheadery’. (I suspect his role in the disability benefit rebellion played a bigger part.)

Still, green groups are influential. Some such as the RSPB and the National Trust have far more members than any political party – and even if their members aren’t monolithic in their views, politicians are understandably uneasy about pissing them off.

As the bill makes its way through the Lords, the Government has put forward a series of amendments designed to address the NGO’s concerns.

You can read the full changes here, but in short, while they do not get rid of the strategic approach to nature protection, they do make it harder to deliver. More evidence will be required to put a plan in place. Consultation will be needed when plans change. And the Secretary of State approving the plans will need to be even more confident that the plans will work.

In some cases, construction can’t start until a plan is already working for nature.

Some of the changes aren’t actually changes, but rather clarifications of what would have happened anyway.

Let’s be clear. The amendments aren’t as bad as Hinchliff’s. They don’t break the bill. But, they make the bill less effective.

In an ideal world, almost all types of development would be covered by this smarter strategic approach. Under the bill as originally drafted that would have been unlikely – there would still have been bat tunnels and fish discos in cases where ‘environmental delivery plans’ aren’t put in place. The new amendments mean such cases will be more frequent.

When plans are in place – as I suspect they will be for nutrient neutrality – the system will do better. But getting those plans in place will take longer, require more resources, and be more open to challenge.

Politically, I think this is a mistake. It is far from clear that nature groups are going to drop their opposition fully in response. The reaction from the NGOs is far from positive. Some are unconvinced that the amendments actually create any new meaningful protections (beyond added paperworks). Others welcome the amendments, but make clear they still don’t represent the ‘win-win for nature and developers’ that was promised. Campaigns against the bill are unlikely to stop – and if one group comes out strongly against the changes, you can expect others, afraid of looking like they’re selling out nature to win favour from an unpopular government, to follow.

This wasn’t the reaction the Government hoped for

At the same time, the amendments alienate the bill's strongest backers and undermine a key plank of the Government’s growth agenda. And with the Chancellor scrambling to find an extra £5bn, growth will be key to avoiding damaging tax rises or other unpopular spending cuts.

What’s needed now is two things. First, the Government must now hold the line. No further watering down of Part 3 can be tolerated. Second, the impetus to fix the Habitats Regulations is even greater. This is because more roads, railways, and housing will be covered by the environmental status quo and not the new strategic approach.

There’s still time to do this. The ideas are out there. If they squander this opportunity to fix planning, they won’t get another that will pay off before the next election.

And for the environmental groups opposing this attempt to stop nature protections from blocking new roads, railways, and power stations, here’s a warning: you’ll like the next one even less.