The UK government has admitted that nature protections have a limited impact on development, challenging its central argument that environmental obligations block construction. The proposed nature recovery fund has been criticized for providing a “licence to kill nature” with no evidence of economic benefits.
The UK government has admitted that there is very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development. This admission comes in the form of the ‘government’s own impact assessment’ of the controversial new planning and infrastructure bill.
Ministers have long argued that nature protections block development, but this argument has been undermined by the ‘government’s own analysis’. The central reason given for the new legislation – that nature is a blocker to development – has been challenged by officials who say there is ‘very limited data’ on how environmental obligations affect development.
The government‘s proposed solution, the nature recovery fund, has been criticised by leading economists, ecologists, and former government advisers. They argue that it provides a ‘licence to kill nature’ with no evidence that it would boost the economy. The NRF is set to create environmental improvement elsewhere, but this could be in a different county to the site of the building, raising fears it will reduce access to nature.
The Nature Recovery Fund is a UK government initiative aimed at restoring damaged and degraded habitats, connecting isolated wildlife sites, and creating new habitats for nature to thrive.
Launched in 2020, the fund provides funding for projects that promote biodiversity, improve ecosystem services, and enhance natural beauty.
With an initial investment of £80 million, the fund supports projects across England, focusing on areas with high conservation value.
Officials attempted to examine the impact of one environmental obligation – nutrient neutrality – on building delays, but found that there was ‘very limited data’ on how environmental obligations affect development. They have not analysed other environmental obligations, including the requirement to protect sites of special scientific interest and to adhere to water neutrality rules.
Robert Oates, CEO and founder of the ecological consultancy Arbtech, said: ‘The ‘government’s impact assessment’ lays bare a truth many of us in the industry have suspected for some time: they have no idea how this bill will affect vulnerable species like barn owls and otters. By its own frank admission, the government has ‘very limited’ data on how environmental obligations impact planning, and has based its assumptions solely on nutrient neutrality.’
Oates warned that the solutions provided by the government are already possible within the current system without the need for new legislation. Instead, they may pave the way for ecological destruction while creating a new planning bottleneck – this time within Natural England.
The Wildlife Trusts’ head of land use planning, Becky Pullinger, said: ‘After weeks of ministers refusing to engage with the strong evidence that current environmental protections don’t delay development, the UK government‘s own impact assessment has confirmed that there is ‘very limited data’ to back up their argument that nature is a blocker. It’s time for ministers to follow the evidence and amend the planning and infrastructure bill before it devastates nature in the name of a false diagnosis.
