Government Faces Backlash Over Planning Bill Wildlife Clause
Housing Secretary Steve Reed has instructed Labour Members of Parliament to vote down an amendment to the new planning bill that was designed to protect British wildlife and its habitats from destruction. The controversial move places the government on a direct collision course with major environmental groups and contradicts a significant vote in the House of Lords.
The amendment, which passed with a substantial majority in the Lords, seeks to restrict the most contentious part of the draft legislation. It would remove protected species like dormice, badgers, hedgehogs, otters, and nightingales, as well as rare habitats including wetlands and ancient woodlands, from new rules that allow developers to bypass existing environmental laws to accelerate house building.
The 'Cash to Trash' Controversy Explained
Under the draft legislation proposed by the Labour government, developers would be permitted to pay into a national 'nature recovery fund' and proceed with their projects immediately. This system would replace the current requirement for developers to conduct environmental surveys and first avoid, then mitigate, damage before beginning construction.
This proposed change has been widely condemned by ecological experts and environmental organisations, who label it a 'cash to trash' model. They argue it represents a significant regression on decades-old environmental protections. The Lords' amendment would limit the nature recovery fund's use to impacts from air and water pollution, thereby maintaining the existing obligation for developers to mitigate damage to wildlife.
Ecologists and Charities Voice Strong Opposition
In a letter to MPs, a coalition of the UK's leading nature charities, including The Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB, stated that the government's rollback of environmental law 'lacks any rigorous scientific or ecological justification'.
The letter further contends, 'There is no credible, published, or well established evidence that this model can simply be scaled or replicated for multiple species nationwide without risking serious ecological harm, legal uncertainty, and increased costs for both developers and land managers.'
Revelations from The Guardian this week highlighted a disparity in government engagement, showing that Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook have met numerous developers over the past year regarding the planning bill. Notably, Reeves has not met with a single environmental organisation or the body for professional ecologists, while Pennycook has held just four meetings with such groups, compared to 16 with leading developers.
A spokesperson for the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government defended the bill, stating: 'The planning and infrastructure bill will remove barriers to building vital new homes and infrastructure and this amendment is an unnecessary limit on the benefits which the nature restoration fund will create for both nature and the economy. There are already safeguards in our legislation to ensure environmental delivery plans are effective.'
The final vote on the amendment is scheduled for Thursday when the bill returns to the Commons for its final stages before becoming law.
