In this guest blog, Sally Hayns (CEO, CIEEM) discusses why Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill may not be the answer to developers’ dreams
Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, by far the most controversial part, is hailed by the UK Government as delivering a ‘win-win’ for nature and development in England.
The ‘win for nature’ mantra has been roundly and effectively discredited, not only by scientific experts and experienced practitioners but also by the Office for Environmental Protection and the Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill. But, as more evidence emerges of how the Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) and Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) will work in practice, I think developers working in England should be very worried indeed.
The government’s ‘win for nature’ mantra has been roundly and effectively discredited.
Chaos and confusion
Let’s be clear, the new approach outlined in the Bill will not be straightforward to implement. EDPs can be brought forward at a variety of spatial scales – sub-local authority, local authority, catchment, regional or national. The scale will vary for different ecological features and nobody knows which approach Natural England will take. Some ecological features may not have EDPs so the traditional mitigation hierarchy approach will still apply. Producing EDPs will take several years. In the meantime, the mitigation hierarchy will apply in some spatial areas but not in others. And then of course we still have biodiversity net gain.
Confusing? How will our already badly over-stretched local planning authorities cope with a multi-system approach? How will that speed decision-making up?
How will our already badly over-stretched local planning authorities cope with a multi-system approach?
Furthermore, engagement with the NRF may be optional in some areas, but then again it may be mandatory, and developers will have to pay in, even if avoidance or mitigation would have been cheaper. The money paid in must cover the costs of delivering the conservation measures in the EDP plus Natural England’s costs plus the potential cost of remedial action if the conservation measures don’t work.
Then, of course, developers will still have to go down the mitigation hierarchy for any protected habitats and species not yet covered by an EDP.
So, not a cheap option then.
Reputational risk
The conservation measures contained within an EDP, which are designed to offset the adverse impacts of development locally, could also be delivered locally or could be delivered hundreds of miles away. Stakeholder opposition to development, even if blunted in legal terms by the Bill, will still be vocal and challenging to deal with, not least if the ‘nature’ on people’s doorsteps is being destroyed in favour of new habitats being created far away.
With no need to identify and then safeguard protected species on a development site first, the construction process could do immediate and catastrophic harm. In a worst-case scenario, we could have the spectre of the bloodied bodies of badgers, hares, nesting birds and a plethora of other wildlife being strewn over a development site as diggers go to work. No local community is going to stand by quietly while developers are visibly seen and held responsible for injuring and killing animals on site and we can expect animal welfare legislation to come into play here.
Developers’ reputations are clearly at risk if stakeholders see an approach that effectively allows developers to pay to damage the environment without effective conservation measures.
Many developers are rightly proud of the reputations they have earned through nature positive approaches to development. Those reputations are clearly at risk if stakeholders see an apparent shift to a business approach that effectively allows developers to pay to damage the environment with no guarantee that conservation measures delivered many miles away will be effective.
A sledgehammer to crack a nut
Managing the ecological impacts of development can, of course, be problematic. The frustration for me, as an ecologist, is that there are numerous process and resourcing solutions that would enable ecology to be considered much earlier in the planning process, reduce the pain for developers and genuinely deliver the ‘win-win’ scenario.
Part 3 could then be focused on the ecological features where we all agree the proposed approach could work – namely, diffuse impacts such as nutrient neutrality, recreational impacts and air quality.
But the Government doesn’t seem interested in solutions that will work. Instead, we have entrenched politicians, desperate not to lose more face, forcing through bad legislation that ultimately benefits no-one.
It’s not too late to stop this. But it does require the veil to fall from developers’ eyes to see the dangers that Part 3 could pose to their businesses.
It’s not too late to stop this. But it does require the veil to fall from developers’ eyes to see the dangers that Part 3 could pose to their businesses. And that needs to happen now.
You can find out more about why we think Part 3 if not such good news for developers in our Briefing for Developers and Constructors.
Meanwhile, let’s stop this phony war on nature and focus instead on delivering practical solutions that work for business, the economy and communities.
This guest blog was written by Sally Hayns CEcol FCIEEM (CEO, CIEEM)
